JJ Trial

[UMGriz75]

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?

If you are trying to qualify yourself on egriz as an "expert witness" on the law, it's a miserable fail. How old are you, really?

Nowhere has anyone except you compared the movie to the expert witness.

OK, you have a nice little tussle of relevance going on, fabricated entirely by you, about the weight that a jury will give to an expert witness, compared to the weight they will give to the odd choice of movie selection.

Since I'm not the one who directed the attention of the Jury to the "odd" behaviors of the alleged victim, I can only note that the title of the movie was introduced at trial. I noted that it would come up again later.

Someone asked for a synopsis of the movie. I provided one from "Amazon" and another source.

It is in answering that question that I apparently stumbled on and pressed your highly sensitive button about expert witnesses and movie plots and how awful it really is to believe that they are comparable.

Well, good for you. It doesn't have anything to do with anything I said, but you seem to be fully engaged with yourself on the self-created issue. Perhaps it is just another case of self-gratification run amuck and your emerging obsession about considering yourself a "legal expert" compared to someone else because they didn't compare a movie plot to an expert witness, even though you did.

I am sure you make sense to yourself.

How many other voices are you hearing?

 

[Jerry Punch]

Oh no, Court is now closed to the public. The Trial by Twitter is on hold. Who is really upset about this?

 

[Cats2506]

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

oops, your bias is showing again.

That was actually intentionally put in there to off-set PR biased statement (refering to the incident as sex)

I read that the video evidence is closed, that must be sure sign that jj will get off (on the charges, no pun intended) :thumb:

 

[GrizMusician]

Oh no, Court is now closed to the public. The Trial by Twitter is on hold. Who is really upset about this?

They must have been reading eGriz. :lol::shock:

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[GrizMusician]

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[GrizPony]

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.

Then you can read and comprehend the legal standard to be applied and my statement doesn't apply to you. Easy enough wasn't it? :clap:

 

[GrizPony]

They are going to show the "abrasions" and such.....

 

[granitegriz]

I move the mods for a kangaroo court to be convened, much like UM's student court with all the same rules, to see if JP should be removed from e-griz. I will be in charge of twitting everything.

 

[GRZFTBL]

As far as the old boys at breakfast this morning, it was group of four 60+ "experts" drinking coffee. Ya know, like the "experts" we are but only we're typing.

I learned long ago that opinions are like assholes.....

 

[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.

Then you can read and comprehend the legal standard to be applied and my statement doesn't apply to you. Easy enough wasn't it? :clap:

Who is the "you" to whom you refer? I assumed it was the person you were quoting. Unless you can't write. :thumb:

 

[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.

Read this AWF and tell me if it appears that you think the decision will be difficult? Or was it that you couldn't write? haha

 

[Griz2k]

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

I believe it could potentially show the "mood" or thought process of the girl. Bringing a guy into her bedroom, closing the door, getting on the bed and watching a movie (that she picked out) centered around sex might make one believe she was anticipating or hoping for a sexual encounter and was trying to "set the mood" so to speak.

 

[Jerry Punch]

But what if he was watching Star Trek? Or Batman? Or Seven (Se7en)? What then? Was JJ acting like Captain Kirk? Or perhaps Bruce Wayne? Or maybe, at worst, like the criminal mastermind in Seven. Who knows? Or, as discussed earlier, maybe he was acting like Emilio Estevez from The Breakfast Club? The movie possibilities are endless.

 

[Jerry Punch]

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?

If you are trying to qualify yourself on egriz as an "expert witness" on the law, it's a miserable fail. How old are you, really?

Nowhere has anyone except you compared the movie to the expert witness.

OK, you have a nice little tussle of relevance going on, fabricated entirely by you, about the weight that a jury will give to an expert witness, compared to the weight they will give to the odd choice of movie selection.

Since I'm not the one who directed the attention of the Jury to the "odd" behaviors of the alleged victim, I can only note that the title of the movie was introduced at trial. I noted that it would come up again later.

Someone asked for a synopsis of the movie. I provided one from "Amazon" and another source.

It is in answering that question that I apparently stumbled on and pressed your highly sensitive button about expert witnesses and movie plots and how awful it really is to believe that they are comparable.

Well, good for you. It doesn't have anything to do with anything I said, but you seem to be fully engaged with yourself on the self-created issue. Perhaps it is just another case of self-gratification run amuck and your emerging obsession about considering yourself a "legal expert" compared to someone else because they didn't compare a movie plot to an expert witness, even though you did.

I am sure you make sense to yourself.

How many other voices are you hearing?

I see you are again unable to respond to the substance of my post. Rather than reiterate the obvious, I will let it rest. Your insults are thus predictable, however hilarious they may be to you.

I hope you are adding this summary to the Egriz "record." It may be important for the jury. :roll:

 

[Griz2k]

But what if he was watching Star Trek? Or Batman? Or Seven (Se7en)? What then? Was JJ acting like Captain Kirk? Or perhaps Bruce Wayne? Or maybe, at worst, like the criminal mastermind in Seven. Who knows? Or, as discussed earlier, maybe he was acting like Emilio Estevez from The Breakfast Club? The movie possibilities are endless.

Absolutely. I'm just guessing at what the defense is getting at and if they can make that correlation sound plausible to someone on the jury then they did their job.

 

[Special K]

Two things I know for certain:
1) no way JJ is convicted
2) Jerry Punch needs to get a life and forget the reality sh*t

One thing I suspect is true:

Any abrasions this chick may have probably came from her previous trysts with Trumaine and Dotson

 

[garizzalies]

sounds like Fatal Attraction might be the most relevant movie for this case

 

[tourist]

TV must be boring, nothing to do but hang on this site. Maybe you should get a job, JP. Radical idea.

 

[Cats2506]

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

I believe it could potentially show the "mood" or thought process of the girl. Bringing a guy into her bedroom, closing the door, getting on the bed and watching a movie (that she picked out) centered around sex might make one believe she was anticipating or hoping for a sexual encounter and was trying to "set the mood" so to speak.

except the movie is about a girl NOT having sex, I guess JJ didn't get that part of the mood setting agenda.





You people are unreal ...........

 

[Griz2k]

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

I believe it could potentially show the "mood" or thought process of the girl. Bringing a guy into her bedroom, closing the door, getting on the bed and watching a movie (that she picked out) centered around sex might make one believe she was anticipating or hoping for a sexual encounter and was trying to "set the mood" so to speak.

except the movie is about a girl NOT having sex, I guess JJ didn't get that part of the mood setting agenda.





You people are unreal ...........

Anyone ever told you you're a douche bag? Oh wait, dumb question. Why don't you just let the adults have a conversation. Run along now....