JJ Trial

[GrizMusician]

Emily Foster ‏@emilyABCFOXMT
Sauer: Didn't know who Johnson was before the alleged rape #JohnsonTrial

Bullshit. I know Mr. Sauer & he is a huge Griz football fan. :|

 

[UMGriz75]

It is very funny that all the armchair attorneys on here are bashing the real attorneys on this board who are giving good analysis...we will see who is right in the end. The posters on here have better coverage than Greta V. could give working full time on this and yet the "arghs" of the world just want to bash. Thanks to UM75 and others for your insight.

Insight is not the same as fact. UMGriz is providing us with a version of the events as he sees it. With that being the basis for his recollection of the events, please take it with a pound of salt.

And this advice is based on your stellar understanding, right?

I particularly enjoyed your lengthy diatribes about the "closed testimony," implying that it contained some secret information that nobody could know about, and therefore no one could legitimately comment on the Nurse Examiner's open court testimony. Of course all that your running diarrhea on that point showed was that you didn't have the faintest idea what the closed testimony was for. Now, you're claiming I am basing my comments on my personal "recollection of events."

Actually, I wasn't there. I was out of town that weekend, and the roommates were using my video game in any event. I do know all my sandwich fixin's were gone when I got back. I have no "recollection of events."

Unlike you, however, I am limited to what is happening and being said in court. You have the freedom, unencumbered by any experience, education or presence in the courtroom, of saying what you d*** well please, fabricating whatever pops into your head, apparently spontaneously without any filter.

And so you do, and that is the only salient characteristic of your posts. And no amount of salt is a cure for explosive perpetual diarrhea.

 

[UMGriz75]

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.

And as another poster speculated, they may be saving the best for last. That would be the only explanation for what has happened so far.

The previous expert was everything that Juries hate. Aside from his odd remark "who's Doe?" he basically did what you describe: a legitimate rape victim may act in any number of ways, all of which describe any particular person under any given set of circumstances at any time of day.

 

[RobGriz]

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.

And as another poster speculated, they may be saving the best for last. That would be the only explanation for what has happened so far.

The previous expert was everything that Juries hate. Aside from his odd remark "who's Doe?" he basically did what you describe: a legitimate rape victim may act in any number of ways, all of which describe any particular person under any given set of circumstances at any time of day...or not

FFY The guy was pretty ambiguis and non-committal for an "expert" although that seemed to be his point. He might as well of stayed home for all the good his testimony did.

 

[BWahlberg]

If you happened to read the "Summary of the first week" article in the Missoulian:

 

[RobGriz]

If you happened to read the "Summary of the first week" article in the Missoulian:

You're wasting your time arguing with that b1tch Brint. She never lets a little thing like facts get in the way of reporting.

 

[GrizMusician]

If you happened to read the "Summary of the first week" article in the Missoulian:

WOW. What a complete - utter failure on their part. Either they cannot read, or they are publishing the wrong information intentionally.

 

[Griz2k]

If you happened to read the "Summary of the first week" article in the Missoulian:

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!

 

[Jerry Punch]

I still cannot believe how badly the Missoulian has botched this entire situation. I don't see how the Missoulian would be a stepping stone to any bigger and better things for "reporters" like Gwen Florio when, for example, she uses the classless hashtag "UMRape" on Twitter. If the dozens of errors before that didn't convince readers, this major, major f*ck up must have.

At the end of the day, it's just a bad business decision. It makes no sense. In a world where printed news is growing smaller by the year, the Missoulian decides to accelerate that process by printing garbage. Unbelievable and unacceptable.

 

[GrizMusician]

I still cannot believe how badly the Missoulian has botched this entire situation. I don't see how the Missoulian would be a stepping stone to any bigger and better things for "reporters" like Gwen Florio when, for example, she uses the classless hashtag "UMRape" on Twitter. If the dozens of errors before that didn't convince readers, this major, major f*ck up must have.

At the end of the day, it's just a bad business decision. It makes no sense. In a world where printed news is growing smaller by the year, the Missoulian decides to accelerate that process by printing garbage. Unbelievable and unacceptable.

I find it hard to believe that news outlets all across the US got the "preponderance of evidence" correct, but the local news outlet, the Missoulian, somehow still managed to botch it. :roll:

 

[Jerry Punch]

I still cannot believe how badly the Missoulian has botched this entire situation. I don't see how the Missoulian would be a stepping stone to any bigger and better things for "reporters" like Gwen Florio when, for example, she uses the classless hashtag "UMRape" on Twitter. If the dozens of errors before that didn't convince readers, this major, major f*ck up must have.

At the end of the day, it's just a bad business decision. It makes no sense. In a world where printed news is growing smaller by the year, the Missoulian decides to accelerate that process by printing garbage. Unbelievable and unacceptable.

I find it hard to believe that news outlets all across the US got the "preponderance of evidence" correct, but the local news outlet, the Missoulian, somehow still managed to botch it. :roll:

Exactly. They just don't do the dilligence on this stuff. I find the Missoulian Newspaper to be very Missoulian in that some, but not all, of the people living there are stuck in some sort of malaise waiting for the hard work to be done. The Missoulian doesn't do the hard work. They just sit around, make stuff up, and then don't say squat when they are called out on it.

 

[GrizMusician]

I still cannot believe how badly the Missoulian has botched this entire situation. I don't see how the Missoulian would be a stepping stone to any bigger and better things for "reporters" like Gwen Florio when, for example, she uses the classless hashtag "UMRape" on Twitter. If the dozens of errors before that didn't convince readers, this major, major f*ck up must have.

At the end of the day, it's just a bad business decision. It makes no sense. In a world where printed news is growing smaller by the year, the Missoulian decides to accelerate that process by printing garbage. Unbelievable and unacceptable.

I find it hard to believe that news outlets all across the US got the "preponderance of evidence" correct, but the local news outlet, the Missoulian, somehow still managed to botch it. :roll:

Exactly. They just don't do the dilligence on this stuff. I find the Missoulian Newspaper to be very Missoulian in that some, but not all, of the people living there are stuck in some sort of malaise waiting for the hard work to be done. The Missoulian doesn't do the hard work. They just sit around, make stuff up, and then don't say squat when they are called out on it.

The best part is... look at how many news outlets correctly reported it, & how much information comes up when I run a quick Google search: http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&t...73,d.cGE&fp=b5d841bb1ab219dc&biw=1280&bih=923

 

[UMGriz75]

If anybody wrote these kinds of things any more, this whole event would make a good law review or journalism review article, similar to the Duke LaCrosse case, about how certain elements of the community made the "rush to judgment." The Nurse Examiner certainly came across that way. She was invested in this case and the finding of rape. The Missoulian reporter likewise has established a record of selective reporting that I have never seen before in the Missoulian.

This wasn't reporting, this was "expose'" writing, and she thought she had a big one. The hubris in the writing is not just both profound and disturbing, it represents the ultimate contamination of a jury pool with no regard for the ethical obligation that "hard news" used to claim for itself as a justification for its First Amendment protections. Then, when she was allowed to go after her critics in the "news columns" with the single most misleading and deceitful reporting I have ever seen, relying on "quotes" from the local YWCA director -- a sure authority on any of this, and who I am sure just wandered in the door one day with a bunch of spontaneous quotes -- it was then that the editorial collusion in this could be seen as pervasive.

It discredited the whole enterprise.

And they don't "get it."

There's no Martin Hutchens or Ed Coyle anymore at the Missoulian standing there demanding, "what in the hell are you doing?"

 

[grizbrokebacker1]

I'm just going to say it. This case is nothing more than a case of shameful remorse. Kinda like PR's hand feels after a full 8 seconds.

 

[stubbins]

It was pretty amusing to see him testify very clearly that the accuser had never lied to him, and then for it be pointed out to him that she had lied to him after having to study the night she was with Johnson.

As I noted that day, this was the weird take-away for the jury from that last witness for the day; how this sweet kid, still holding a flame, claiming she "would never lie to him," inadvertently exposed her as this truly ruthless and manipulative creature, using those closest to her for her own conveniences and selfish pleasures, because she did lie, and directly to him, and it was all about JJ, but then running back to her "support group" when things "didn't work out," looking for sympathy.

He did more damage to her in court than she did.

And it was obvious that, somehow, she never did disclose during all of this that she ditched him because of her date with JJ, and for some reason, he never figured it out until Paoli asked him the question.

And then, Bink describes the whole ordeal as well, "now it's her show!"

A poor choice of words, no doubt, but that of course is exactly what the Defense is claiming.

Was he a Prosecution witness ... or a Defense witness?

Did he really say it with an exclamation point? The distinction there is important, as you know.

So, you're saying that PT's own personal knowledge of Bink is less reliable than your perception of Bink? Good one.

No, he's saying that PT's personal knowledge of Bink has nothing to do with how Bink portrayed himself in front of the jury...this can't be that hard for you.

also, I hope PT is not from Bink's hometown, because then I probably know the little fucker...

 

[Jerry Punch]

If anybody wrote these kinds of things any more, this whole event would make a good law review or journalism review article, similar to the Duke LaCrosse case, about how certain elements of the community made the "rush to judgment." The Nurse Examiner certainly came across that way. She was invested in this case and the finding of rape. The Missoulian reporter likewise has established a record of selective reporting that I have never seen before in the Missoulian.

This wasn't reporting, this was "expose'" writing, and she thought she had a big one. The hubris in the writing is not just both profound and disturbing, it represents the ultimate contamination of a jury pool with no regard for the ethical obligation that "hard news" used to claim for itself as a justification for its First Amendment protections. Then, when she was allowed to go after her critics in the "news columns" with the single most misleading and deceitful reporting I have ever seen, relying on "quotes" from the local YWCA director -- a sure authority on any of this -- it was then that the editorial collusion in could be seen as pervasive.

It discredited the whole enterprise.

And they don't "get it."

There's no Martin Hutchens or Ed Coyle anymore at the Missoulian standing there demanding, "what in the hell are you doing?"

No, they don't. But - I wanted to know: Did Bink really say "This is her show!" with an exclamation point? Or was that you projecting again?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Are they doing the live twitter thing today?

 

[GrizMusician]

If anybody wrote these kinds of things any more, this whole event would make a good law review or journalism review article, similar to the Duke LaCrosse case, about how certain elements of the community made the "rush to judgment." The Nurse Examiner certainly came across that way. She was invested in this case and the finding of rape. The Missoulian reporter likewise has established a record of selective reporting that I have never seen before in the Missoulian.

This wasn't reporting, this was "expose'" writing, and she thought she had a big one. The hubris in the writing is not just both profound and disturbing, it represents the ultimate contamination of a jury pool with no regard for the ethical obligation that "hard news" used to claim for itself as a justification for its First Amendment protections. Then, when she was allowed to go after her critics in the "news columns" with the single most misleading and deceitful reporting I have ever seen, relying on "quotes" from the local YWCA director -- a sure authority on any of this -- it was then that the editorial collusion in could be seen as pervasive.

It discredited the whole enterprise.

And they don't "get it."

There's no Martin Hutchens or Ed Coyle anymore at the Missoulian standing there demanding, "what in the hell are you doing?"

No, they don't. But - I wanted to know: Did Bink really say "This is her show!" with an exclamation point? Or was that you projecting again?

Erik Anderson ‏@ErikCAnderson
Bink has described himself as being her support system because this is"her show and it remains her show." #JohnsonTrial
Followed by Gwen Florio and 1 other
Collapse Reply Retweet Favorite More
3:46 p.m. - Feb 15, 2013 · Details

 

[GrizMusician]

Are they doing the live twitter thing today?

Yup!

https://twitter.com/search/realtime?q=%23JohnsonTrial&src=hash" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Jerry Punch]

If anybody wrote these kinds of things any more, this whole event would make a good law review or journalism review article, similar to the Duke LaCrosse case, about how certain elements of the community made the "rush to judgment." The Nurse Examiner certainly came across that way. She was invested in this case and the finding of rape. The Missoulian reporter likewise has established a record of selective reporting that I have never seen before in the Missoulian.

This wasn't reporting, this was "expose'" writing, and she thought she had a big one. The hubris in the writing is not just both profound and disturbing, it represents the ultimate contamination of a jury pool with no regard for the ethical obligation that "hard news" used to claim for itself as a justification for its First Amendment protections. Then, when she was allowed to go after her critics in the "news columns" with the single most misleading and deceitful reporting I have ever seen, relying on "quotes" from the local YWCA director -- a sure authority on any of this -- it was then that the editorial collusion in could be seen as pervasive.

It discredited the whole enterprise.

And they don't "get it."

There's no Martin Hutchens or Ed Coyle anymore at the Missoulian standing there demanding, "what in the hell are you doing?"

No, they don't. But - I wanted to know: Did Bink really say "This is her show!" with an exclamation point? Or was that you projecting again?

Erik Anderson ‏@ErikCAnderson
Bink has described himself as being her support system because this is"her show and it remains her show." #JohnsonTrial
Followed by Gwen Florio and 1 other
Collapse Reply Retweet Favorite More
3:46 p.m. - Feb 15, 2013 · Details

No, I got the quote, but I was wondering if he said it with exclamation as UMGriz75 repeated in his post. I think it adds a totally different tone to his testimony if he said "This is her show!" as opposed to "This is her show."

I agree that it is a complete show. But I'm not so certain that Bink was as excited about it as UMGriz said he was.