JJ Trial

[Jerry Punch]

Overheard at breakfast today, "JJ will end up railroaded for this to make a point to the NCAA, if found not guilty say hello to huge NCAA infractions". :roll:

However, I assume that the NCAA will do whatever the hell it wants. I absolutely hate this about the NCAA and thought they overstepped their bounds big time in the Penn State situation, but thus far no one has successfully held them accountable for jobbing a state college.

 

[Jerry Punch]

Wrong, UMGrizFan75. Wrong wrong wrong. You wrote that "little miss muffet" had made a clear and conscious decision to watch Easy A that night. You then went on to post a lengthy summary of the film. You then snarkily added "Sound familiar?"

Meanwhile, in the grownups' world, an expert testified regarding this case. He provided context for it that was unbiased and unwavering. You can use films to provide context or qualified experts. In the real world, I'll go with the only expert who testified yesterday. And it wasn't UMGriz75.

 

[BDizzle]

Overheard at breakfast today, "JJ will end up railroaded for this to make a point to the NCAA, if found not guilty say hello to huge NCAA infractions". :roll:

Were they wearing blue and gold? And drinking sour milk?

 

[RobGriz]

Overheard at breakfast today, "JJ will end up railroaded for this to make a point to the NCAA, if found not guilty say hello to huge NCAA infractions". :roll:

Yeah, I'm sure the jury is concerned about what the NCAA is doing. You should've got up and b1tch slapped the idiot that said it.

 

[tnt]

The roommate seems to be disinterested in the victim. Maybe he is just too into himself to care or maybe he has had similar texts from her before? I am still open minded about whether guilty of not but that open mindedness is shrinking a lot.

Or maybe as tried interjected in direct resetablished in cross and tries again in recross (and we'll see where it goes this morning that while that may be what he initially thought his impressions changed pretty quickly as things progressed.....

What we hear from twitter is not what the jury is hearing or seeing. I wouldn't make much from anything read on the feed good OR bad for whichever way you lean.

 

[Cats2506]

Paoli: "Didn't you tell your mother to get on your side or you wouldn't have anything to do with her?"...... W: "Yes"
--------------------------------------------
Wow. This is an attitude of somebody who gets what they want, one way or the other, and is willing to bully people to get it. It also gets into evidence issues of credibility and believability, at the most critical levels, that are otherwise difficult to get in. Without having to directly ask anyone, the jury now knows that even her own mother did not believe her. I have no doubt this comment stuck with the jurors.

It depends on what you want to believe, the woman's statement seemed to me to be completely out of context and inline with the victim and her family second guessing how and why this happened, there is nothing unusual in that.

Based on what I have heard up till now I have no doubt that this woman feels that she was raped, what is still at question to me is weather JJ knew that and continued, or if he was not aware of it and believed it was normal sex.

I agree that believability is key here and you cant get that from a twitter feed.

 

[UMGriz75]

Wrong, UMGrizFan75. Wrong wrong wrong. You wrote that "little miss muffet" had made a clear and conscious decision to watch Easy A that night. You then went on to post a lengthy summary of the film. You then snarkily added "Sound familiar?"

Meanwhile, in the grownups' world, an expert testified regarding this case. He provided context for it that was unbiased and unwavering. You can use films to provide context or qualified experts. In the real world, I'll go with the only expert who testified yesterday. And it wasn't UMGriz75.

What I said was, in the context of the Prosecutor's warning that much of this case and of Jane Doe's behavior will seem odd, was the following:

"Well, let's see. Co-ed with infatuation with star football players. Has nightmare she was raped by one of them. That's normal, isn't it?

"A month later, after said "nightmare," arrives at Forester's Ball alone, drunk, chases the star quarterback around the Forester's Ball. Asks him, in front of his date, to dance. Drags him over the Marriage Booth line. He leaves her standing there to go back with his date. She has him over the next evening to watch her "favorite" movie about a girl who tries to use "the school's gossip grapevine to advance her social standing" by engaging in "white lies" about their "relationship" involving ... sex, her public reputation, and her social standing in the school community."

Her roommate, since my initial observation, has admitted that she broke off a date she had planned with another, to be with JJ that evening. After her Forester's Ball "performance" -- which hasn't been discussed yet but will be -- and her admitted "nightmare," the jury can conclude that she has "something" going about football players and that her perception of her "social standing," by her perceived relationships with star players, may be important to her. May not be, but so far, a portrait is being painted and one of the odd colors is the fact that she particularly enjoys a movie about a co-ed that lies about sex to obtain social standing at her school.

The Prosecution may not have thought that the jury might consider that "odd," but perfectly normal in the context of this case. I think it fits the bill as "odd." It's either perfectly normal according to Jerry Punch, or odd, according to me. I guess that's a big debate for Jerry Punch to resolve all his little own.

I have no idea whether she wanted to model her life after Emma Stone, as you seem to be able to claim from that remark. Do you really think that she thought the college quarterback would want to watch a movie like that? Given her behaviors the previous evening, the choice of the movie is ... "odd" ... and is part of a larger pattern of behaviors that the State -- not me -- specifically characterized as "odd."

My initial comment was, regarding the testimony about the movie was that "this will come up again."

From that, you have tried to create a cottage industry about the believability of expert witnesses.

For the record, given your avowed "imagination," I think that's odd.

 

[UMGriz75]

Paoli: "Didn't you tell your mother to get on your side or you wouldn't have anything to do with her?"...... W: "Yes"
--------------------------------------------
Wow. This is an attitude of somebody who gets what they want, one way or the other, and is willing to bully people to get it. It also gets into evidence issues of credibility and believability, at the most critical levels, that are otherwise difficult to get in. Without having to directly ask anyone, the jury now knows that even her own mother did not believe her. I have no doubt this comment stuck with the jurors.

It depends on what you want to believe, the woman's statement seemed to me to be completely out of context and inline with the victim and her family second guessing how and why this happened, there is nothing unusual in that.

Based on what I have heard up till now I have no doubt that this woman feels that she was raped, what is still at question to me is weather JJ knew that and continued, or if he was not aware of it and believed it was normal sex.

I agree that believability is key here and you cant get that from a twitter feed.

I don't know how many people on the jury have threatened their own mother.

It may be on the twitter feed, I didn't see it there.

I heard it at the trial and confirmed it with others.

 

[Jerry Punch]

And that's just it, UMGriz75. This isn't a record. This is Egriz. There aren't qualified experts offering testimony into evidence, there aren't attorneys deciding what evidence to put on and how to defend it - this is a group of mostly middle-aged men who proclaim to understand the goings on of this trial based on a Twitter feed. I don't see the jury react to these statements. I don't read their minds as these statements are made. I view what a reporter or viewer sees at the trial, his or her perception of what happened, and a statement that best captures what happened.

You may think you have this trial all figured out, and you very well may, but I say to you that your "opinions" and summation of "Little Miss Muffet" as being "odd" has more to do with the context provided by the expert than a movie based on the Scarlett Letter. If you think jurors are considering the context of a film over the context of an expert, then that's all on you, bro. Your opinions are worth as much as mine or anyone elses' who isn't involved in this case via prosecution, defense, or jury.


And yes, Emma Stone is the hottest woman alive and it isn't even close.

 

[UMGriz75]

The roommate seems to be disinterested in the victim. Maybe he is just too into himself to care or maybe he has had similar texts from her before? I am still open minded about whether guilty of not but that open mindedness is shrinking a lot.

Or maybe as tried interjected in direct resetablished in cross and tries again in recross (and we'll see where it goes this morning that while that may be what he initially thought his impressions changed pretty quickly as things progressed.....

What we hear from twitter is not what the jury is hearing or seeing. I wouldn't make much from anything read on the feed good OR bad for whichever way you lean.

So far, they also HAVEN'T heard anything about an "alcohol fueled sexual predator," which is also "odd" given the amount of attention last year that you insisted was what this case was all about.

 

[granitegriz]

The alleged victim could have slapped her mother for not believing and cats and tnt and JP would say, still could go either way. How much more proof do you need that the alleged victim is Koo Koo? It is also interesting that the alleged victim is picking up people from all over them to bring to her house. If rape is about control, she seems to be the one wanting to control every issue. Her friends probably don't have cars, but still a little odd.

 

[UMGriz75]

And that's just it, UMGriz75. This isn't a record. This is Egriz. There aren't qualified experts offering testimony into evidence, there aren't attorneys deciding what evidence to put on and how to defend it - this is a group of mostly middle-aged men who proclaim to understand the goings on of this trial based on a Twitter feed. I don't see the jury react to these statements. I don't read their minds as these statements are made. I view what a reporter or viewer sees at the trial, his or her perception of what happened, and a statement that best captures what happened.

You may think you have this trial all figured out, and you very well may, but I say to you that your "opinions" and summation of "Little Miss Muffet" as being "odd" has more to do with the context provided by the expert than a movie based on the Scarlett Letter. If you think jurors are considering the context of a film over the context of an expert, then that's all on you, bro. Your opinions are worth as much as mine or anyone elses' who isn't involved in this case via prosecution, defense, or jury.

Since nobody compared a movie to an expert witness, it is clear you are hearing voices, imagining a furious debate over idiotic comparisons that don't exist. Grow up.

 

[UMGriz75]

I don't see the jury react to these statements. I don't read their minds as these statements are made. I view what a reporter or viewer sees at the trial, his or her perception of what happened, and a statement that best captures what happened.

And, I do see the jury react to these statements. So what?

 

[Jerry Punch]

I understand you cannot respond to the substance of my post because you know you have been housed, but I understand not wanting to concede a point due to your reputation as a "legal scholar" here on Egriz.

However, you have relied on the summary of a film more than you have on the context of a legal expert. You did not compare them because it never occured to you that one may be more reliable than the other. I am not surprised.

 

[Jerry Punch]

I don't see the jury react to these statements. I don't read their minds as these statements are made. I view what a reporter or viewer sees at the trial, his or her perception of what happened, and a statement that best captures what happened.

And, I do see the jury react to these statements. So what?

So, if you are a mind reader, I would imagine you have better and more lucrative things to do with your time than bloviate on Egriz.

 

[granitegriz]

You think the movie and its plot is not very important to the case Punch?

 

[granitegriz]

Prosecution getting nailed (no pun) right now by young Mr. O'Day.

 

[BDizzle]

Jim O'Days son now testifying. He said a text she sent him between the alleged assault and her picking him up contained a smiley face Also said she made him guess who did it. Never know how a victim is gonna act but that seems odd. Wonder what the jury is thinking.

 

[UMGriz75]

I understand you cannot respond to the substance of my post because you know you have been housed, but I understand not wanting to concede a point due to your reputation as a "legal scholar" here on Egriz.

However, you have relied on the summary of a film more than you have on the context of a legal expert. You did not compare them because it never occured to you that one may be more reliable than the other. I am not surprised.

"The Prosecution may not have thought that the jury might consider that "odd," but perfectly normal in the context of this case. I think it fits the bill as "odd." It's either perfectly normal according to Jerry Punch, or odd, according to me. I guess that's a big debate for Jerry Punch to resolve all his little own."

How that compares to an expert witness isn't something I offered, so Punch will have to Judy that one all by hisself. It is a nice self-fabricated debate by Jerry Punch that he will have to take full responsibility for his imaginary outcome, whatever it is.

The Prosecutor didn't discuss expert witnesses as being "odd," but they did offer that the Jury would be hearing things about the alleged victim that they might think "odd."

The Prosecutor was, fortunately, spared the impossible burden of trying to explain Jerry Punch's legal theories on egriz.

 

[Jerry Punch]

You think the movie and its plot is not very important to the case Punch?

No, I do not. I think it is a movie. For the record that UmGriz75 is keeping, I think that the pertinence of the movie is about as believable as the charges against JJ are generally.