• 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

The State has not rested yet, they may still have an expert or other character witnesses.

Paoli and Pabst have to be discussing this weekend whether or not to rest as soon as the State rests.

The State's case so far is poor. Poor enough to suggest leaving it on its own merits and resting the Defense. It is the exquisitely excruciating decision that Defense counsel must make in a situation like this. Paoli has everything he needs for a terrific closing argument; but the Forester's Ball and some other stuff aren't "in" yet. Play it safe? Paint the whole picture?

It still comes down to a twenty minute period of time: in her bedroom, with the door shut, in her bed, she originally said "no, not tonight," she just "wanted to watch the movie."

She then obviously changed her mind.

She then straddled JJ. This was at her initiative. Notwithstanding that this was one of the best movies ever made, and her personal favorite, she wasn't interested in the movie anymore. She began playfully punching him, rubbing him, kissing him and nibbling his ear. He responded and attempted to remove her shirt. The "no's" became "babytalk" no's. She then removed JJ's shirt and assisted with removing her own. She fondled his crotch. They discussed whether or not he had a condom. She admits she "assisted" with the act of sex, of her own "volitional acts."

That's all in her testimony.

And JJ is going to say the same thing.

It's not just that there was no rape beyond a "reasonable doubt," "there was no rape."

The rest of the story is a compelling story; a human train wreck. But, is it necessary or useful to tell it?
 
granitegriz wrote:You are right GrizSpartan. But no was also said using a baby voice per Doe. Also, please don't forget the burden of proof. He-said, she-said is far from proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to go to credibility then and look at all the consistencies and inconsistencies in statements. Does your wife think Doe is consistent?
Click to expand...

Well, it isn't even "she said, he said," yet -- he hasn't said anything. And, it already looks tough for a conviction. Caveat: Juries sometimes do weird things.

The State is rolling the dice that after Defense testimony regarding the Forester's Ball incident, they will be entitled to rebuttal on that and any new stuff that the Defense brings up; that the last voice the Jury hears will likely be hers, and that they can turn around 1) a poor case in chief, and 2) a devastating defense.

There will be lots of tears.
 
UMGriz75 said:
granitegriz wrote:You are right GrizSpartan. But no was also said using a baby voice per Doe. Also, please don't forget the burden of proof. He-said, she-said is far from proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to go to credibility then and look at all the consistencies and inconsistencies in statements. Does your wife think Doe is consistent?
Click to expand...

Well, it isn't even "she said, he said," yet -- he hasn't said anything. And, it already looks tough for a conviction. Caveat: Juries sometimes do weird things.

The State is rolling the dice that after Defense testimony regarding the Forester's Ball incident, they will be entitled to rebuttal on that and any new stuff that the Defense brings up; that the last voice the Jury hears will likely be hers, and that they can turn around 1) a poor case in chief, and 2) a devastating defense.

There will be lots of tears.
Click to expand...
We know how eGriz has viewed her testimony, but what about JJ if he testifies. How will his story differ? How will he come across to the jury? How consistent will he be under questioning by the prosecution? These are all unknowns that could affect the outcome.
 
I was always taught actions speak louder than words...

From Griz75 post

"It still comes down to a twenty minute period of time: in her bedroom, with the door shut, in her bed, she originally said "no, not tonight," she just "wanted to watch the movie."

She then obviously changed her mind.

She then straddled JJ. This was at her initiative. Notwithstanding that this was one of the best movies ever made, and her personal favorite, she wasn't interested in the movie anymore. She began playfully punching him, rubbing him, kissing him and nibbling his ear. He responded and attempted to remove her shirt. The "no's" became "babytalk" no's. She then removed JJ's shirt and assisted with removing her own. She fondled his crotch. They discussed whether or not he had a condom. She admits she "assisted" with the act of sex, of her own "volitional acts."
 
What this site says and the few twitters I have read if JJ is found guilty it will show how emotion(people not actually in the courtroom to see and hear for themselves) and bias affects outcome. I cannot for the life of me see how ALL 12 will vote for a conviction from the limited info I have. We'll see in about 2 weeks I guess. My question right now is what is left for the prosecution to present?
 
Blgs Griz Fan said:
I was always taught actions speak louder than words...

From Griz75 post

"It still comes down to a twenty minute period of time: in her bedroom, with the door shut, in her bed, she originally said "no, not tonight," she just "wanted to watch the movie."

She then obviously changed her mind.

She then straddled JJ. This was at her initiative. Notwithstanding that this was one of the best movies ever made, and her personal favorite, she wasn't interested in the movie anymore. She began playfully punching him, rubbing him, kissing him and nibbling his ear. He responded and attempted to remove her shirt. The "no's" became "babytalk" no's. She then removed JJ's shirt and assisted with removing her own. She fondled his crotch. They discussed whether or not he had a condom. She admits she "assisted" with the act of sex, of her own "volitional acts."
Click to expand...

i always thought that people should think for themselves, rather than let um75 "think" for them (which is exactly what he wants to do).

but go on. this is quite entertaining (the whole egriz drama, that is, which has little to do with what is going on with the sad events happening in the real world)
 
argh! said:
i always thought that people should think for themselves, rather than let um75 "think" for them (which is exactly what he wants to do).
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly!

I can put that on my resume. I "thought" for several hundred people, forcing them to take a witnesses' own words at face value. Taking the words right out of her mouth, and putting them right back in again. How diabolical.

I then I traded it all for S&H Green Stamps. At face value.
 
Geeez argh, paste and click was a lot easier than typing especially considering my poor ytping skills. The opening sentence of my post is the key and the quote is just to show how my point could have substance.
The point is actions do speak louder than words and the victims actions seem to not support what she says she said.
 
UMGriz75 said:
The State has not rested yet, they may still have an expert or other character witnesses.

Paoli and Pabst have to be discussing this weekend whether or not to rest as soon as the State rests.

The State's case so far is poor. Poor enough to suggest leaving it on its own merits and resting the Defense. It is the exquisitely excruciating decision that Defense counsel must make in a situation like this. Paoli has everything he needs for a terrific closing argument; but the Forester's Ball and some other stuff aren't "in" yet. Play it safe? Paint the whole picture?

It still comes down to a twenty minute period of time: in her bedroom, with the door shut, in her bed, she originally said "no, not tonight," she just "wanted to watch the movie."

She then obviously changed her mind.

She then straddled JJ. This was at her initiative. Notwithstanding that this was one of the best movies ever made, and her personal favorite, she wasn't interested in the movie anymore. She began playfully punching him, rubbing him, kissing him and nibbling his ear. He responded and attempted to remove her shirt. The "no's" became "babytalk" no's. She then removed JJ's shirt and assisted with removing her own. She fondled his crotch. They discussed whether or not he had a condom. She admits she "assisted" with the act of sex, of her own "volitional acts."

That's all in her testimony.

And JJ is going to say the same thing.

It's not just that there was no rape beyond a "reasonable doubt," "there was no rape."

The rest of the story is a compelling story; a human train wreck. But, is it necessary or useful to tell it?
Click to expand...

Interesting take Griz75. I think that would be risky to rest after the Prosecution rests without bringing in a few character witnesses, and especially Alex Bienemann, who heard Jane Doe tell JJ she'd do him anytime. At this point, JJ does not need to take the stand, but the jurors probably want him to to hear his side. Could be a negative for him not to?

Also, what do you think about calling Jane Doe's Mother to the stand to dig into the dynamics there? Something is hidden here that the jurors need to hear in my opinion. Would it be to much of a risk?
 
Jane Doe's mother is a lose cannon and I do not think calling her would be a good idea. It could be hard separating the mothering, nuturing instinct from the need for factual information.
 
go4two said:
Interesting take Griz75. I think that would be risky to rest after the Prosecution rests without bringing in a few character witnesses, and especially Alex Bienemann, who heard Jane Doe tell JJ she'd do him anytime. At this point, JJ does not need to take the stand, but the jurors probably want him to to hear his side. Could be a negative for him not to?

Also, what do you think about calling Jane Doe's Mother to the stand to dig into the dynamics there? Something is hidden here that the jurors need to hear in my opinion. Would it be to much of a risk?
Click to expand...
The family dynamics there are bizarre. Apparently nobody believed her. What makes that particularly bizarre is that the family would have only had her side of the story. They certainly didn't call JJ up to get his. There's something more than odd there; and it almost has to have something to do with something she specifically said to them.

Even if she had a notoriously bad girl reputation even within the family, their reaction is just ... bizarre.

But, it still comes down to 20 minutes in that bedroom, in that bed. The Jury has her testimony which presents a timeline that every normal Juror will understand. She wanted to watch her movie. Then she didn't.

And that's in her own words.

Jurors would want to hear JJ, no doubt. But it also sends a powerful message when the Defense rests without any witnesses. This jury had "beyond a reasonable doubt" explained to them in myriad ways; in particular, that "it would mean you would make your most important life decisions based on the evidence."

The "evidence" so far, taking the alleged victim's direct testimony literally, is that no rape occurred. No rational person would make an important life decision by assuming that one did.

There's a lot of interesting stuff for the Defense to present, but none of it offers anything remarkably different than what the alleged victim herself presented in her testimony with the exception of the Forester's Ball testimony.

These are experienced counsel who know the old rule: when you've got it, stop talking. It is also likely that the Defense will conclude that that Forester's Ball testimony will nail it shut. At this point, I think they would put on JJ, but just as an alternative insurance policy. He will present well.
 
To me the prosecution made a big mistake by putting the nurse that examined Jane Doe on the stand. They had to know she was going to say the girl told her JJ "used his fist" when in fact the girl now says it didn't happen. Another strike against Jane Doe's credibility......if she had any to begin with.
 
After the prosecution rests it could come down to the defense thinking the next one that speaks loses. I sat on a personal injury case involving BN railroad. We spent 4 and 1/2 days on witness after witness for the plaintiff. The plaintiff rested their case at 11:00 am Friday and the defense began. The defense opened their case by admiting one exhibit, the entire medical records of the plaintiff and rested.We were in the deliberation room by 11.15 and by 11:45 we had a verdict but held out for lunch on the county. We return the verdict minutes after getting back from lunch. They asked for 1.2 million and he was awarded 60,000.
 
UMGriz75 said:
argh! said:
i always thought that people should think for themselves, rather than let um75 "think" for them (which is exactly what he wants to do).
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly!

I can put that on my resume. I "thought" for several hundred people, forcing them to take a witnesses' own words at face value. Taking the words right out of her mouth, and putting them right back in again. How diabolical.

I then I traded it all for S&H Green Stamps. At face value.
Click to expand...

and you did it all while giving the words context that may not have existed! congrats!
 
Defense will likely call some witnesses, but not put JJ on the stand. Nothing to gain by putting JJ on the stand. The jury already knows he's disputing it. Had the victim come off better on the stand you probably would have to put JJ on the stand, but she didn't and she has too many credibility issues. JJ gets up on the stand and you run the risk of the jury not liking him or him getting caught in some weirdness on cross examination that makes him look like hes lying, arrogant or whatever. The State's case is full of problems, starting with their Victim. Right now, JJ looks good appearance in Court, may have some sympathy of the jury because they feel bad that he is in this situation. This case should never have been brought by the State and should have been dismissed or pled out to some misdemeanor at worst. The end is near for JJ, and I see nothing but an aquittal as the result.
 
Gametime said:
Defense will likely call some witnesses, but not put JJ on the stand. Nothing to gain by putting JJ on the stand. The jury already knows he's disputing it. Had the victim come off better on the stand you probably would have to put JJ on the stand, but she didn't and she has too many credibility issues. JJ gets up on the stand and you run the risk of the jury not liking him or him getting caught in some weirdness on cross examination that makes him look like hes lying, arrogant or whatever. The State's case is full of problems, starting with their Victim. Right now, JJ looks good appearance in Court, may have some sympathy of the jury because they feel bad that he is in this situation. This case should never have been brought by the State and should have been dismissed or pled out to some misdemeanor at worst. The end is near for JJ, and I see nothing but an aquittal as the result.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt this has been wargamed extensively by the Defense this weekend. It's a big decision.

I also have no doubt that the State has spent some time on this as well. They have some witnesses left, can they rebuild a case? What happens if the Defense rests?
 
argh! said:
UMGriz75 said:
argh! said:
i always thought that people should think for themselves, rather than let um75 "think" for them (which is exactly what he wants to do).
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly!

I can put that on my resume. I "thought" for several hundred people, forcing them to take a witnesses' own words at face value. Taking the words right out of her mouth, and putting them right back in again. How diabolical.

I then I traded it all for S&H Green Stamps. At face value.
Click to expand...

and you did it all while giving the words context that may not have existed! congrats!
Click to expand...

And that's exactly how you get to a lawyer (especially those who have little to offer except extreme diarrhea of the mouth) Just change the context on them It drives them nuts especially if they are moving on ego. The few intelligent lawyers posting here (those who aren't playing the old High School debate game "I'll beat you over the head with my 18" double drawer file box") don't do that. The jury will put what they are hearing into context clever cross usually doesn't change it much.
 
Congrats 75!

You have won the prestigious E-griz Joseph P. Goebbels Award for 2013! This coveted award goes to the zealous poster that can bury facts and or inconvenient truths and use emotional, non-objective and fictionalized conclusions in influencing the attitude of the E-griz community. Your work truly exemplifies the spirit of the master of propaganda by consistently and unendingly presenting only one side of an argument.

Sieg Heil!


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top