JJ Trial

[granitegriz]

Shows your obvious bias then if it has no import. Go somewhere else. Absolutely no one on here cares what you think.

 

[Ursa Major]

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.

Yeah, and I have the feeling that a Griz football player could rape a woman on the 50 yard line of WGS during half-time of the cat-Griz game and some of the people on this board would defend them until their dying breath. That's a bitter but true pill. Does everything have to be black and white to some of you? Do you lack the ability to see that some evidence is in favor of one person's side of the story and another piece of evidence might be in favor of the others?

 

[kemajic]

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.

This squabble is really fun to follow, but could you help me understand what being "housed" means so I can keep up? Is that good or bad?

 

[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.

"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.

Wrong again. Let me break it down for you:

The jury has the context of two different "items" in which to view the alleged victim's actions
1) A movie
2) an expert witness' tesimony

The content of a movie choice of the alleged victim, which may or may not be familiar to the jury, was discussed by the alleged victim. The summary of that film was discussed by our resident legal expert, UmGriz75.

The content of the expert testimony based on victims in all scenarios, including false accusations, was presented to the jury.

So, again, UmGriz75, why are we talking about the context of a film compared to the context provided by an expert if only one of those two "items" were fully explored by the attorneys?

I'll be waiting for this one. It should be a doosy. By the way, if you're watching the trial and positing on Egriz, how are you watching the reactions of the jury?

 

[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.

This squabble is really fun to follow, but could you help me understand what being "housed" means so I can keep up? Is that good or bad?

Good if you are housed during a snow storm, bad if you are housed trying to compare real life to contemporary American cinema.

 

[zeezrom]

First of all, I do not live in missoula and consider myself a big time bias griz fan. In the last few months I have had a couple new faces at work, both are woman and both could not care less about football lat alone griz football.
I thought it would be interesting to get some opinions from woman who know nothing about the case.
So I asked both of them to read all of the updates on twitter and give me a few thoughts from their point of view. I gotta tell you the one is 62 years old and the other is mid 30s, neither could tell you that the griz are from missoula. That tells you how unbiassed they are.
Both woman are saying the EXACT same thing! HOW IN THE WORLD DID THIS CASE EVER MAKE IT INTO COURT?
That made me feel alot better about Jordans chances of not just playing football again, but not having his whole life ruined because of some he said she said. As a totally biassed griz fan I dont like how this has played out, but what doesnt kill you, will make you stronger.
So, I just hope that my co-workers, who are not biassed are feeling that same thing as the jurrors.
Jordan did not Rape this woman, and that is my personal opinion.

 

[blackfoot griz]

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.

Just trying to understand your post. She sent O'Day's son a text with a smiley face when she was going to pick up JJ.

Then you state, "so said she made him guess who did it". <--was this a second text?

Or did the text happen when she was taking JJ home? (you stated picking him up)

Thanks

 

[kemajic]

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.

This squabble is really fun to follow, but could you help me understand what being "housed" means so I can keep up? Is that good or bad?

Good if you are housed during a snow storm, bad if you are housed trying to compare real life to contemporary American cinema.

In the latter case, possibly you mean "hosed", but it's hard to tell.

 

[Jerry Punch]

Shows your obvious bias then if it has no import. Go somewhere else. Absolutely no one on here cares what you think.

If you don't care, the ignore button is helpful.

 

[Jerry Punch]

Shows your obvious bias then if it has no import. Go somewhere else. Absolutely no one on here cares what you think.

And did you just not read what I posted? When I wrote "about as believable as the charges against JJ are generally" did you get my obvious bias?

 

[granitegriz]

Ursa--not all cases are black and white, but this one is. I agree with a lot of your posts but you are way off here. Some weight of evidence in this case goes toward the prosecution and a lot goes to defense. Even taking all she said as truth there is still reasonable doubt in her own mind and a vast majority of onlookers. This wait and see deal is bogus. The jury must wait to decide, but there is no such requirement on me or anyone else. Have whatever opinion you want to have.

 

[BWahlberg]

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.

Just trying to understand your post. She sent O'Day's son a text with a smiley face when she was going to pick up JJ.

Then you state, "so said she made him guess who did it". <--was this a second text?

Or did the text happen when she was taking JJ home? (you stated picking him up)

Thanks

If you read the posts on twitter it sounds like she made him guess who did it once they were together, can't recall if it was at his place or her place. Almost like a guessing game? That's what the defense was pointing out at least

 

[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.

Just trying to understand your post. She sent O'Day's son a text with a smiley face when she was going to pick up JJ.

Then you state, "so said she made him guess who did it". <--was this a second text?

Or did the text happen when she was taking JJ home? (you stated picking him up)

Thanks

Sorry. May have been confusing.

Between the alleged assault and her picking up O'Day she sent O'Day a text with a smiley face.

And once she picked up O'Day they went back to O'Days place to talk about the assault. She made O'Day guess who did it instead of just telling O'Day.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

Just trying to understand your post. She sent O'Day's son a text with a smiley face when she was going to pick up JJ.

Then you state, "so said she made him guess who did it". <--was this a second text?

Or did the text happen when she was taking JJ home? (you stated picking him up)

Thanks

Sorry. May have been confusing.

Between the alleged assault and her picking up O'Day she sent O'Day a text with a smiley face.

And once she picked up O'Day they went back to O'Days place to talk about the assault. She made O'Day guess who did it instead of just telling O'Day.

The smiley face text was sent from her bedroom shortly after the sex, responding to O'Day's text and saying she would pick him up at the Mo Club.

 

[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.

This squabble is really fun to follow, but could you help me understand what being "housed" means so I can keep up? Is that good or bad?

By the way, there is a decent thread on Big 10 teams not playing FCS games anymore. Your predictable opinion is needed.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

I think the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof often involves many shades of gray, and this case is no exception. For example, the alleged victim may think she made it clear that she didn't want to have sex, and the alleged perpetrator may think she communicated just the opposite. And it's even possible that they could both be telling the truth.

So the jury will have a decision to make, and it won't be easy. And it should never be easy to deprive somebody of life, liberty or property.

 

[GrizPony]

I think the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof often involves many shades of gray, and this case is no exception. For example, the alleged victim may think she made it clear that she didn't want to have sex, and the alleged perpetrator may think she communicated just the opposite. And it's even possible that they could both be telling the truth.

So the jury will have a decision to make, and it won't be easy. And it should never be easy to deprive somebody of life, liberty or property.

At this point, I think the decision will be easier than you want it to be, unless you can't read or comprehend the legal standard to be applied. :thumb:

 

[Cats2506]

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.

Just trying to understand your post. She sent O'Day's son a text with a smiley face when she was going to pick up JJ.

Then you state, "so said she made him guess who did it". <--was this a second text?

Or did the text happen when she was taking JJ home? (you stated picking him up)

Thanks

Sorry. May have been confusing.

Between the alleged assault and her picking up O'Day she sent O'Day a text with a smiley face.

And once she picked up O'Day they went back to O'Days place to talk about the assault. She made O'Day guess who did it instead of just telling O'Day.

The smiley face text was sent from her bedroom shortly after the sex, responding to O'Day's text and saying she would pick him up at the Mo Club.

I thought it was sent after she gave the rapist a ride home

 

[AllWeatherFan]

At this point, I think the decision will be easier than you want it to be, unless you can't read or comprehend the legal standard to be applied. :thumb:

And maybe it's you who either can't, or chooses not to comprehend.

I was completely objective going into this trial because I didn't know the facts. But at this point, the only question in my mind is whether there will be a mistrial or an acquittal.

 

[garizzalies]

I thought it was sent after she gave the rapist a ride home

oops, your bias is showing again.