JJ Trial

[JBS]

You guys act like you know 100% of what happened during the closed session. I'm saying you don't. That is it. If I get banned for getting you to concede the point, then so be it.

I know 100% So STFU moron. You will get no concession. You are wrong. Again!

Although I'm assuming you and I have basically the same thoughts on this matter, I still have to say that if you made it on the jury, there are some serious problems with our legal system!!

 

[GrizPony]

i hate to break it to y'all, but punch drunk is making salient points.

Why? By putting words into other peoples mouths?

is that supposed to be a question?

what he is doing is to point out the absurd level of bias used by um75 and others to "analyze" what is coming out of the courtroom.

75's posts have very little bias and are mainly based on actual trial testimony and legal affidavits. JP's posts are based almost entirely on self-interest and bias....like yours. I see why you see things the same way. :thumb:

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

Here's Little Miss Muffet running around trying to establish that last year, "all on her own," to prove ... something. And she's calling high priced civil litigation lawyers. She "just wanted information." And she all of a sudden knows that a key to a successful civil suit is a "serial" situation. And so she's out there, combing the social networks. And of course if she can prove a serial situation, and UM didn't know, or investigate properly or do anything about it, there can be a basis for negligence ... "ChaChing!"

UM75, you are obviously an intelligent guy, possess writing skills and have interesting things to say. Your comments about the affect of experts on juries were great and very thought provoking. However, comments like "Little Miss Muffet" really distract from those qualities mentioned above. The emotionality of your posts, and others (either pro-victim or pro-defendant), makes one question your objectivity and point of view. Not meaning to pick on you, there are plenty of other examples on this thread. I just would like to see more sensitivity accorded to BOTH of these young people.

I am not even pretending to be "objective." I do think a great injustice has been done and am willing to take an unmistakable position on that. On the other hand, I do reference to actual facts and will not fabricate wholesale slanders such as the "alcohol fueled sexual predator" meme that saturated these discussions last year, to some odd silence from those who profess to seek "objectivity".

Of course you're not being objective. You think her movie choices have to do with her psychological condition.

Her (and everyone's) movie choices point to one's state of mind. What was she (or anyone) in the mood for?

 

[JBS]

i hate to break it to y'all, but punch drunk is making salient points.

Why? By putting words into other peoples mouths?

is that supposed to be a question?

what he is doing is to point out the absurd level of bias used by um75 and others to "analyze" what is coming out of the courtroom.

This is a sports message board. He readily admits to having a bias. If you don't like his analysis, and it bothers you so much, don't read it. Or better yet, try going through the testimony and writing your own analysis. This isn't the Yale Law School Review, you know. It is a sports forum, where opinions and biases run rampant, and to each their own. I'm sick of Jerry Punch, so I just won't read him or respond to him anymore. It really is that simple. Maybe court tv or something has a thread devoted to this that you might enjoy more.

 

[UMGriz75]

You guys act like you know 100% of what happened during the closed session. I'm saying you don't. That is it. If I get banned for getting you to concede the point, then so be it.

i hate to break it to y'all, but punch drunk is making salient points.

Neither one of you know what the "closed session" is for.

In this case, because of the intimate nature of the photographs, a "closed session" is to get the photographs into evidence, while protecting the alleged victim's privacy. That's all. Get exhibit numbers on them and get them introduced and identified into the exhibit record.

The witness will testify as to the authenticity of each photo, that they were taken of Jane Doe on the particular date of the examination, that they are true photographs, and the chain of custody is identified. The Defense has the opportunity to object to each photo or to do voire dire on the authenticity of the photo before making an objection or stipulating. They are admitted or they are not admitted.

And that's all that happens.

There is no secret testimony about the photos. Nothing can be said substantive about the photos.

That is reserved for the open court testimony.

I hope that helps.

 

[GoosetownGriz]

That is the end

Oh God, if only....

Amen. Don't you miss the Tate Forcier hoopla?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

i hate to break it to y'all, but punch drunk is making salient points.

Why? By putting words into other peoples mouths?

is that supposed to be a question?

Did the question mark tip you off?

***Did you notice the question mark at the end of my question?




Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

it sounds like a lot of you view this like a football game between the lawyers instead of what it is supposed to be. moreover, many of you seem to be 'cheering' against the girl.

By "supposed to be," you mean the part where the Defendant gets a defense until his money runs out and his family's home is mortgaged to the limit, or the part where the State gets unlimited resources of investigation, unlimited expert witness budgets, and attorneys assigned from county and state levels, and call on pro bono private lawyers, huge expensive office staffs, all appearing before a Judge whose entire career consisted of being a lead criminal prosecutor in the very office that is now appearing before her?

Is that what you mean when you refer to how "it is supposed to be?"

:clap:

All extremely well said.

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

Am I the only person that feels like this Green roommate is inconsistent as f***??

Just when I think he's helping the accuser's story, Paoli gets him to change his story...

Paoli caught the roommate changing his testimony multiple times (from what he had said prior statements and interviews with Paoli). He was shading the truth, but my impression was that he was probably intentionally lying at times. ... Really, what good is a joint recollection? I don't know if the jury picked up on the fact that he appeared to be lying, as well as being evasive, at times. If the jury didn't get that, or the defense doesn't otherwise discredit him, some of his testimony will probably help the prosecution.

Watching the jury, they are having distinct reactions: 1) they don't like the State AG, he is neither likeable nor impressing them (he is committing an ultimate sin, he is objecting so frequently as to be appearing to want to "keep the jury from knowing" which is what juries take away from endless technical objections, 2) they were skeptical of Jane Doe (not hostile, perhaps they were sympathetic, but unconvinced, it was going to take more), 3) they were unimpressed with the psychologist, and 4) they didn't like the roommate (he destroyed his own credibility).

The comment from one experienced trial lawyer: "the state's witnesses all look too obviously coached. The jury is seeing that. And they obviously had a bad coach."

The prosecutors are doing a poor job for sure.

They were continuously leading the accuser in her testimony, basically testifying for her, until the defense objected. The jurors wanted to hear from (oops almost said her name) the accuser and not her attys.

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

First of all, I do not live in missoula and consider myself a big time bias griz fan. In the last few months I have had a couple new faces at work, both are woman and both could not care less about football lat alone griz football.
I thought it would be interesting to get some opinions from woman who know nothing about the case.
So I asked both of them to read all of the updates on twitter and give me a few thoughts from their point of view. I gotta tell you the one is 62 years old and the other is mid 30s, neither could tell you that the griz are from missoula. That tells you how unbiassed they are.
Both woman are saying the EXACT same thing! HOW IN THE WORLD DID THIS CASE EVER MAKE IT INTO COURT?
That made me feel alot better about Jordans chances of not just playing football again, but not having his whole life ruined because of some he said she said. As a totally biassed griz fan I dont like how this has played out, but what doesnt kill you, will make you stronger.
So, I just hope that my co-workers, who are not biassed are feeling that same thing as the jurrors.
Jordan did not Rape this woman, and that is my personal opinion.

EVERY female I have asked their opinion about the trial have told me they think that Johnson has been set up by the girl. One of them said, "I'm a girl, I should be on her side. But I'm not at all."

 

[argh!]

i hate to break it to y'all, but punch drunk is making salient points.

Why? By putting words into other peoples mouths?

is that supposed to be a question?

Did the question mark tip you off?

***Did you notice the question mark at the end of my question?




Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

when someone asks "why?" then follows with their own "how?" answer, it elicits a "what?"

 

[argh!]

First of all, I do not live in missoula and consider myself a big time bias griz fan. In the last few months I have had a couple new faces at work, both are woman and both could not care less about football lat alone griz football.
I thought it would be interesting to get some opinions from woman who know nothing about the case.
So I asked both of them to read all of the updates on twitter and give me a few thoughts from their point of view. I gotta tell you the one is 62 years old and the other is mid 30s, neither could tell you that the griz are from missoula. That tells you how unbiassed they are.
Both woman are saying the EXACT same thing! HOW IN THE WORLD DID THIS CASE EVER MAKE IT INTO COURT?
That made me feel alot better about Jordans chances of not just playing football again, but not having his whole life ruined because of some he said she said. As a totally biassed griz fan I dont like how this has played out, but what doesnt kill you, will make you stronger.
So, I just hope that my co-workers, who are not biassed are feeling that same thing as the jurrors.
Jordan did not Rape this woman, and that is my personal opinion.

EVERY female I have asked their opinion about the trial have told me they think that Johnson has been set up by the girl. One of them said, "I'm a girl, I should be on her side. But I'm not at all."

that's it, stop the case! the dj talked to some chick who doesn't believe the accuser. if that ain't proof johnson didn't do it, i don't know what is.

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

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.

Listen thick-headed, it's not JJ's state of mind that "No Strings Attached" or "Easy A" illustrate. He said he quote, "Didn't care" what movie the accuser (had rented herself) wanted to insert into the player. The movie choices depict the accusers state of mind.

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

First of all, I do not live in missoula and consider myself a big time bias griz fan. In the last few months I have had a couple new faces at work, both are woman and both could not care less about football lat alone griz football.
I thought it would be interesting to get some opinions from woman who know nothing about the case.
So I asked both of them to read all of the updates on twitter and give me a few thoughts from their point of view. I gotta tell you the one is 62 years old and the other is mid 30s, neither could tell you that the griz are from missoula. That tells you how unbiassed they are.
Both woman are saying the EXACT same thing! HOW IN THE WORLD DID THIS CASE EVER MAKE IT INTO COURT?
That made me feel alot better about Jordans chances of not just playing football again, but not having his whole life ruined because of some he said she said. As a totally biassed griz fan I dont like how this has played out, but what doesnt kill you, will make you stronger.
So, I just hope that my co-workers, who are not biassed are feeling that same thing as the jurrors.
Jordan did not Rape this woman, and that is my personal opinion.

EVERY female I have asked their opinion about the trial have told me they think that Johnson has been set up by the girl. One of them said, "I'm a girl, I should be on her side. But I'm not at all."

that's it, stop the case! the dj talked to some chick who doesn't believe the accuser. if that ain't proof johnson didn't do it, i don't know what is.

I didn't say stop the case, or that it's proof Johnson didn't do it. I just offered like opinions.

argh! = :hater:

 

[BDizzle]

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.

Listen thick-headed, it's not JJ's state of mind that "No Strings Attached" or "Easy A" illustrate. He said he quote, "Didn't care" what movie the accuser (had rented herself) wanted to insert into the player. The movie choices depict the accusers state of mind.

I think the player did the inserting.

 

[EverettGriz]

Ohhh my.

 

[GrizSpartan]

I hate to bad mouth a Griz fan, but Jerry Punch should think about closing it down. His attacks are way overboard. I don't know why he keeps going after "75", but if I were him I would shut up and let others lead the way. UM75 has taken lots of time to keep most of us flatlanders informed. I am sure his writings have biased (probably a Griz fan that wants JJ innocent), but they seem to be based in an informed perspective. Punch continues to live up to his last name. He just keeps banging away and missing.

I ask of you, Mr. Punch, to surrender. What you offer takes up board space and continues to seem childlike.

But did you see the pictures? If you did, please reveal the contents of those photos to better help my feeble mind understand what happened here.

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

cat fans need something/anything to distract them from the msu fading bobcats basketball teams.

Sad, really.

They do suck.

But then again, after losing their 6th game in a row, Semansky claimed on the news that she believes they are the best team in the BSC :!: :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: Typical delusional cat.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

 

[JBS]

Why? By putting words into other peoples mouths?

is that supposed to be a question?

Did the question mark tip you off?

***Did you notice the question mark at the end of my question?




Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

when someone asks "why?" then follows with their own "how?" answer, it elicits a "what?"

After re-reading what i wrote, I can't disagree. Bad sentence. Still, my point is valid.