JJ Trial

[Sportin' Life]

Don't you and others get sick of being politically correct? This tramp has ruined JJ's life, his athletic career, and his parent's name. Why should she be allowed to hide? She deserves everything coming to her. I will cut her no slack. The precedent must be set by this trial, costing the state hundreds of thousands of dollars, and ruining a kid's life, so that no other hussy gets a similar idea about using the rape card when she drops her panties and the guy never calls back afterward.

The next thing will be coaches from opposing teams paying for some slut to cry rape, so as to bench the star player from the other team. Of course, nobody ever thought of those possibilities, huh? This is big business now in college sports. Everything has changed and is now fair game, it seems. Nothing would surprise me anymore.

There is one small point. The girl didn't call rape when JJ didn't call her back, since it has been shown that for whatever deluded reason, she thought she was raped right away.

You should be advised that 75's new talking points are that the girl was so upset that JJ didn't dance with her that she lured him to her place the following night all in a diabolical plan to get him to have sex with her and then she would yell rape. Poor guy fell for it completely. And she would have gotten away with it too, except for 75's exemplary analytical skills.

I can understand if you didn't read his latest tome on the subject. Few really can; most skim and put a cursory thumbs up to it. Maybe somebody will start putting abridged versions out there.

 

[griz4life]

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?

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.

It hasn't really been what's in Gewn's articles that sucks. It's what she leaves out. The Saturday article indicates that the phydical evidence was in line with what the examiner expects from a sexual assault. Gewn then balamces this out with the fact that the evidence could have come from consentual sex.
That's all well and fine, but what the Missoulian omits is what the physical evidence is. The evidence in question is a 1 millimeter vaginal scratch and a mark on Doe's chest that could be a red spot from someone pressing down on her, or it could be a pimple. That's the evidence disclosed, despite Doe telling the examiner that Johnson's hand was up her vagina.
I think the Missoulian story reads differently if the paper chooses to include one sentence stating that the evidence consists of a 1 millimeter vaginal scratch and a pimple sized chest mark.

 

[granitegriz]

I understand your great frustration Special K. I feel your pain. However, I agree with the poster who said that she should be pitied. She has major problems and needs help. The expert psychologist should have been in Missoula for some therapy instead of testifying. Putting her name out there only gives her what she is craving, attention. She needs a lot of help and hopefully she gets it. I have no ill will for her, but only hope that lives can be rebuilt.

 

[UMGriz75]

You should be advised that 75's new talking points are that the girl was so upset that JJ didn't dance with her that she lured him to her place the following night all in a diabolical plan to get him to have sex with her and then she would yell rape. Poor guy fell for it completely.

Actually, the "talking point" was offered here nearly a year ago. I guess your vaunted analytical skills are data deficient. I was particularly impressed by her testimony that she was angry that "he only said thanks."

 

[Sportin' Life]

You should be advised that 75's new talking points are that the girl was so upset that JJ didn't dance with her that she lured him to her place the following night all in a diabolical plan to get him to have sex with her and then she would yell rape. Poor guy fell for it completely.

Actually, the "talking point" was offered here nearly a year ago. I guess your vaunted analytical skills are data deficient. I was particularly impressed by her testimony that she was angry that "he only said thanks."

I am always willing to admit I am wrong about your talking points evolving if presented with the evidence. It would kind of beg the question as to why the bullet points couldn't be streamlined a little over the year, but wordiness notwithstanding, it will be interesting to see that almost year old post of yours.

 

[UMGriz75]

You should be advised that 75's new talking points are that the girl was so upset that JJ didn't dance with her that she lured him to her place the following night all in a diabolical plan to get him to have sex with her and then she would yell rape. Poor guy fell for it completely.

Actually, the "talking point" was offered here nearly a year ago. I guess your vaunted analytical skills are data deficient. I was particularly impressed by her testimony that she was angry that "he only said thanks."

I am always willing to admit I am wrong about your talking points evolving if presented with the evidence. It would kind of beg the question as to why the bullet points couldn't be streamlined a little over the year, but wordiness notwithstanding, it will be interesting to see that almost year old post of yours.

This wasn't the original post, but a follow-up:

Re: No Way JJ Can Be Convicted

Postby UMGriz75 » Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:37 am

PlayerRep wrote:
The only thing the accuser has going for her is the text to her roommate from the room. Why would have caused her to do that? Showing she was irked from being humiliated the previous night at the ball is doable, but a more complicated story. However, there are rumors that her roommate in the next room texted back that he didn't believe her.

And the other roommate didn't find out about any of this for week. What, he wasn't a necessary part of the plan? She didn't need him?

She was "raped," texted her roommate, he was sitting on the couch receiving the text, and ... she didn't come out? She didn't sit with him? She didn't ask for a ride to the rape center? She went and made a sandwich? She had just been violently raped, didn't say anything directly to her roommate who was sitting on the couch, and got in the car with someone who had just violently raped her and gave him a ride home?

When I first read the details on all of this, I no doubt reacted like a typical juror. That is, "wait a minute," this doesn't even make sense. Then, when I got to the email written three days later to the O'Day boy, it was clear, to me at least, "this was all a set-up," and now she's running around trying to get a reaction out of JJ by telling all of his friends about "the rape."

Let's see here, tnt lectured us on "rape trauma," embarrassment," and "humiliation," "anxiety" and "depression," but here's little Miss Forester's Ball "I'll do you any time," running around tellling JJ's friends he's going to be in for a big surprise. That, all by itself, is weird enough. If there was a genuine rape, don't you think JJ would have sort of suspected it. Why would she think the accusation was going to "hit him like a ton of bricks?" Well, duh, because it hadn't happened! And why is she telling his friends, and her friends? Because she's embarrassed? Humiliated? Sure doesn't sound like it; instead, she almost sounds giddy about it, she wants to tell people: "this is going to hit JJ like a ton of bricks!" She's excited about this. "Wanna have lunch??" That whole text message was celebratory; not something you expect three days after a violent rape.

Indeed, that text message sounds exactly like someone who got exactly what she wanted -- revenge for her "humiliation at the Forester's Ball" and now that she got it, she is "over" the embarrassment and with what is "about" to happen to JJ, she is positively happy about it:

"It's all good!"

Those three words are the end of the case.

Every single juror is going to pause at that phrase, and conclude, this is not the behavior of someone who was raped.

 

[grizatwork]

I don't know her, I don't know her name, I don't need to. I beg everyone to step back, take a deep breath and respect the process. Respect the justice system. Whatever happened, has obviously been traumatic for all involved. Please, please, please, do not reveal who she is. This does not make me politically correct. It just makes me a human being with compassion.

 

[tourist]

Seems to me that she has specifically call someone a rapist. Why do we protect her "integrity?"

 

[Sportin' Life]

Wow, you really have kept that line of thinking alive for a while. Not the promised year, but I am still impressed. I guess I have mostly heard on egriz that the girl was mad at JJ for not being her boyfriend which seems like obvious bullshit. So it is good that you have latched on to the girl was so mad a JJ for not dancing with her at the ball that she trapped him the following night, which I guess is not such obvious bullshit.

So, yes I was wrong.

 

[TxGriz]

Seems to me that she has specifically call someone a rapist. Why do we protect her "integrity?"

:agree: For the sake of legitimate rape victims I think the accuser should be required to stand behind their accusation, otherwise they dilute the process for victims who are truly assaulted against their will. It seems to me that the legal system would come down harshly on those who would exploit the protections of anonymity for nefarious purposes and hidden political agendas.

This whole affair is taking on the dimensions of a story that was propelled on emotion and sensational news coverage that once set in motion could not be stopped. From what I read on here about the last witness on Friday for the prosecution, the "victim's" former boy friend I can't see how any clear eyed juror wouldn't see the manipulative and deceitful intent on the part of the accuser.

After the William Kennedy Smith trial the accuser came forward and revealed her own identity on ABCs Prime Time program. The last witness to testify was Mr. Smith himself for the defense and the door slammed so loud on the prosecution's case with his testimony that you knew the jury's verdict at that point. Seems like this case has all the makings of the Kennedy Smith case, combined with elements of Kobe Bryant and the Duke LaCrosse players case.

 

[Copper Griz]

Fine - since everyone is to chicken to post her name I will do it.


Defendant - Jordan Johnson

Accuser - Jane Doe

 

[wbtfg]

Fine - since everyone is to chicken to post her name I will do it.


Defendant - Jordan Johnson

Accuser - Jane Doe

I dont think its a matter of being chicken, I think it's more a matter of having maturity and integrity.

 

[Copper Griz]

Fine - since everyone is to chicken to post her name I will do it.


Defendant - Jordan Johnson

Accuser - Jane Doe

I dont think its a matter of being chicken, I think it's more a matter of having maturity and integrity.

Yes and you would be an authority in both those areas with a monicker wbtfg. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[argh!]

Don't you and others get sick of being politically correct? This tramp has ruined JJ's life, his athletic career, and his parent's name. Why should she be allowed to hide? She deserves everything coming to her. I will cut her no slack. The precedent must be set by this trial, costing the state hundreds of thousands of dollars, and ruining a kid's life, so that no other hussy gets a similar idea about using the rape card when she drops her panties and the guy never calls back afterward.

The next thing will be coaches from opposing teams paying for some slut to cry rape, so as to bench the star player from the other team. Of course, nobody ever thought of those possibilities, huh? This is big business now in college sports. Everything has changed and is now fair game, it seems. Nothing would surprise me anymore.

There is one small point. The girl didn't call rape when JJ didn't call her back, since it has been shown that for whatever deluded reason, she thought she was raped right away.

You should be advised that 75's new talking points are that the girl was so upset that JJ didn't dance with her that she lured him to her place the following night all in a diabolical plan to get him to have sex with her and then she would yell rape. Poor guy fell for it completely. And she would have gotten away with it too, except for 75's exemplary analytical skills.

I can understand if you didn't read his latest tome on the subject. Few really can; most skim and put a cursory thumbs up to it. Maybe somebody will start putting abridged versions out there.

whoa, nellie! how dare you impugn the genius insight into human nature provided by that model of reasoned judgement, um75. you should read the book where he tells about the facts behind the breakup of the beatles! it is all the fault of ringo being in love with paul mccartney. the man is a luminary.

 

[UMGriz75]

whoa, nellie! how dare you impugn the genius insight into human nature provided by that model of reasoned judgement, um75. you should read the book where he tells about the facts behind the breakup of the beatles! it is all the fault of ringo being in love with paul mccartney. the man is a luminary.

Whoa Nellie yourself. You're becoming obsessed here. No, I won't come over to your house and watch your stupid movie.

 

[Griz2k]

Of the many reasons I'd like to see JJ acquitted, one of which is to seriously piss off GF. Her slanted views against all things Grizzly athletics is tiring.

 

[Grizzoola]

I don't know her, I don't know her name, I don't need to. I beg everyone to step back, take a deep breath and respect the process. Respect the justice system. Whatever happened, has obviously been traumatic for all involved. Please, please, please, do not reveal who she is. This does not make me politically correct. It just makes me a human being with compassion.

Ok, but why is it that in rape cases, the accused must be identified and the accuser not? Either identify both, or neither, is my opinion. "UM Student Accused of Rape by Another UM Student" would be a suitable headline instead of the sensationalist way the Missoulian has presented this case to the public.

Ok, I know: "But that wouldn't sell papers." That's not the point. The media has to seriously reconsider its position on identifying principals in rape cases. If JJ had been arrested for beating her up, her identity would have been of no question. I say in such cases, identify both, or neither.

 

[UMGriz75]

What's interesting so far is what the State has left out. Ordinarily, the Prosecution tries to get all of the weak points into its case, so it can control the disclosure of those weak points and, in particular, appear to be forthcoming and honest.

The failure to do so leaves that story to be told by the Defense, on direct examination when they re-call Jane Doe. And ordinarily, the State does not want the Defense to be telling that story on their terms.

So it is a little baffling that the State did not do so, and the only plausible reason why is that the State knew that the testimony would leave it, at the close of its evidence, with a thoroughly demolished case and there was no way they could present the material without exposing the fatal fractures of their case.

The strategy must be, then, to attempt to prevent the evidence and testimony from coming in by objection during the Defense presentation.

It's going to be a battle. And the State will be relying heavily on the fact that the Judge's entire career was in prosecution, and that offers to them the advantage of "having two Prosecutors" at the trial, and only one Defense.

The key points the Defense will bring up, or try to bring up, on direct of Jane Doe:

1) certain aspects of her medical history,

2) her obvious willingness to ruthlessly lie to one of her closest friends in order to spend the evening with JJ,

3) that she was particularly angry that all JJ said was "thanks" when she dropped him off, and then after hearing nothing further from him, the letter she wrote to JJ two weeks after the "date" and to which he did not reply,

4) her actions two weeks after that to get a TRO against JJ based on her "fear" when, in fact, he was REFUSING to have anything to do with her, which appeared to be the primary reason for the TRO -- to get his attention and make the first public "statement" as part of her ongoing "campaign" -- which is how it will be portrayed. She will be shown here to have been willing to lie under oath -- another ruthless lie -- in order to "get" JJ,

5) Her history with JJ and her efforts to make it appear publicly as though she was his girlfriend,

6) the Forester's Ball where, learning that he was there with a date, an enraged, intoxicated Doe -- "alcohol-fueled" -- confronted JJ, announced mainly to JJ's date that she "would do him any time," and attempted to create a scene which JJ admirably attempted to defuse by placating her, which was the rationale behind the follow-up date the next day,

7) Her calls to the "Law Firm" that sued for money, and her resulting extraordinary efforts to track down JJ's entire sexual history -- the necessary key finding of "serial" behaviors which was necessary to sue UM for negligence,

8) The Defense will emphasize that she is articulate, sharp, ambitious, and controlling, and that she will bully people to get her way -- that was the reason for the State's seemingly odd questions about that to her friends that testified, the State knows what's coming on that count -- they were trying to answer questions that hadn't been asked yet, which came across as weak testimony,

9) The Defense will review her earlier testimony in detail; getting her to repeat the devastating things she has already admitted to. It will be high drama, as the Defense emphasizes those key points, in particular the testimony that she said "no" very early in the "date," changed it to babytalk "no's," and then finally actively participated in the actual "act" itself. They will go over and over that. She will be confronted with the fact that she did not, in fact, say "no" to the act of sex, and she will be asked to confirm the fact that she has stated that she doubted JJ understood that she did not want to have sex "because of her mixed signals," which were, the Defense will show, were not very mixed at all because, as she has now said, she engaged in the actual act of her own volition. She said that. And the State left that without qualification on re-direct and that was a devastating failure.

I suspect the line up will be an expert or two, the character witnesses, Jane Doe, and then JJ as the last witness. The Jury's last views of this case will be Jane Doe in tense confrontations attempting to rationalize many conflicting, contradictory, and overtly calculating behaviors and statements, too many, and her own words under oath. There will be tears. She is being coached this very weekend on how to act "vulnerable" and "meek," to appear to be the "victim" of ruthless and overbearing Defense attorneys; that she is being made a victim twice in this case. It will be a performance. The State will be objecting strenuously which will leave the Jurors with the notion that the State does not want the Jury to hear the full case -- the danger of too many objections.

And then they will hear JJ, who, as the roommate testified already, comes across as quiet, polite and shy. He will explain that by the time of the Forester's Ball incident, he was feeling stalked, hunted by Jane Doe. Yet, he liked her. They had some fun casual dates. But, after "that night" at the Ball, he got the feeling that she had crossed over the line. But, he also felt badly for her self-inflicted public humiliation. Because he is a nice guy.

And he made a mistake.

 

[Grisly Fan]

And perhaps illustrate with examples of mistakes that just about everyone makes that are not crimes, i.e mistake does not equal rape. And do a little Johnny Cochrane chant "mistake does not equal rape, mistake does not equal rape". Ok, maybe not that last part.

 

[krammer]

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..

There is no legal reason why her name cannot be revealed. In the past, some states had laws prohibiting the media from revealing the names of alleged rape victims; however, when challenged in court, these laws were generally struck down as unconstitutional.

Despite the lack of legal protection, though, media outlets generally won't publicize the names of alleged rape victims, out of recognition of the difficulty they face in coming forward to complain against their alleged attackers. I recognize the dichotomy between their anonymity and the public shaming that the accused rapist receives; however, I still hope that no one on this board will identify the accuser in this case. I know that a lot of us think JJ is probably "innocent," and I understand the sentiment that it would somehow be "fair" to name her, but please understand that it would not help JJ. The best thing any of us can do at this point is to watch the justice system play out, and accept the result (whatever it may be).

first, griz law,,,i want to thank you for answering the question that i asked,,,it was not my intention for the tread to get into posting her name at all,,,i just wanted to know the facts as to why we do not,,again thanks for your help....