JJ Trial

[garizzalies]

I have been explaining this trial to my wife and she had an interesting comment. She believes that it was consensual sex but, upon reflection, it turned out "rougher" than Jane Doe expected from this "nice, shy" boy. That, coupled with the fact that JJ basically treated her like a one-night-stand, led to this mess.

 

[Ursa Major]

I know there is no true objectivity. But for some things (e.g. trials, newspaper reporting, science) we need to do our best at eliminating bias, propaganda and pushing for the results that are in our best interest. Take in the facts and try and analyze them to the best of our abilities. Your running this woman down, impugning her character and giving biased one sided stories about the night in question doesn’t help us analyzing the facts of this trial. When you try and convince others of a one-sided story it is flat out propaganda. And that’s what I object to in your posts.

Nice speech, but you didn't manage to find it in your hypocritical glossary of faux idealism to object once -- not once -- to the repeated, ongoing, vile characterizations of JJ as "an alcohol-fueled sexual predator."

Not once.

So, your feeble protestations to the contrary, you are simply dishonest.

Wow! Rationalization meet faulty logic.

Have you ever taken an intro to science course? Scientific method ring any bells?

 

[griz4life]

There's no excuse for labeling Jordan Johnson an alcohol fueled predator. There's no excuse for labeling Doe a tramp. These are young adults who will undoubtedly be dammaged by this event for years to come. There are only two people who know what happened that night and its entirely possible that both believe their version of events to be true. The more I learn about these two, the more I suspect this is the case. Not a lot of black and white, just a lot of painful gray.

 

[go4two]

More facts to discuss. In the Motion to Dismiss document, JJ states they started having intercourse in the missionary position, but no where in Jane Doe's testimony (albeit via twitter?) did she corroborate this. She only stated that they had intercourse in the "doggy" position. Seems odd that JJ would make that up? She testified that JJ took her yoga pants off while facing her; lying on the bed (sort of in the missionary position). So, when all the clothes came off, logic would be that they started having intercourse in that position? One would think to leave that out of your story because it would paint more of a picture of consensual sex.

Based on the MTD, it appears JJ treated her like a piece of meat, and she felt humiliated. JJ is guilty of being a selfish pig, not rape. His parents should have taught him better, but no way should a young man go to prison for that.

JJ's got a lot to learn about women They come first! (no pun intended). :mrgreen:

 

[UMGriz75]

I have been explaining this trial to my wife and she had an interesting comment. She believes that it was consensual sex but, upon reflection, it turned out "rougher" than Jane Doe expected from this "nice, shy" boy. That, coupled with the fact that JJ basically treated her like a one-night-stand, led to this mess.

The "rougher" part is interesting. She claims that she attempted to fend him off and he forced his way between her legs, but there was no bruising on her legs at all. She told the Nurse examiner that he had penetrated her with his "hand" -- some heard the word "fist" -- and the Nurse Examiner said, "yup," that's what it looked like, but then a year later at trial, Jane Does says he did not. So, the medical evidence says that prior to her visit to First Step she had been penetrated by a fist or hand, but Jane Doe now says it wasn't JJ.

Well, something is hugely inconsistent there; if it wasn't JJ, who was it?

She said he had grabbed her hips, but she specifically allowed that it wasn't "hard." And sure enough, no bruising at all on the hips. The only remaining evidence was the red marks on her chest -- she testified that he "was leaning on her with his arm," and "holding her down," but then she also testified that "no, she wasn't restrained," she could have gotten up, opened the door, and called to her roommate. She admitted that.

And she admitted that just previously, she was holding him down and punching him. That was when she began saying "no" in "babytalk," and the shirts voluntarily came off. She also testified that after that point she "assisted" and that she engaged at that point in "volitional acts" to enable sex to occur.

And to the Jury, that is going to be the key 20 minutes and everything else is just soap opera.

 

[UMGriz75]

I know there is no true objectivity. But for some things (e.g. trials, newspaper reporting, science) we need to do our best at eliminating bias, propaganda and pushing for the results that are in our best interest. Take in the facts and try and analyze them to the best of our abilities. Your running this woman down, impugning her character and giving biased one sided stories about the night in question doesn’t help us analyzing the facts of this trial. When you try and convince others of a one-sided story it is flat out propaganda. And that’s what I object to in your posts.

Nice speech, but you didn't manage to find it in your hypocritical glossary of faux idealism to object once -- not once -- to the repeated, ongoing, vile characterizations of JJ as "an alcohol-fueled sexual predator."

Not once.

So, your feeble protestations to the contrary, you are simply dishonest.

Wow! Rationalization meet faulty logic.

Have you ever taken an intro to science course? Scientific method ring any bells?

Nice try. No cigar. Go home.

 

[UMGriz75]

More facts to discuss. In the Motion to Dismiss document, JJ states they started having intercourse in the missionary position, but no where in Jane Doe's testimony (albeit via twitter?) did she corroborate this. She only stated that they had intercourse in the "doggy" position. Seems odd that JJ would make that up? She testified that JJ took her yoga pants off while facing her; lying on the bed (sort of in the missionary position). So, when all the clothes came off, logic would be that they started having intercourse in that position? One would think to leave that out of your story because it would paint more of a picture of consensual sex.

Based on the MTD, it appears JJ treated her like a piece of meat, and she felt humiliated. JJ is guilty of being a selfish pig, not rape. His parents should have taught him better, but no way should a young man go to prison for that.

JJ's got a lot to learn about women They come first! (no pun intended). :mrgreen:

She did say he had held her down with his arm on her chest; I guess I gathered that was while they were having sex "that way," I'm not sure what else they would have been doing to account for the red marks on her chest. Then he flipped her over and she testified that he had not grabbed her "hard" to do so, and that she had assisted in that transition, which is consistent with her testimony that he was not forceful, and consistent with the evidence of no bruising. That is consistent with his affidavit statements that then they were having sex "that way," and that is when she looked over her shoulder and said "you're bad."

 

[go4two]

She did say he had held her down with his arm on her chest; I guess I gathered that was while they were having sex "that way," I'm not sure what else they would have been doing to account for the red marks on her chest. Then he flipped her over and she testified that he had not grabbed her "hard" to do so, and that she had assisted in that transition, which is consistent with her testimony that he was not forceful, and consistent with the evidence of no bruising. That is consistent with his affidavit statements that then they were having sex "that way," and that is when she looked over her shoulder and said "you're bad."

I took Doe's testimony as he held her down with his forearm to remove her pants and underwear, and then flipped her over?

 

[UMGriz75]

She did say he had held her down with his arm on her chest; I guess I gathered that was while they were having sex "that way," I'm not sure what else they would have been doing to account for the red marks on her chest. Then he flipped her over and she testified that he had not grabbed her "hard" to do so, and that she had assisted in that transition, which is consistent with her testimony that he was not forceful, and consistent with the evidence of no bruising. That is consistent with his affidavit statements that then they were having sex "that way," and that is when she looked over her shoulder and said "you're bad."

I took Doe's testimony as he held her down with his forearm to remove her pants and underwear, and then flipped her over?

My notes aren't clear on that, the Missoulian story more likely supports that view but isn't perfectly clear either. I can't get my pdf open today from the earlier pre-trial statements.

 

[harrydoyle1989]

I am almost positive that any second now one of you is going to convince the other about the truth and justice of your position. I think it will happen sometimes in the next 37 comments by 75 to the 10 replies by other posters.

What is wrong exactly with just letting 12 people decide again? Good heavens this is embarrassing.

 

[TxGriz]

She couldn't decide between yes or no and now wants the legal system to say no after the fact on her behalf. She feels righteously entitled to he victimhood only by virtue of a societal bias against the man.

She feels she can hide behind an imagined wrong for no other reason than being female in a land sympathetic to militant feminism.

 

[go4two]

She did say he had held her down with his arm on her chest; I guess I gathered that was while they were having sex "that way," I'm not sure what else they would have been doing to account for the red marks on her chest. Then he flipped her over and she testified that he had not grabbed her "hard" to do so, and that she had assisted in that transition, which is consistent with her testimony that he was not forceful, and consistent with the evidence of no bruising. That is consistent with his affidavit statements that then they were having sex "that way," and that is when she looked over her shoulder and said "you're bad."

I took Doe's testimony as he held her down with his forearm to remove her pants and underwear, and then flipped her over?

Just read the initial charges. In it, Jane Doe claims JJ didn't take off his pants until after he flipped her over. This is two different sides to what happened. Who is telling the truth? We'll never know.

 

[Griz66]

I have been following the trial from afar in the mountains of North Georgia and do not have the advantage of some of the "local flavor" that some of you have and all of my information is coming from comments on EGriz plus somne of the tweets. At this stage of the trial I personally see almost no way that the defendant could be found guilty of anything other than maybe bad judgment and not being nice to the alleged victim after they were finished. Having said that, anytime a case is put in front of a jury, you have totally lost control of the outcome and anything can happen. One can hope that the jury as a wole is smart enough to see through this mess but again one never knows. We all need to make sure that we are not too quick to judge and always remember the OJ SImpson case, I may be a minority but who would have ever thought any jury would find him innocent . Based on what I have read, the JJ case should never have come to trial, it is an unbelievable waste of taxpayer dollars, and reardless of outcome two young people will have their lives affected for years to come.

 

[UMGriz75]

I am almost positive that any second now one of you is going to convince the other about the truth and justice of your position. I think it will happen sometimes in the next 37 comments by 75 to the 10 replies by other posters.

What is wrong exactly with just letting 12 people decide again? Good heavens this is embarrassing.

And they will do just that.

What is always amazing is that people go to a discussion board on the internet and are just appalled that people are having a discussion. Indeed, they will voluntarily, knowingly, click on a thread entitled "JJ Trial," taking precious minutes out of their lives, and are just amazed to find on the thread entitled "JJ Trial" that people are actually discussing, on that thread, the "JJ Trial!"

 

[argh!]

I have been explaining this trial to my wife and she had an interesting comment. She believes that it was consensual sex but, upon reflection, it turned out "rougher" than Jane Doe expected from this "nice, shy" boy. That, coupled with the fact that JJ basically treated her like a one-night-stand, led to this mess.

The "rougher" part is interesting. She claims that she attempted to fend him off and he forced his way between her legs, but there was no bruising on her legs at all. She told the Nurse examiner that he had penetrated her with his "hand" -- some heard the word "fist" -- and the Nurse Examiner said, "yup," that's what it looked like, but then a year later at trial, Jane Does says he did not. So, the medical evidence says that prior to her visit to First Step she had been penetrated by a fist or hand, but Jane Doe now says it wasn't JJ.

Well, something is hugely inconsistent there; if it wasn't JJ, who was it?

She said he had grabbed her hips, but she specifically allowed that it wasn't "hard." And sure enough, no bruising at all on the hips. The only remaining evidence was the red marks on her chest -- she testified that he "was leaning on her with his arm," and "holding her down," but then she also testified that "no, she wasn't restrained," she could have gotten up, opened the door, and called to her roommate. She admitted that.

And she admitted that just previously, she was holding him down and punching him. That was when she began saying "no" in "babytalk," and the shirts voluntarily came off. She also testified that after that point she "assisted" and that she engaged at that point in "volitional acts" to enable sex to occur.

And to the Jury, that is going to be the key 20 minutes and everything else is just soap opera.

i have been explaining this case to a colleague, and he says that what happened was brutal rape. in other words, he has no clue what happened and is just making shit up based on selective tidbits and his own personal biases. ergo, what 7five is doing, etc etc. if people would quit trying to pass off conjecture as "fact", this thread would be splattered with a lot less mud.

 

[UMGriz75]

I took Doe's testimony as he held her down with his forearm to remove her pants and underwear, and then flipped her over?

Just read the initial charges. In it, Jane Doe claims JJ didn't take off his pants until after he flipped her over. This is two different sides to what happened. Who is telling the truth? We'll never know.

And she didn't mention that at trial, insofar as my notes show. I guess that makes three different sides to it.

I don't think the Jury would fasten on discrepancies like those, as compared, for instance, to the fact that she showed up at the Examiner Nurse's office with verifiable medical indications of a hand or a fist, but claiming at trial that JJ didn't do it.

That is, stories will differ in detail. The Expert Witness claimed that memories of rape victims tend to be disorganized at first, but get better with the passage of time. On the other hand, nearly every study ever done on witness testimony shows that it gets worse with the passage of time and, for both of them, there has been some passage of time. Memory is tricky.

All of the witnesses so far had some rather odd "holes" in their memories of "what happened." I am sure Defense witnesses will as well, although we will see. The roommate moved a long ways from saying he didn't believe her at all in his statements made at the time, to claiming at trial that he believed her right away and was actually quite concerned.

On the other hand, the fact that she went and made a sandwich was something he consistently remembered in both his early statements and his testimony, and she denied making a sandwich. Frankly, at that level, that's how people's memories are, and not too much can be read into it on the minor details, at least.

The pertinent question always is, does the changed story change the case in a significant fashion, change the alibi, change the response, change the story line appreciably? The Jurors are more apt to find significance in changing testimonies.

Of course, that's why witnesses are always drawn, by their lawyers, to all of their prior statements in preparation for a trial, which makes all the more the mystery of why Jane Doe would now claim something exactly contrary to what she told the Examiner Nurse, on a more substantive allegation, the denial of which raises the immediate thought of "what did she do prior to the Examination" that did not involve JJ, but left such tell-tale medical evidence of relatively rough treatment?

What frustrates Jurors, as much as anybody else reading testimony, is such unanswered questions, and lawyers leave plenty of them, some inadvertent, some because of inadmissible testimony. Ed McLean experimented for a while with allowing juries to ask written questions about such things.

 

[UMGriz75]

i have been explaining this case to a colleague, and he says that what happened was brutal rape. in other words, he has no clue what happened and is just making shit up based on selective tidbits and his own personal biases. ergo, what 7five is doing, etc etc. if people would quit trying to pass off conjecture as "fact", this thread would be splattered with a lot less mud.

In other words, you disagree with someone else's opinion, and since it is different than yours, you are obsessed with whining about it. Whine away.

:dead:

 

[harrydoyle1989]

What is surprising, Mr. 75, is the persistently hysterical nature of your posting. I am all for sharing of opinions. I do find your poor man's Nancy Grace act to be a little silly and to have jumped the shark at this point.

None of the foregoing should be construed as a belief that JJ will, or should, be convicted. I am still willing to say, gasp, I have no idea.

 

[UMGriz75]

What is surprising, Mr. 75, is the persistently hysterical nature of your posting. I am all for sharing of opinions. I do find your poor man's Nancy Grace act to be a little silly and to have jumped the shark at this point.

None of the foregoing should be construed as a belief that JJ will, or should, be convicted. I am still willing to say, gasp, I have no idea.

On and on and on.

I think everyone already gathered that you "have no idea."

The real mystery is why you feel a need to complain on an internet forum about people having opinions on internet forums, and why you are on this one, offering your opinion about it?

 

[ordigger]

What is surprising, Mr. 75, is the persistently hysterical nature of your posting. I am all for sharing of opinions. I do find your poor man's Nancy Grace act to be a little silly and to have jumped the shark at this point.

None of the foregoing should be construed as a belief that JJ will, or should, be convicted. I am still willing to say, gasp, I have no idea.

On and on and on.

I think everyone already gathered that you "have no idea."

The real mystery is why you feel a need to complain on an internet forum about people having opinions on internet forums, and why you are on this one, offering your opinion about it?

Speaking of opinions, your opinion, my opinion, Gwen's opinion and everyone else's opinion on this board and elsewhere mean absolutely nothing. The only opinions that matter are 12 individuals. I didnt really need to read 15 pages of the same opinion over and over and over. WE got it....we know your opinion.

:dead: