JJ Trial

[JBS]

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.

You really do have a problem with other peoples opinions.

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

Judge denies a motion from defense regarding investigation into woman's sexual activity 5 days prior to exam that could explain the genital lacerations.

That seems like relevant information, but not surprised, if this judge grants any motion from the defense I will be shocked.

:agree:

 

[jagur1]

Gentlemen at this pace wi'll never get 100 pages or 100,000 views.

 

[funny water]

Gentlemen at this pace wi'll never get 100 pages or 100,000 views.

there are still a handful of days of testimony with another weekend thrown in there and probably another Tuesday non courtroom day..... just give it time.... it will get there..... unless Titleist gets in lock mode in Vegas this weekend..... :shock: :shock:

 

[Maxim]

I think 75 has done a good job of piecing together an "alternative" version of events that has evidence to support it.

And, of course, that is what "reasonable doubt" is all about, and that is exactly what Paoli's closing statement will be about. That is, is it plausible?

So far, the State is having the problem with "plausibility," and that's unusual.

Usually, at this point in a trial it's "wow, how's this guy going to get out of this," and then the Defense, in its case in chief, will show how, assuming they can. It's rare to see questions about plausibility reasonably and legitimately raised about the State's case at this stage of the proceedings.

The problem for the State's case is that, given the fumbling contradictions that have so permeated the State's witness testimonies as they appear in the record so far, without the Defense version being presented yet, the alternative scenario can be plausibly presented based entirely on the State's own evidence. Dave Paoli could give a closing statement Wednesday that would offer classic reasonable doubt.

The State isn't done yet, but generally on the prosecution side, the strong witnesses go first.

Im going to disagree with you there. The prosecution wants to end the case with a strong witness. However i believe that they knew jane doe was not a strong witness so they had to get her testimony out first. Leaving a lasting impression on the jury is huge and if you have a great witness, you finish with them. A good lawyer will use their other witnesses to lead into that final testimony when possible.

 

[grizpsych]

Would it be worth my time to read through this whole thread?

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

I'm actually amazed and impressed one of them hasn't already.

I don't think JJ is guilty of rape . . . BUT . . . I'd personally be willing to help kick the crap out of anyone who decided it would be a good idea to drag this girl's name and reputation through the mud after the trial. What's wrong with some of you people?

Blast away at the prosecutors, DOJ, idiots at First Step and anyone else who gave this girl bad advice. Leave this girl the **** alone.

If it turns out he is innocent, I think someone should advise her on the virtues of not lying, destroying a life, including her own, and, to get some deep therapy.

He won't be found innocent, just not guilty of the charge. Something happened to this girl, real or imagined. I can believe she is emotionally unstable but I can't believe she planned this for some purpose or gain. She should be pitied not harassed.

Why can't you believe she planned this, girls do it, why not her?

 

[Maxim]

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.

You really do have a problem with other peoples opinions.

Defense attorneys usually prefer women on the jury in rape or sexual assault cases because women typically tend to blame the victim more than men and have less empathy. You wouldn't think that is the case but statistics say otherwise. It kind of makes sense women can be fairly judgemental towards each other.

 

[EverettGriz]

Would it be worth my time to read through this whole thread?

If you enjoy picking lint out of your toe nails.

 

[Griz2k]

I think 75 has done a good job of piecing together an "alternative" version of events that has evidence to support it.

And, of course, that is what "reasonable doubt" is all about, and that is exactly what Paoli's closing statement will be about. That is, is it plausible?

So far, the State is having the problem with "plausibility," and that's unusual.

Usually, at this point in a trial it's "wow, how's this guy going to get out of this," and then the Defense, in its case in chief, will show how, assuming they can. It's rare to see questions about plausibility reasonably and legitimately raised about the State's case at this stage of the proceedings.

The problem for the State's case is that, given the fumbling contradictions that have so permeated the State's witness testimonies as they appear in the record so far, without the Defense version being presented yet, the alternative scenario can be plausibly presented based entirely on the State's own evidence. Dave Paoli could give a closing statement Wednesday that would offer classic reasonable doubt.

The State isn't done yet, but generally on the prosecution side, the strong witnesses go first.

Im going to disagree with you there. The prosecution wants to end the case with a strong witness. However i believe that they knew jane doe was not a strong witness so they had to get her testimony out first. Leaving a lasting impression on the jury is huge and if you have a great witness, you finish with them. A good lawyer will use their other witnesses to lead into that final testimony when possible.

The fact that the "alleged victim" is probably the prosecution's weakest witness speaks volumes.

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

Her name should be posted. JJ's name certainly has been dragged through broken glass on a local, state, and national level, and yet this b*tch's name remains a mystery? Please, someone with balls post her name.

The accused face (JJ) is all over tv news media, and newspapers... yet the one making the accusations remains out of the public eye. That is some MAJOR BULLSH!T. Kind of makes it pretty easy to accuse someone doesn't it?

 

[spokaneman]

Her name should be posted. JJ's name certainly has been dragged through broken glass on a local, state, and national level, and yet this b*tch's name remains a mystery? Please, someone with balls post her name.

The accused face (JJ) is all over tv news media, and newspapers... yet the one making the accusations remains out of the public eye. That is some MAJOR BULLSH!T. Kind of makes it pretty easy to accuse someone doesn't it?

Says the 2 goons hiding behind fake names and whose real identities remains a mystery all while slandering a "possible" rape victim.... good lord, if this situation were not so sad, you hypocrites would be funny!!

 

[JBS]

Her name should be posted. JJ's name certainly has been dragged through broken glass on a local, state, and national level, and yet this b*tch's name remains a mystery? Please, someone with balls post her name.

The accused face (JJ) is all over tv news media, and newspapers... yet the one making the accusations remains out of the public eye. That is some MAJOR BULLSH!T. Kind of makes it pretty easy to accuse someone doesn't it?

I have thought about this quite a bit, and have come to the conclusion that posting her name would do no good. Like they say, two wrongs don't make a right. However, that is just me. I wouldn't condemn anyone for doing it. I did get curious to see how hard it would be to find her name. Just going by certain things in the testimony, it took me about 2 minutes, and it only took that long because I am a slow typer.

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

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.

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, odd words for him to use: "it's her show."

Great post

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

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.

:agree:

 

[br fan]

I think 75 has done a good job of piecing together an "alternative" version of events that has evidence to support it.

And, of course, that is what "reasonable doubt" is all about, and that is exactly what Paoli's closing statement will be about. That is, is it plausible?

So far, the State is having the problem with "plausibility," and that's unusual.

Usually, at this point in a trial it's "wow, how's this guy going to get out of this," and then the Defense, in its case in chief, will show how, assuming they can. It's rare to see questions about plausibility reasonably and legitimately raised about the State's case at this stage of the proceedings.

The problem for the State's case is that, given the fumbling contradictions that have so permeated the State's witness testimonies as they appear in the record so far, without the Defense version being presented yet, the alternative scenario can be plausibly presented based entirely on the State's own evidence. Dave Paoli could give a closing statement Wednesday that would offer classic reasonable doubt.

The State isn't done yet, but generally on the prosecution side, the strong witnesses go first.

Im going to disagree with you there. The prosecution wants to end the case with a strong witness. However i believe that they knew jane doe was not a strong witness so they had to get her testimony out first. Leaving a lasting impression on the jury is huge and if you have a great witness, you finish with them. A good lawyer will use their other witnesses to lead into that final testimony when possible.

Who does the prosecution have left to call? It was pretty easy to identify who they've called to date by the charging document. I'm assuming they still have an expert who will provide an opinion on post traumatic stress, but who else is on their witness list?

 

[Griz2k]

I think 75 has done a good job of piecing together an "alternative" version of events that has evidence to support it.

And, of course, that is what "reasonable doubt" is all about, and that is exactly what Paoli's closing statement will be about. That is, is it plausible?

So far, the State is having the problem with "plausibility," and that's unusual.

Usually, at this point in a trial it's "wow, how's this guy going to get out of this," and then the Defense, in its case in chief, will show how, assuming they can. It's rare to see questions about plausibility reasonably and legitimately raised about the State's case at this stage of the proceedings.

The problem for the State's case is that, given the fumbling contradictions that have so permeated the State's witness testimonies as they appear in the record so far, without the Defense version being presented yet, the alternative scenario can be plausibly presented based entirely on the State's own evidence. Dave Paoli could give a closing statement Wednesday that would offer classic reasonable doubt.

The State isn't done yet, but generally on the prosecution side, the strong witnesses go first.

Im going to disagree with you there. The prosecution wants to end the case with a strong witness. However i believe that they knew jane doe was not a strong witness so they had to get her testimony out first. Leaving a lasting impression on the jury is huge and if you have a great witness, you finish with them. A good lawyer will use their other witnesses to lead into that final testimony when possible.

Who does the prosecution have left to call? It was pretty easy to identify who they've called to date by the charging document. I'm assuming they still have an expert who will provide an opinion on post traumatic stress, but who else is on their witness list?

I would hope for the prosecution's sake if they do call another expert witness that he/she is better than the first who basically said..... a rape victim may act one way...or they may act another way....or they may act a little different...or they may act the exact same...or they could act exactly how we thought they would act if they were acting a certain way but not acting the other way that we thought they would act once.

 

[Tokyogriz]

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

I wanted family to remember me as that little girl with the curly brown hair.

I am sure "Argh" felt exactly the same way.

ok, now you are just being (d)um75. if this were a football game that would have been a turnover. surely someone with your powers of fictitious invention can do better than that!

Yeah, as if geeks like you know so much about football. GEEK

 

[Flathead Griz]

Secret recording of the experts testimony

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awi14wDTxNw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Final conclusion is "People are Strange"