• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

JJ Trial

tnt said:
stubbins said:
tnt said:
Grisly Fan said:
Honest legal question: does being in a house "that you shouldn't be" and "taking advantage" of someone equal rape (or whatever it is referred to in Montana statue) if the accuser didn't make it clear that she didn't want to have sex? In other words, could you prove all of that and still lose the case?
Click to expand...

I don't know about the legality in terms of "rape", but it certainly would indicate to many that taking advantage of someone in a place you shouldn't have gone is not High moral character (and certainly cast doubts on the character and direction of leadership of anyone who thought otherwise.)
Click to expand...
You've had your mind made up on this case from day one, and your bias shows more and more with every post. Shall we talk about a loss of credibility?
Click to expand...

I'm not terribly worried about credibility with the six uber fans with their nose so far up the players asses they can't see the problems and attitudes that are bringing the whole program down and resulted in the firings.(can't imagine why Paoli is trying to lay that on the accuser and her family) Whether or not he is convicted of rape it is highly unlikely that he will be acquitted. Most people get it. Attitudes toward the accuser have changed dramatically on this board (who knows where they will be by the end of the trial) hes not a choir boy (or close) I'm sorry you don't. I haven't missed being at a NC game, I'd love to be at some more (and I will) but we don't need JJ to be there.

More fascinating to me and I realize it was far from scientific his how well Williams fared in the KECI Poll. I was sure he'd not have a majority of support.
Click to expand...


what poll?

and it's obvious you're also not terribly worried about the truth....

you bitch about the jock sniffers, yet you are exactly the same on the other side. You need to be slapped as punishment for your fucking stupidity and hypocrisy...
 
Great post UMGriz75. You pretty much nailed it. Sick of arrgh's cynical shots at UM athletes. The guy reeks of smugness and moral superiority.
 
I am just a regular guy and by no means a legal expert. Having said that, I am confused as to why the judge is not allowing evidence of the alleged "victims" sexual history five days previous to the rape allegation. Yet, she is allowing testimony from O'Day's kid, another female friend and her past boyfriend about the "victims" state of mind and behavior after the rape occurred. Her behavior before the alleged rape is irrelevant - yet her behavior after the rape is admitted as evidence? Just does not seem like this is fair. If the victim had sex with one or more males previous to the rape and evidence of sexual intercourse/penetration are being presented in court - something is wrong. Especially given the prosecutions witness who testified the marks and evidence on the victims body could be caused regular sexual intercourse.
 
UMGriz75 said:
argh! said:
the whole 'scorned girlfriend' b.s. goes out the window with her immediate response to the event - saying she was raped. i imagine things would be a lot different if the person she told this to at the scene hadn't grown up in a jock-worshiping environment.
Click to expand...
Well, being literally "left at the altar" and publicly humiliated the night before by the guy, bringing the guy home the next evening, having playful sex, then immediately claiming rape, a well-known campus drama queen with an infatuation for star athletes, pretending to be withdrawn and devastated, but texting everyone in sight with smiley faces "its all good!", and being so withdrawn and depressed that she's busy calling high priced law firms to see how she can set this up to get some money out of it, and launching her own independent investigation into JJ's sexual history, while sending out 27,000 text messages because "she didn't want anybody to know," certainly paints an interesting portrait, one that did not make it into the lexicon of the Expert Witness.

No, I doubt that "scorned girlfriend" is exactly the level of response that certainly describes one specific scenario of this case -- "scorned psychopath" is more accurate -- and one by the way that is far better supported so far by the evidence (and will be) than the "alcohol-fueled sexual predator" meme advocated without evidence by certain posters.

Yesterday's closing testimony was, once again, devastating for the Prosecution. I really don't know why they called Bink. If they were scrapping the bottom for character witnesses, that showed it.

Here's her high school sweethheart, nicest guy, obviously still pining for a relationship with her; but, she's gone off to college, and she's smitten with the athletes. He's been cast aside. But, she still uses him as her crutch. They're close and yet the jury, in their common experience, will see that its because he's still kind of hanging on. It was clear he's never gotten a new girlfriend. And it would have been sweet to hear how close they have remained, except for the part that, when she gets the chance to date the star quarterback, she drops him like a hot rock, at the last minute, lies about it to him ... and then carefully seeks him out afterward to make sure that he knows how she feels, to seek comfort, to seek refuge ... and to make sure he "see's how she is." He played his unknowing assigned role to the tee.

Here's what the jury didn't hear yesterday from this hapless young man: any expression from her, even an ounce of remorse, about lying to him, ditching him at the last minute, bouncing him out of her life at the slightest hint of a romantic encounter, in her bedroom, in her bed, with the star quarterback.

He "would trust her with his life." "She never lied to him." If I were him, I'd get a new ex-girlfriend. The sheer ruthless cynicism of how she treated, abused and manipulated that loyal relationship was on full display in the Courtroom.

No, instead of offering any remorse whatsoever, she sought him out afterward to perpetuate "the story" and to carry the burden of her life, apparently not caring she had just dumped him unceremoniously the night before.

With that particular person, there was not a single hint from the testimony that she offered a single hint that she felt badly about the way she treated him; that her behavior had been in any way, abusive and manipulative.

You could see it. He's still in love. He's literally the abused boyfriend, always willing to come back.

But he also distanced himself, in the words the Jury will now consider for four long days: "it's her show."
Click to expand...

:clap:

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
 
GrizMusician said:
UMGriz75 said:
argh! said:
the whole 'scorned girlfriend' b.s. goes out the window with her immediate response to the event - saying she was raped. i imagine things would be a lot different if the person she told this to at the scene hadn't grown up in a jock-worshiping environment.
Click to expand...
Well, being literally "left at the altar" and publicly humiliated the night before by the guy, bringing the guy home the next evening, having playful sex, then immediately claiming rape, a well-known campus drama queen with an infatuation for star athletes, pretending to be withdrawn and devastated, but texting everyone in sight with smiley faces "its all good!", and being so withdrawn and depressed that she's busy calling high priced law firms to see how she can set this up to get some money out of it, and launching her own independent investigation into JJ's sexual history, while sending out 27,000 text messages because "she didn't want anybody to know," certainly paints an interesting portrait, one that did not make it into the lexicon of the Expert Witness.

No, I doubt that "scorned girlfriend" is exactly the level of response that certainly describes one specific scenario of this case -- "scorned psychopath" is more accurate -- and one by the way that is far better supported so far by the evidence (and will be) than the "alcohol-fueled sexual predator" meme advocated without evidence by certain posters.

Yesterday's closing testimony was, once again, devastating for the Prosecution. I really don't know why they called Bink. If they were scrapping the bottom for character witnesses, that showed it.

Here's her high school sweethheart, nicest guy, obviously still pining for a relationship with her; but, she's gone off to college, and she's smitten with the athletes. He's been cast aside. But, she still uses him as her crutch. They're close and yet the jury, in their common experience, will see that its because he's still kind of hanging on. It was clear he's never gotten a new girlfriend. And it would have been sweet to hear how close they have remained, except for the part that, when she gets the chance to date the star quarterback, she drops him like a hot rock, at the last minute, lies about it to him ... and then carefully seeks him out afterward to make sure that he knows how she feels, to seek comfort, to seek refuge ... and to make sure he "see's how she is." He played his unknowing assigned role to the tee.

Here's what the jury didn't hear yesterday from this hapless young man: any expression from her, even an ounce of remorse, about lying to him, ditching him at the last minute, bouncing him out of her life at the slightest hint of a romantic encounter, in her bedroom, in her bed, with the star quarterback.

He "would trust her with his life." "She never lied to him." If I were him, I'd get a new ex-girlfriend. The sheer ruthless cynicism of how she treated, abused and manipulated that loyal relationship was on full display in the Courtroom.

No, instead of offering any remorse whatsoever, she sought him out afterward to perpetuate "the story" and to carry the burden of her life, apparently not caring she had just dumped him unceremoniously the night before.

With that particular person, there was not a single hint from the testimony that she offered a single hint that she felt badly about the way she treated him; that her behavior had been in any way, abusive and manipulative.

You could see it. He's still in love. He's literally the abused boyfriend, always willing to come back.

But he also distanced himself, in the words the Jury will now consider for four long days: "it's her show."
Click to expand...

:clap:

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Very insightful and good observations of human behavior. I just wonder how many jurors are as perceptive as you. Hopefully they have a heightened sense of observation and awareness since they are sitting there listening to testimony. My fear is some may check out mentally -
 
+1for UMGriz75.

So far, there is an abundance of "reasonable doubt" from each of the prosecution's witnesses. I don't think JJ will need to take the stand. Never should have gone to trial.
 
After reading the GF article in the Missoulian today, I gather that the prosecution is scoring knockout points left and right. Then I come to egriz and it seems that the defense is demolishing the prosecution. Which is more biased?
 
yeah, um75 is very insightful, in that he has a view from inside johnson's butt. if you can't see the bias, well...
 
montanaguy said:
After reading the GF article in the Missoulian today, I gather that the prosecution is scoring knockout points left and right. Then I come to egriz and it seems that the defense is demolishing the prosecution. Which is more biased?
Click to expand...

It appears the most biased is your reading of the Gwen Florio article in the Missoulian. To me today's Florio article reads fair, accurate and objective. I don't see how you could possibly "gather that the prosecution is scoring knockout points left and right" based on that article.
 
GrizBear said:
montanaguy said:
After reading the GF article in the Missoulian today, I gather that the prosecution is scoring knockout points left and right. Then I come to egriz and it seems that the defense is demolishing the prosecution. Which is more biased?
Click to expand...
It appears the most biased is your reading of the Gwen Florio article in the Missoulian. To me today's Florio article reads fair, accurate and objective. I don't see how you could possibly "gather that the prosecution is scoring knockout points left and right" based on that article.
Click to expand...
I didn't really see the Missoulian article as biased in particular. It wasn't particularly great journalism either, as it consists mainly of snippets of testimony, without much context. I think you'd have to read it with a bias, to see any particular bias. I just don't think it was particularly informative, and maybe that perhaps is something of a bias in the way it was written, but that's not overt.

I would summarize it as this:

1) The medical testimony said that the examination showed evidence consistent with rape and consistent with consensual sex. That's not a win for the State. I don't think the defense did a good job on this. There are, in fact, injuries consistent with rape and inconsistent with consensual sex, and those were, in fact, missing. That didn't get into the record that way. But, it's the State's burden, and there was nothing there for the State. The Missoulian didn't mention the fact that Doe didn't want to surrender any of the physical evidence, a towel and a blanket, to the examiner, and in fact did not. She wanted to keep them. The Defense will have more on that unusual behavior later. And it is unusual.

The Missoulian did note that the examiner was proposing the name of a civil law firm to sue for money. “It’s part of my job to refer them (patients) to whatever resources they need, including attorneys,” Francoeur said Friday. The implication is that Jane Doe asked. That's odd.

2) O'Day's testimony about her demeanor shows her demeanor as seen by O'Day.

"She was pale with kind of a blank stare," sums up her demeanor. But then she tells O'Day, "no, I don't want to do this," even as she seems positively excited about the fact that this will "hit JJ like a ton of bricks. :) Wanna grab lunch?" Yes, that's where the "smiley" was placed.

Again, there are two portraits being painted of Jane Doe by the State's own witnesses, and to Jurors they are inconsistent portraits. Here is Jane Doe, "pale," withdrawn, until she gets worked up about what she's going to do to JJ when her whole demeanor changes and she becomes somewhat euphoric, while insisting she doesn't want to do it. To some, they can see in this remarkable change that "the mask comes off."

The Jury is looking at the text messages, including the one that says "It's all good," and with the "smiley" face. She explains that "she doesn't think that JJ did anything wrong" which she then changes to she "doesn't think JJ thinks he did anything wrong." She also says, "Brian, if I didn't tell him to stop, it wouldn't be rape, would it?"

That's an oddly clinical definition of "rape" by a rape victim after a rape.

The Jurors, in the meantime, are thinking back to her testimony and the fact that she had testified that, very early in their encounter on her bed, she had said, "no, not tonight," but then thereafter she had engaged in not just horseplay, but fairly rough horseplay on her part, and when they got to the part where he attempted to take off her shirt, her earilier "no, not tonight" had morphed into a completely different kind of a "no," one she admitted was in "baby talk," and then she proceeded after saying "no" in baby talk, assisted in taking off her own shirt, and there is no record of a "no" after that, but rather, as she testified, "volitional actions," "assisting," that specifically resulted in sex.

The Jurors, of course, are not reading the Missoulian summary, they are hearing her say this to O'Day in the context of her interactions with O'Day which offered a remarkable range of social reactions ranging from apparent depression to being positively perky. And they are thinking back, after hearing her oddly clinical definition of "rape," being reminded in fact, she had offered a fairly perfunctory "no" when their clothes were still on, but that "no" came at the wrong place and that she admits proceeding with babytalk "no's" and then finally "volitional acts."

If the Jury begins to formulate the idea that this was a preplanned vengeance for being stood up at the Forester's Ball, this doesn't do the State any good at all.

3) Ali Bierer was a friend. She describes Jane Doe as "worried, tense, shaking, scared." “I don’t think she’s enjoying this at all,” Bierer testified Friday. “In fact, I don’t think she’s liking any aspect of this.” That was pretty much Bierer's testimony. It contrasts with the glee she expressed to O'Day about this "hitting JJ like a ton of bricks," and "It's all good!" I am sure the Jury noticed.

4) The former boyfriend's testimony. "What if you heard her described as attention-seeking in connection with the accusation, Assistant Attorney General Joel Thompson asked Bink. “I’d say that was absurd,” Bink replied."

But, as I noted in an earlier post, that does not adequately sum up what the jury saw and heard from the witness, who was the last witness of the day. If there was a bias in the news article, I would say that the reporter missed 95% of the interesting stuff in that testimony, as well as poignant human drama set out before the Jury of a manipulative, lying former girlfriend who ditched her loyal, and somewhat hopeful former boyfriend at the last minute, using a lie to do so, to go on a date in her bedroom in her bed, with the star quarterback and then, after ruthlessly using the former boyfriend to make sure that her dating card was filled one way or the other, comes back and unloads her plight on him -- a certain final indignity to him, having been the one jilted, by her, on that date, that night.

It was touching that he would still, in tears, testify that "she would never lie to him," even though he was in court that day because she specifically had.

And that is what the Jury saw as the State's last witness that day.

I don't think the Missoulian article covered anything particularly well. It looked like a student reporter wrote it, just kind of grabbing here and there to fill space for the most part, although I see that Florio actually wrote it. She pretty much ignored the last witness entirely, although he was perhaps the most compelling in many ways.
 
montanaguy said:
After reading the GF article in the Missoulian today, I gather that the prosecution is scoring knockout points left and right. Then I come to egriz and it seems that the defense is demolishing the prosecution. Which is more biased?
Click to expand...

+1

I think you're right on here Monatana Guy. Both sources seem to have an agenda. As a die hard Giz fan I would love to jump on the 75 bandwagon. That's emotionally appealing but agenda driven and black and white thinking at its best-or worst (Again-75 not meaning to pick on you you, we have others spreading the same failed analytical reasoning on both sides of the issue. Didn't anyone in this crowd ever take a college level science class? Good old scientific methodology? Anyone?

Seems to be the same folks that make negative comments about female emotionality are the same ones displaying it in their responses. Give me some facts and lets try and interpret them as objectively as we can. That goes to both egriz and the Missoulian.
 
UMGriz75 said:
1) The medical testimony said that the examination showed evidence consistent with rape and consistent with consensual sex. That's not a win for the State. I don't think the defense did a good job on this. There are, in fact, injuries consistent with rape and inconsistent with consensual sex, and those were, in fact, missing. That didn't get into the record that way. But, it's the State's burden, and there was nothing there for the State. The Missoulian didn't mention the fact that Doe didn't want to surrender any of the physical evidence, a towel and a blanket, to the examiner, and in fact did not. She wanted to keep them. The Defense will have more on that unusual behavior later. And it is unusual.
Click to expand...
One thing I'll point out is that none of us heard or read an account of the testimony when the nurse was presenting the physical evidence of the examination - but the jury did. Because of that, we can't know if the defense did a good job on this.
 
first i have not read this whole thread, 2nd, i'm sure this is course 101 in law school,,,my question is simple....why is it ok to keep the accuser name and face from the media and not the accused....he is not guilty of anything yet, so what is the difference???? please explain the law here...thanks..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top