• 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

Cats2506 said:
sudavis said:
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.

Well, to be more accurate, she said...

she-looked-at_zps46003805.jpg
 
BWahlberg said:
sudavis said:
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.

I think Brint makes good points, the Prosecution HAS to show this or they would get hammered, but I also think there is more to come.

I found it interesting that JJ said he had 4-5 beers because looking at this trial from an outside perspective, it seemed to come across that he had maybe 1 or 2, but he admits to having 4-5 in about 4 hours. Not really a big deal over the course of that time, but I'm pretty sure if he takes the stand, he will say he doesn't drink much and the prosecution will hammer in that 4-5 beers for someone who doesn't drink much could affect their judgement.

2506 does make some good points about the "playful no" as well, but its all how the jury takes it.
 
JBS said:
Cats2506 said:
sudavis said:
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.
yep, 2506 as useless as rubber lips on a woodpecker......
 
I haven't read the last several pages, but did they introduce that new evidence, and what was it?

Thanks to anybody who can answer.
 
Montanan said:
Cats2506 said:
sudavis said:
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.

Well, to be more accurate, she said...

she-looked-at_zps46003805.jpg

That is the police investigator, who also said that they reviewed all of the texts between JJ and the woman
 
JBS said:
Cats2506 said:
sudavis said:
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.

Well I am not looking at this through maroon lenses, and I agree that there are some issues with the whole narrative as presented by the prosecution, but today was the first look at JJ's credibility and he took some hits.

My feeling up to here is that this girl really feels she was raped, but that JJ was probably ok if he came across as credible and trustworthy. from my impression he did not do that based on todays interview. He drank 4-6 beers, called her up and thought she was DTF, he seems to be oblivious to her reactions and "thought she liked it" that way

as always I have the disclaimer that I am not there seeing it first hand and am just basing it off of the tweets
 
Cats2506 said:
JBS said:
Cats2506 said:
sudavis said:
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.

Well I am not looking at this through maroon lenses, and I agree that there are some issues with the whole narrative as presented by the prosecution, but today was the first look at JJ's credibility and he took some hits.

My feeling up to here is that this girl really feels she was raped, but that JJ was probably ok if he came across as credible and trustworthy. from my impression he did not do that based on todays interview. He drank 4-6 beers, called her up and thought she was DTF, he seems to be oblivious to her reactions and "thought she liked it" that way

as always I have the disclaimer that I am not there seeing it first hand and am just basing it off of the tweets

The prosecution's biggest hurdle coming into this case was going to be proving that JJ knowingly raped the accuser. I think today's session helped their case a little bit by showing that JJ initiated the majority of the texting and that he may have been impaired from alcohol. Not saying that he is Guilty at all, but the Prosecution did win some battles with this information today.
 
4 to 5 beers in 5 hours, at his age, weight, and being in good shape? That would not impact him, or anyone I know that much. Mix in some shots/hard alcohol and then you have me thinking it is possible.

Plus his making arrangements for a ride shows he was being responsible in clear mind. Also, why would any guy call the woman for a ride, if plans were to sexually assault her? Would it not make more sense to have your own get away?
 
grizchamp said:
BigDaddy said:
PM me if you want Jane Doe's name. Time to level the playing field!
C'mon man. Don't go down this road.

Come on show some class would you, no need to put this girl or JJ through more. Enough is enough. I wish them well no matter the outcome. This a sad mistake by 2 young adults.
 
BigDaddy said:
Mod Edit: I've been banned because I wanted to post the accusers name.

Not cool. Many of us know who she is but it would be shitty to discuss that on this forum with these morons (you know who you are). I though JJ came off a bit worse today; he may in fact be a jerk. That said, if I were on the jury no way could I convict him of a crime based on what we have seen so far. I think Paoli would be wise not to play up the "Psycho groupie" or "scorned woman" any more. It just seems to boil down to she really helped get things going and it is reasonable to just argue that JJ expected sex and was encouraged the whole way. Maybe not a gentleman, but not a crime it appears.
 
I may be wrong, but I haven't read anything where Paoli has conceded that she said "no" even in a baby voice. He was asking the questions from Doe, not answering them. Please show the proof of this cats666?
 
Cats2506 said:
JBS said:
Cats2506 said:
sudavis said:
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.

Well I am not looking at this through maroon lenses, and I agree that there are some issues with the whole narrative as presented by the prosecution, but today was the first look at JJ's credibility and he took some hits.

My feeling up to here is that this girl really feels she was raped, but that JJ was probably ok if he came across as credible and trustworthy. from my impression he did not do that based on todays interview. He drank 4-6 beers, called her up and thought she was DTF, he seems to be oblivious to her reactions and "thought she liked it" that way

as always I have the disclaimer that I am not there seeing it first hand and am just basing it off of the tweets
Horseshit. If JJs credibility relies on his saying one or two beers instead of 4 or five beers our world is fucked. This woman has lied and changed her story at every turn. She has drug his name through the mud. The defense had kicked ass at every turn, and if the prosecution hasn't proved anything by now, they are done. Maroon colored glasses or not(which I admit to), this case is down to minutia and extremely fine points by lawyers, but the jury sees what they see, and hears what they hear. The defense will start their case soon and it will just get uglier and uglier for the prosecution. BTW, I have had 4 or 5 beers in the last hour, and I bet I could pass a breathelizer.
 
yellowstone60 said:
wbtfg said:
BigDaddy said:
PM me if you want Jane Doe's name. Time to level the playing field!

Stay classy, egriz.
exactly, what the hell does it really matter who she is ? the damage has been done.....
Maybe he believes he'd be doing a great service to the public by preventing anybody else from becoming the next defendant.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
 
Did the evidence really come out today that the alleged victim lied about her own counselor telling her that Jordan had "raped" other women. If I recall, the alleged victim had stated to friends that she was doing all of this for the others. So she makes up a lie about what her counselor told her for her to get attention and seem like someone who a martyr. And then did I actually read that the counselor admitted that in fact she never said anything of the sort. The counselor admitted that her own client made up a complex lie to gain attention. And that is classified as someone who has PTSD? Did I really read that today?

So of she is willing to lie about what she says her counselor told her in order to get attention like that of a martyr, how can this jury ever believe what she says. She is willing to lie about everyone in her life. This alleged victim is playing a very sick, sick game, in my opinion. This is just an incredible piece of evidence.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top