JJ Trial

[JBS]

Is this ever going to end? How many days have they taken off? And they stop at four thirty after an hour and a half lunch. And then yesterday seemed to be a bunch of testimony about who had the biggest tear. This could be expedited a little, I would think.

 

[tnt]

I guess we'll see tomorrow what, if anything, the prosecution is trying to show with the video.

I mean, so far it doesn't seem like there's been anything in it that hurts JJ's testimony. :?

There hasn't been any testimony from JJ, and its not likley there will be.

 

[grizfnz]

I thought that he had used a condom. He said in the video that he did not. I was under the impression that she helped him put it on. Did I read that right?

Pretty sure, based in what I've read, they only discussed a condom. I think both have said they didn't use one.

Better go back to the testimony of witness AB. She said Jane doe told her a condom was used.



RT @missoulian: AB, reading from transcript: I remember asking did he wear a condom, and she said yes. #johnsontrial

from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

 

[uofmman1122]

I guess we'll see tomorrow what, if anything, the prosecution is trying to show with the video.

I mean, so far it doesn't seem like there's been anything in it that hurts JJ's testimony. :?

There hasn't been any testimony from JJ, and its not likley there will be.

Sorry.

JJ's account.

 

[go4two]

I guess we'll see tomorrow what, if anything, the prosecution is trying to show with the video.

I mean, so far it doesn't seem like there's been anything in it that hurts JJ's testimony. :?

There hasn't been any testimony from JJ, and its not likley there will be.

Agree. This is in effect, JJ's testimony. The prosecution's case is weak at best, and the defense has raised multiple instances of reasonable doubt. Unless JJ admits on this video that he did in fact rape Jan Doe, the prosecution is in BIG trouble.

 

[Grizlaw]

So here is his problem, when/if he gets on the stand he either has to maintain that she NEVER said no, which seems to contradict what his lawyer has agreed to OR he admits that she did say no in a playful voice which contradicts his interview with the police and reduces his credibility.

Just to clarify one point - the accuser testified that she said "no," and on cross-examination, she admitted that she said it in a "playful, baby voice." That does NOT mean that JJ's lawyer has "agreed to" that version of events; it just means that he understands it to be the accuser's version of the story, and he wanted to make sure it was presented correctly.

If JJ testifies, he may testify that he does not recall her saying "no" at all, or he may testify that she said "no" in a playful, flirtatious way, and that based on her tone and other actions, he did not believe she meant it. Either way, I'm sure his lawyers will explain in their closing arguments that it is not unusual for two people to have differing perceptions or recollections of an event.

 

[JBS]

Paoli is a pretty good lawyer.

 

[EverettGriz]

Ok so reading the twitter posts, I seem something that looks to be a real problem for JJ's credibility.

He states that she NEVER said no, he would have stopped if she had.

Yet the accuser says that she did, the defense says it is is a baby voice and seems to acknowledge that she did say NO and accuser agrees that is was in a baby voice.

So here is his problem, when/if he gets on the stand he either has to maintain that she NEVER said no, which seems to contradict what his lawyer has agreed to OR he admits that she did say no in a playful voice which contradicts his interview with the police and reduces his credibility.

This whole tril will come down to the victims and JJ's credibility, that this could end up being a big deal for some jurors.

I disagree. The accuser has testified she said no only in a baby's voice. JJ could easily maintain he never heard her say "no" at all, and Paoli will remind the jury that the accuser herself claimed she did so only in a baby voice, so it's certainly plausible that JJ didn't hear it (or mistook it for an "ohh" or some other sex-sound).

 

[stubbins]

Ok so reading the twitter posts, I seem something that looks to be a real problem for JJ's credibility.

He states that she NEVER said no, he would have stopped if she had.

Yet the accuser says that she did, the defense says it is is a baby voice and seems to acknowledge that she did say NO and accuser agrees that is was in a baby voice.

So here is his problem, when/if he gets on the stand he either has to maintain that she NEVER said no, which seems to contradict what his lawyer has agreed to OR he admits that she did say no in a playful voice which contradicts his interview with the police and reduces his credibility.

This whole tril will come down to the victims and JJ's credibility, that this could end up being a big deal for some jurors.

or he never heard it, if it was said in a baby voice. I doubt he was making mental notes of everything that was said playfully. If she would've said no sternly and meant it...he would've remembered.

 

[Montanan]

Confusion /interpretation(s) abounds...

 

[UMGriz75]

2:14 PM
Twittermissoulian @missoulian
CB: Victim provided phone for entire download of its contents. Provided emails and fb posts too. She knew it would open her up to scrutiny

2:14 PM
TwitterEmily Adamson NBC MT @EmilyNBCMT
CB says woman was upset about downloading phone records. #JohnsonTrial
----------------------------------------------
The Missoulian certainly made it sound "somewhat different" than NBC did.

 

[Gaeilge1]

If that last tweet at 2:14 PM is accurate it's no wonder why she would be upset about the downloading of the text messages. From what has been made public they do not in and of themselves paint a very believable picture.

 

[griz4life]

Confusion /interpretation(s) abounds...

Earlier in the day Ashley Sanchez was tweeting that Collings' conceeded that "other" doctors did not diagnose Doe with PTSD. Even on her best day Collings is no doctor.

 

[sudavis]

Believe it has been asked earlier. Why would the prosecution show JJ's interview with MPD? I'm not a lawyer, the only thing I can come up with is something is there that the prosecution wants out. Other reasons????

 

[BWahlberg]

Believe it has been asked earlier. Why would the prosecution show JJ's interview with MPD? I'm not a lawyer, the only thing I can come up with is something is there that the prosecution wants out. Other reasons????

Two thoughts:

1. If they don't the defense will bring it up and HAMMER them on it. If the prosecution tried to not bring forth police officer interviews they would get killed in court by the defense over that.

2. But most importantly, we don't fully know yet why because they haven't finished. I assume we'll know pretty quickly tomorrow once the trial gets going again.

 

[grizzly95]

Believe it has been asked earlier. Why would the prosecution show JJ's interview with MPD? I'm not a lawyer, the only thing I can come up with is something is there that the prosecution wants out. Other reasons????

Maybe they are putting it out there just in case he doesn't testify. At least this way they have access to his story..
Just a thought.. I have no idea tho

 

[Cats2506]

Believe it has been asked earlier. Why would the prosecution show JJ's interview with MPD? I'm not a lawyer, the only thing I can come up with is something is there that the prosecution wants out. Other reasons????

One of the things thy might have wanted out was that 3/4 of the text convos between the woman and JJ were started by JJ. It looks more like he was pursuing her, rather than that she was infatuated with him.

Also that he denies that she ever said no (even in a baby voice) even though his lawyer seems to accept that she did.

Also the "this isn't fair to me and my family" statement.

Granted that I haven't seen this video and am only basing this on the media tweets, but today wants good for JJ IMO.

 

[JBS]

Does anyone know if her parents are going to testify for sure?

 

[grizfan95]

Believe it has been asked earlier. Why would the prosecution show JJ's interview with MPD? I'm not a lawyer, the only thing I can come up with is something is there that the prosecution wants out. Other reasons????

One of the things thy might have wanted out was that 3/4 of the text convos between the woman and JJ were started by JJ. It looks more like he was pursuing her, rather than that she was infatuated with him.

Also that he denies that she ever said no (even in a baby voice) even though his lawyer seems to accept that she did.

Also the "this isn't fair to me and my family" statement.

Granted that I haven't seen this video and am only basing this on the media tweets, but today wants good for JJ IMO.

Although I get your "no" statement point, I think the no the officers were asking him about was much different than playful banter. I think the officers' no implied resistance. And I really didn't think there was anything terrible for JJ today, within the context of a rape trial that is.

 

[JBS]

Believe it has been asked earlier. Why would the prosecution show JJ's interview with MPD? I'm not a lawyer, the only thing I can come up with is something is there that the prosecution wants out. Other reasons????

One of the things thy might have wanted out was that 3/4 of the text convos between the woman and JJ were started by JJ. It looks more like he was pursuing her, rather than that she was infatuated with him.

Also that he denies that she ever said no (even in a baby voice) even though his lawyer seems to accept that she did.

Also the "this isn't fair to me and my family" statement.

Granted that I haven't seen this video and am only basing this on the media tweets, but today wants good for JJ IMO.

You are an idiot. Today was a slam dunk for the defense.