There was a case a few years ago when a male was arrest and sentenced to two or three years in prison for having sex with a minor. Now on the surface you would think why the hell did he not get more years than that or why is he even out. He served his time but will be listed as a child molester for the rest of his life. Now the truth is the minor went into a bar got drunk hooked up with this guy and they got busy. She was 16 but looked 20+ and of course was in a bar being served so you would assume as he believed she was an adult, turn out that was not the case but his life is pretty much over being labeled a child sex offender. What does this have to do with this case?, it takes two to tango and not everyone is telling the truth, but on the surface everyone is quick to blame the guy. I thought it use to be "innocent until proven guilty", not guilty until proven innocent. Her statements and actions just don't add up. Is JJ totally innocent, probably not but a rapist, no.
-
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
- Thread starter bluemarlin2
- Start date
mtgrizrule
Well-known member
grizare#1 said:
The last sentence was perfectly stated. :thumb:
[Insert cockeyed legal theory here regarding who is going to sue whom and for how much.]
UMGriz75
Well-known member
A full day of testimony by people that didn't seem to know much. I can't guess the effect on the Jury, although the Defense set some traps, to be sprung later.
The original source of most of this testimony is ... Doe.
There has to be some sympathy for Doe, although a fully public humiliation at the Forester's Ball in front of 1500 people certainly would affect most normal social people adversely. She had been made to look like a fool, in as public a setting as possible, by JJ. She really had gone off the deep end that evening, and I don't know of a girl/woman/Coed who would not have been thoroughly humiliated by that action which was entirely self-inflicted.
The Defense is already threading the testimony, "one way or the other, UM is not going to have a quarterback."
However, today, the Defense lit the fuse: Doe claimed she hadn't consumed any alcohol on her intake questionnaire. She's not going to look good when that is explored later: she lied to the Counselor about that. She didn't disclose the previous PTSD diagnosis on the intake questionnaire. The puzzler will be, when then offered the diagnosis, why she didn't tell the Counselor she had already been diagnosed with PTSD. That's the third "lack of candor" in this witnesses testimony on the part of Doe. As though "getting the diagnosis" would allow medical affirmation to others of the "rape." This witness opened up three problematic misinterpretations that the Defense will fully exploit in its case in chief, because they are all significant, go the issues of basic honesty, and support a trial theory of manipulation of people and records to obtain support for a given "narrative" that Doe was aggressively working to create.
This witness will be shown, ultimately, to have practically speaking bought Doe's version of the Brooklyn Bridge, and was manipulated up one side and down the other, and this testimony, these admissions, will come out in Doe's own words. And that will be devastating if the Jury is beginning to view Doe as manipulative, because that will be clear and indisputable evidence that she was.
The PTSD diagnosis itself will be argued on closing as "odd" in the second place because at the time it was made, the Counselor's technical qualifications were limited to a degree in Asian Studies. It wasn't clear without seeing some of the records placed in evidence, but the Counselor may have missed the prior diagnosis in the school records by the sloppy procedure of not reviewing them.
Directly, however once again the Jury completed the day with another odd take on Doe left ringing in its ears, one that may have undone the whole day for the State:
"Paoli: You would expect her to avoid clothes she wore that night?
"DC: Yeah.
"Paoli: She wore them for months."
The original source of most of this testimony is ... Doe.
There has to be some sympathy for Doe, although a fully public humiliation at the Forester's Ball in front of 1500 people certainly would affect most normal social people adversely. She had been made to look like a fool, in as public a setting as possible, by JJ. She really had gone off the deep end that evening, and I don't know of a girl/woman/Coed who would not have been thoroughly humiliated by that action which was entirely self-inflicted.
The Defense is already threading the testimony, "one way or the other, UM is not going to have a quarterback."
However, today, the Defense lit the fuse: Doe claimed she hadn't consumed any alcohol on her intake questionnaire. She's not going to look good when that is explored later: she lied to the Counselor about that. She didn't disclose the previous PTSD diagnosis on the intake questionnaire. The puzzler will be, when then offered the diagnosis, why she didn't tell the Counselor she had already been diagnosed with PTSD. That's the third "lack of candor" in this witnesses testimony on the part of Doe. As though "getting the diagnosis" would allow medical affirmation to others of the "rape." This witness opened up three problematic misinterpretations that the Defense will fully exploit in its case in chief, because they are all significant, go the issues of basic honesty, and support a trial theory of manipulation of people and records to obtain support for a given "narrative" that Doe was aggressively working to create.
This witness will be shown, ultimately, to have practically speaking bought Doe's version of the Brooklyn Bridge, and was manipulated up one side and down the other, and this testimony, these admissions, will come out in Doe's own words. And that will be devastating if the Jury is beginning to view Doe as manipulative, because that will be clear and indisputable evidence that she was.
The PTSD diagnosis itself will be argued on closing as "odd" in the second place because at the time it was made, the Counselor's technical qualifications were limited to a degree in Asian Studies. It wasn't clear without seeing some of the records placed in evidence, but the Counselor may have missed the prior diagnosis in the school records by the sloppy procedure of not reviewing them.
Directly, however once again the Jury completed the day with another odd take on Doe left ringing in its ears, one that may have undone the whole day for the State:
"Paoli: You would expect her to avoid clothes she wore that night?
"DC: Yeah.
"Paoli: She wore them for months."
I find it interesting that almost none, and perhaps none, of these support people and witnesses, actually know what occurred that night (even as told by the accuser at trial). Some know virtually nothing about what happened. I believe Dean Morin knew only of some kissing, but nothing about taking off clothes, fondling the crotch, grinding, what was said, etc. They weren't aware of the various texts (until long after they had been supporting the accuser as a victim). They weren't aware until more recently of various lies and omissions of the accuser, some of which are quite significant (the fist in the vagina told to the examining nurse). These people have taken at face value what the accuser told them, i.e. that she was raped, and now they are testifying at trial.
Most of their testimony is about how upset the accuser was and has been and how her behavior has changed. Other than confirming that the accuser says she was raped and has been very emotional at times, none of this is really relevant to what occurred in the bedroom, what was said when, and what message the accused was given. I don't think anyone is disputing that the accuser has said she was raped, and was and is upset. Perhaps this testimony will have a big influence on the jury, and win the day for the prosecution. I have some concerns in that regard. However, the most important issues, in my view, are what occurred in the bedroom (as well as the forensic evidence) and what message was communicated to the accused (did the accuser encourage the accused, go along with and even cooperate with the sex, fail to effectively communicate anything to the contrary, and allow her actions to trump any verbal communication that she really didn't want to have sex; I wonder if this is a "no, slight no, yes (by action), yes (by action)" situation, followed by regret. Most of the other testimony is background and context, although perhaps powerful at times. However, again, maybe the parade of counselors, nurses, deans and friends--often describing volumes of tears--will be what the jury focuses on. I suppose the jury may look at the simple case, i.e. she says she was raped, she told alot of people, she has cried alot and her behavior has changed, why would she lie about all this, guilty. To do this, the jury would have to overlook or ignore scores of holes in the case and multiple lies, omissions and odd behavior by the accuser, as well as what I assume will be the accused's exculpatory testimony. God help "man"kind, if every odd behavior, lie and omission of an accuser is to be excused by an expert saying victims do odd things. If the accused or the defense provides a reason for the accuser to have turned on the accused right away, in addition to what is already known (e.g., what happened at the ball), I would think this would have an influence on the jury.
I agree with most of the views regarding the many holes and problems in the case. The prosecution's case has a huge number of holes and problems. Paoli/Pabst are doing a very good job on cross examination to undercut the witnesses and their testimony on direct. However, I wonder if the jury is seeing or focusing on those things. By the way, my concerns about the jury are general, and are not the result of looking at them or trying to read any of their reactions. It will be interesting to learn what the defense has to say.
Most of their testimony is about how upset the accuser was and has been and how her behavior has changed. Other than confirming that the accuser says she was raped and has been very emotional at times, none of this is really relevant to what occurred in the bedroom, what was said when, and what message the accused was given. I don't think anyone is disputing that the accuser has said she was raped, and was and is upset. Perhaps this testimony will have a big influence on the jury, and win the day for the prosecution. I have some concerns in that regard. However, the most important issues, in my view, are what occurred in the bedroom (as well as the forensic evidence) and what message was communicated to the accused (did the accuser encourage the accused, go along with and even cooperate with the sex, fail to effectively communicate anything to the contrary, and allow her actions to trump any verbal communication that she really didn't want to have sex; I wonder if this is a "no, slight no, yes (by action), yes (by action)" situation, followed by regret. Most of the other testimony is background and context, although perhaps powerful at times. However, again, maybe the parade of counselors, nurses, deans and friends--often describing volumes of tears--will be what the jury focuses on. I suppose the jury may look at the simple case, i.e. she says she was raped, she told alot of people, she has cried alot and her behavior has changed, why would she lie about all this, guilty. To do this, the jury would have to overlook or ignore scores of holes in the case and multiple lies, omissions and odd behavior by the accuser, as well as what I assume will be the accused's exculpatory testimony. God help "man"kind, if every odd behavior, lie and omission of an accuser is to be excused by an expert saying victims do odd things. If the accused or the defense provides a reason for the accuser to have turned on the accused right away, in addition to what is already known (e.g., what happened at the ball), I would think this would have an influence on the jury.
I agree with most of the views regarding the many holes and problems in the case. The prosecution's case has a huge number of holes and problems. Paoli/Pabst are doing a very good job on cross examination to undercut the witnesses and their testimony on direct. However, I wonder if the jury is seeing or focusing on those things. By the way, my concerns about the jury are general, and are not the result of looking at them or trying to read any of their reactions. It will be interesting to learn what the defense has to say.
Ossie Ardiles
Member
4 minutes to Wapner
PlayerRep said:
Actually the PI looks to me like a nice bit of intimidation and harassment, just another way for JJ to say to the girl, "if you are going to press this I have the money to investigate everything about you, we will talk to all of your friends and family and run your name through the mud"
Cats2506 said:
I definitely did not understand why Jane Doe filed the TRO before that bit of information came out. Now it makes a lot of sense.
Ossie Ardiles said:
Ha ha!!
Yeah.....yeah
tampa_griz
Well-known member
Cats2506 said:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Grizbeer
Well-known member
PlayerRep said:
UMGriz75 said:
My take on the parade of witnesses that all say virtually the same thing is they also say is that Doe either never mentioned Johnson's name, or only rarely, trying to establish that she wasn't obsessed with JJ, and this isn't revenge. I imagine that might have the most impact on the jury, although it cuts both ways because they also say she wasn't attention seeking, but the more people you bring to the stand the more it looks like she was attention seeking.
One thing I don't understand is why the defense is so fixated on whether she is responsible for getting O'Day and Pflugrad fired, or happy they were fired, and why the prosecution fights so hard to refute this. Assuming she was raped by Johnson, and Pflugrad and O'day put him back on the team, combined with Pflugrad's statement about Johnson's character, wouldn't it strengthen her case to admit she wanted these guys who supported a rapist over a rape victim fired? And how does it help the defense to keep bringing it up with every witness? Obviously a legal strategy that is over my head.
Hiring a PI is a defensive tactic, and if you sense legal trouble coming, especially a sexually based offense then you are wise to seek legal counsel immediately.
We are living in the age of societal bias in favor of the accuser, where a charge made is a charge recorded and the burden of proof resting with the accused to prove innocence in all things sexual nowadays. Anyone who stands a chance to be convicted of a sexually based offense that will follow them for the rest of their lives and doesn't take any and all defensive action is a fool.
We are living in the age of societal bias in favor of the accuser, where a charge made is a charge recorded and the burden of proof resting with the accused to prove innocence in all things sexual nowadays. Anyone who stands a chance to be convicted of a sexually based offense that will follow them for the rest of their lives and doesn't take any and all defensive action is a fool.
Probably will get lost in the shuffle here but Keila Szpaller's Cops and Courts article that they put up last night was pretty interesting to read.
http://missoularedtape.com/2013/02/20/more-observations-from-missoula-county-district-court/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://missoularedtape.com/2013/02/20/more-observations-from-missoula-county-district-court/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
mtgrizrule said:
I can't imagine that Mr. O'Day or Mr. Pflugrad have any course of action against UM. I'm pretty sure the University lived up to it's obligations under their contracts. The U had no obligation to renew these contracts, thus I can't imagine how Mr. O'Day of Mr. Pflugrad could sue.
