Judge won't give JJ all of accuser's texts.

[grzz]

While I am reasonably doubtful that the pervasive belief that there is a huge conspiracy afoot involving multiple agencies, judges, university officials, press personal, reagents, and local citizens to destroy the football program, is false, it is possible that the defenses attempt to involve every facet of the alleged victims life since she was 5 years old, could be an attempt to dissuade her resolve.

Would it bother you that Fred and Judge Townsend went to the same wedding in Europe? Would it cause doubt if you knew that Carol Williams was a friend of the accuser's mother? Would it cause doubt if you knew that the accuser's parents met with Royce immediately before he fired O'Day and Pflu? Would it bother you if Aronofsky and Couture were pressured to leave their positions after the way the conduct code hearing was conducted? Does it cause you any doubt, that JJ is still in school and on scholarship, despite the "expulsion order"? Does it make sense that all discovery has not been turned over to the defense and trial is rapidly approaching? If none of this causes you any doubt, then I don't think you understand the concepts of innocent until proven guilty, privacy, freedom, due process or conspiracy. :roll:

I guess I don't then. Fred and Karen worked together for Years, why wouldn't they have common friends? Karen and Pabst worked together for years as did Fred and Pabst. Can anyone think of a reason WHY Aronofsky and Couture shouldn't have been fired for any number of reasons. Like maybe certain Middle Eastern rapists leaving the country??? I can't imagine why the parents after Pflus public comments about JJ wouldn't have met with someone seeing as bombing the University was out of question. Carol Williams has lots of friends. Well maybe conspiracy, I do understand. You need better than this for a good one.

Again I ask why couldn't Pflu keep his damn mouth shut? Even he said he prolly would still have a job.

The thing that happens on this board and in the overall rumormill is one person makes a statement and then tells another, who tells another, and at the end it is treated as something closer to fact than rumor/opinion/conjecture.

I know I get in trouble with Player and others for pointing out that most of what we treat as fact here can't actually be traced to any known public facts, and instead I am told that if I want to disprove a rumor I can't just ask rational questions but the burden of proof falls on the question asker to have facts...which actually doesn't make sense. This leads to outrageous statements being accepted as fact in Griz Rumor World.

Anyway...I have no publicly written fact to back this up, however common sense and critical thinking supports this. Couture wasn't fired. He had been planning on retiring and told his boss (VP Student Affairs), the summer prior to all of this happening that last year would be his last. Would someone that the President fired be then asked to be part of the search committee for their successor AND paid to stay on board after said successor was hired for a month to train them?

Now that we have that out in the open, carry on the narrative that every single problem at the University is entirely 100% Engstrom's fault.

 

[tnt]

[ Well maybe conspiracy, I do understand. You need better than this for a good one.

Again I ask why couldn't Pflu keep his damn mouth shut? Even he said he prolly would still have a job.

A doubt none the less in the jurors minds. That's all is needed in a weak case.

As for Pflu's passionate and heartfelt comments, well I just can't understand why a coach would say that about a kid he's coached and known for a long time? Go figure...

In America, innocence is suppose to be presumed before guilt. Pflu did not know Jane Doe's moral fiber, but he did know JJ's. If given a chance, would Pflu take back his comments? I don't think so.

If he wouldn't, he'll never be a head coach again. In fact even if he would those comments whether right or wrong make him a wee bit dangerous hire. Saying what he said when he said was like pouring gasoline on a fire. They may have been passionate and heartfelt and totally correct, but they hurt the program he was in charge of. The fact that ther is an discussion about the advisability of those comments is proof. The fact they were included in another wis good article in Oregon is proof. If all it took to be a great HC was to coach well and NOT be a steward for your Employer, great at PR and with the press, it would be a much easier job.

 

[tnt]

Just was reading this was not just Pflu talking too much but part of an official press release from the Athletic department. All I can say is Wow.

 

[PlayerRep]

While I am reasonably doubtful that the pervasive belief that there is a huge conspiracy afoot involving multiple agencies, judges, university officials, press personal, reagents, and local citizens to destroy the football program, is false, it is possible that the defenses attempt to involve every facet of the alleged victims life since she was 5 years old, could be an attempt to dissuade her resolve.

Would it bother you that Fred and Judge Townsend went to the same wedding in Europe? Would it cause doubt if you knew that Carol Williams was a friend of the accuser's mother? Would it cause doubt if you knew that the accuser's parents met with Royce immediately before he fired O'Day and Pflu? Would it bother you if Aronofsky and Couture were pressured to leave their positions after the way the conduct code hearing was conducted? Does it cause you any doubt, that JJ is still in school and on scholarship, despite the "expulsion order"? Does it make sense that all discovery has not been turned over to the defense and trial is rapidly approaching? If none of this causes you any doubt, then I don't think you understand the concepts of innocent until proven guilty, privacy, freedom, due process or conspiracy. :roll:

I guess I don't then. Fred and Karen worked together for Years, why wouldn't they have common friends? Karen and Pabst worked together for years as did Fred and Pabst. Can anyone think of a reason WHY Aronofsky and Couture shouldn't have been fired for any number of reasons. Like maybe certain Middle Eastern rapists leaving the country??? I can't imagine why the parents after Pflus public comments about JJ wouldn't have met with someone seeing as bombing the University was out of question. Carol Williams has lots of friends. Well maybe conspiracy, I do understand. You need better than this for a good one.

Again I ask why couldn't Pflu keep his damn mouth shut? Even he said he prolly would still have a job.

The thing that happens on this board and in the overall rumormill is one person makes a statement and then tells another, who tells another, and at the end it is treated as something closer to fact than rumor/opinion/conjecture.

I know I get in trouble with Player and others for pointing out that most of what we treat as fact here can't actually be traced to any known public facts, and instead I am told that if I want to disprove a rumor I can't just ask rational questions but the burden of proof falls on the question asker to have facts...which actually doesn't make sense. This leads to outrageous statements being accepted as fact in Griz Rumor World.

Anyway...I have no publicly written fact to back this up, however common sense and critical thinking supports this. Couture wasn't fired. He had been planning on retiring and told his boss (VP Student Affairs), the summer prior to all of this happening that last year would be his last. Would someone that the President fired be then asked to be part of the search committee for their successor AND paid to stay on board after said successor was hired for a month to train them?

Now that we have that out in the open, carry on the narrative that every single problem at the University is entirely 100% Engstrom's fault.

Yes, I agree that some/many rumors get passed around so much that they start to get treated as fact, and like you I sometimes ask what's the basis for certain posts. On the other hand, some rumors/facts are in fact true, or basically true, and sometimes I know who a poster is, or probably is, and know that they are likely to have good information. A certain post in this thread appears to have interesting and good information, and I know that that poster tends to have good information. What makes me chuckle sometimes is the number of posters that seem to assume that one one has any information, if they don't have the information.

 

[grzz]

Yes, I agree that some/many rumors get passed around so much that they start to get treated as fact, and like you I sometimes ask what's the basis for certain posts. On the other hand, some rumors/facts are in fact true, or basically true, and sometimes I know who a poster is, or probably is, and know that they are likely to have good information. A certain post in this thread appears to have interesting and good information, and I know that that poster tends to have good information. What makes me chuckle sometimes is the number of posters that seem to assume that one one has any information, if they don't have the information.

I don't disagree that sometimes there is good info and posters that know what they are talking about. However, it seems like it has become a crime to ask questions on the validity and if someone's dares to question a source, they are somehow taking the other side. For instance, someone in a thread could have a pretty good bit of information, but combined it with factually inaccurate information. It is possible for someone to point out what is incorrect without saying everything they said was wrong.

 

[PlayerRep]

Yes, I agree that some/many rumors get passed around so much that they start to get treated as fact, and like you I sometimes ask what's the basis for certain posts. On the other hand, some rumors/facts are in fact true, or basically true, and sometimes I know who a poster is, or probably is, and know that they are likely to have good information. A certain post in this thread appears to have interesting and good information, and I know that that poster tends to have good information. What makes me chuckle sometimes is the number of posters that seem to assume that one one has any information, if they don't have the information.

I don't disagree that sometimes there is good info and posters that know what they are talking about. However, it seems like it has become a crime to ask questions on the validity and if someone's dares to question a source, they are somehow taking the other side. For instance, someone in a thread could have a pretty good bit of information, but combined it with factually inaccurate information. It is possible for someone to point out what is incorrect without saying everything they said was wrong.

I pretty much agree with you. Information/statements should be questioned, at least sometimes, and I certainly believe it's fine to ask posters the basis for their statements and sometimes challenge them or the statements. Sometimes it isn't possible to say much about the basis, because that would or might give away the source (and there may not be permission from the source). However, if a poster has no information himself, then that poster ought to be a bit careful how he challenges the information. Some posters prove over time that they have good information, and I give deference to those posters. Anyway, that's my view.

 

[tnt]

While I am reasonably doubtful that the pervasive belief that there is a huge conspiracy afoot involving multiple agencies, judges, university officials, press personal, reagents, and local citizens to destroy the football program, is false, it is possible that the defenses attempt to involve every facet of the alleged victims life since she was 5 years old, could be an attempt to dissuade her resolve.

Would it bother you that Fred and Judge Townsend went to the same wedding in Europe? Would it cause doubt if you knew that Carol Williams was a friend of the accuser's mother? Would it cause doubt if you knew that the accuser's parents met with Royce immediately before he fired O'Day and Pflu? Would it bother you if Aronofsky and Couture were pressured to leave their positions after the way the conduct code hearing was conducted? Does it cause you any doubt, that JJ is still in school and on scholarship, despite the "expulsion order"? Does it make sense that all discovery has not been turned over to the defense and trial is rapidly approaching? If none of this causes you any doubt, then I don't think you understand the concepts of innocent until proven guilty, privacy, freedom, due process or conspiracy. :roll:

I guess I don't then. Fred and Karen worked together for Years, why wouldn't they have common friends? Karen and Pabst worked together for years as did Fred and Pabst. Can anyone think of a reason WHY Aronofsky and Couture shouldn't have been fired for any number of reasons. Like maybe certain Middle Eastern rapists leaving the country??? I can't imagine why the parents after Pflus public comments about JJ wouldn't have met with someone seeing as bombing the University was out of question. Carol Williams has lots of friends. Well maybe conspiracy, I do understand. You need better than this for a good one.

Again I ask why couldn't Pflu keep his damn mouth shut? Even he said he prolly would still have a job.

The thing that happens on this board and in the overall rumormill is one person makes a statement and then tells another, who tells another, and at the end it is treated as something closer to fact than rumor/opinion/conjecture.

I know I get in trouble with Player and others for pointing out that most of what we treat as fact here can't actually be traced to any known public facts, and instead I am told that if I want to disprove a rumor I can't just ask rational questions but the burden of proof falls on the question asker to have facts...which actually doesn't make sense. This leads to outrageous statements being accepted as fact in Griz Rumor World.

Anyway...I have no publicly written fact to back this up, however common sense and critical thinking supports this. Couture wasn't fired. He had been planning on retiring and told his boss (VP Student Affairs), the summer prior to all of this happening that last year would be his last. Would someone that the President fired be then asked to be part of the search committee for their successor AND paid to stay on board after said successor was hired for a month to train them?

Now that we have that out in the open, carry on the narrative that every single problem at the University is entirely 100% Engstrom's fault.

For the record I didn't say they were fired, doesn't mean their handling of things especially the middle eastern guy wasn't worthy of it. I have no knowledge of the honor committee dealings (I would assume Couture felt there was a problem, it was his job) and have no clue what happened in the appeals process.

 

[grzz]

I pretty much agree with you. Information/statements should be questioned, at least sometimes, and I certainly believe it's fine to ask posters the basis for their statements and sometimes challenge them or the statements. Sometimes it isn't possible to say much about the basis, because that would or might give away the source (and there may not be permission from the source). However, if a poster has no information himself, then that poster ought to be a bit careful how he challenges the information. Some posters prove over time that they have good information, and I give deference to those posters. Anyway, that's my view.

But one needs to be careful of determining a poster "has no information" because it can't just be that if a poster posts something contrary to what people want to be true, than they have no information. And this is a message board, I don't really think anyone needs to be careful of how they challenge information, that is kind of ridiculous. I think really what people need to do is be careful about believing anything posted on a message board as completely accurate and factual.

 

[PlayerRep]

I pretty much agree with you. Information/statements should be questioned, at least sometimes, and I certainly believe it's fine to ask posters the basis for their statements and sometimes challenge them or the statements. Sometimes it isn't possible to say much about the basis, because that would or might give away the source (and there may not be permission from the source). However, if a poster has no information himself, then that poster ought to be a bit careful how he challenges the information. Some posters prove over time that they have good information, and I give deference to those posters. Anyway, that's my view.

But one needs to be careful of determining a poster "has no information" because it can't just be that if a poster posts something contrary to what people want to be true, than they have no information. And this is a message board, I don't really think anyone needs to be careful of how they challenge information, that is kind of ridiculous. I think really what people need to do is be careful about believing anything posted on a message board as completely accurate and factual.

Yes, I agree with your first sentence, but it is often fairly clear that a poster doesn't have information, is a Cat poster stirring up trouble, is lying, is a troll, etc. It's free country and this is the internet, so yes anyone can do what they want, within reason. However, I still don't like people with no information, or appearing to have no information, challenging a post that appears to have good information, or when I know the poster has good information. There are a dozen or so posters, or more, who seem to consistently have good information. I agree with your last sentence. How's that, are you surprised that we actually agree more with this, than we disagree?

 

[AllWeatherFan]

There are a dozen or so posters, or more, who seem to consistently have good information.

No, there are not quite that many of us. :clap:

 

[mtgrizrule]

The reason most people don't reveal sources, accurate or not, is because they are no longer sources when they are revealed. They don't mind the information getting out there, but don't like being revealed. Those sources are often sworn to keep things private, or tell what one can or cannot make public here.

I know a few sources that read this site frequently. Let's take the good with the bad, and be thankful for whatever does turn out to be true.

 

[grizzpaw]

Is that what I did or was I just laughing at you. I doubt still anyone commenting has reviewed the texts meaning of course all the texts.

Forgive me if I continue to wonder why with all this inside information you and a few others have pointing to JJ's innocence, why a prosecutor with years of experience and his staff would go about humiliating themself, When the absolute proof of his innocence, that you have all seen is taken from the crooked judges hands and made public.

and someone in your line of work should know that this is a joke. they let a REAL RAPEST GO and they are trying to save face with this LIE from people like you and others. YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A LIAR :liar: :hater:

 

[grizzpaw]

While I am reasonably doubtful that the pervasive belief that there is a huge conspiracy afoot involving multiple agencies, judges, university officials, press personal, reagents, and local citizens to destroy the football program, is false, it is possible that the defenses attempt to involve every facet of the alleged victims life since she was 5 years old, could be an attempt to dissuade her resolve.

Would it bother you that Fred and Judge Townsend went to the same wedding in Europe? Would it cause doubt if you knew that Carol Williams was a friend of the accuser's mother? Would it cause doubt if you knew that the accuser's parents met with Royce immediately before he fired O'Day and Pflu? Would it bother you if Aronofsky and Couture were pressured to leave their positions after the way the conduct code hearing was conducted? Does it cause you any doubt, that JJ is still in school and on scholarship, despite the "expulsion order"? Does it make sense that all discovery has not been turned over to the defense and trial is rapidly approaching? If none of this causes you any doubt, then I don't think you understand the concepts of innocent until proven guilty, privacy, freedom, due process or conspiracy. :roll:

+1 :clap:

 

[tnt]

Is that what I did or was I just laughing at you. I doubt still anyone commenting has reviewed the texts meaning of course all the texts.

Forgive me if I continue to wonder why with all this inside information you and a few others have pointing to JJ's innocence, why a prosecutor with years of experience and his staff would go about humiliating themself, When the absolute proof of his innocence, that you have all seen is taken from the crooked judges hands and made public.

and someone in your line of work should know that this is a joke. they let a REAL RAPEST GO and they are trying to save face with this LIE from people like you and others. YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A LIAR :liar: :hater:

A little consistencey on your part might help you relax a bit. A girl accuses a foreign national and he is a real rapist (not charged and innocent until proven guilty???) A girl accusess the starting quarterback who's charged and shes a whore.

I'm willing to wait for the trial and assume there exists enough doubt that a jury is being asked to decide the matter.

 

[ranco]

A little consistencey on your part might help you relax a bit. A girl accuses a foreign national and he is a real rapist (not charged and innocent until proven guilty???) A girl accusess the starting quarterback who's charged and shes a whore.

I'm willing to wait for the trial and assume there exists enough doubt that a jury is being asked to decide the matter.

TNT, you are right, both are innocent until proven guilty, but even you are not too stupid to see the huge difference between the cases. One kid receives the heads up that he will be charged with rape, taking advantage of the notice, he immediately leaves the country. The second kid stays here in missoula, stays in class and chooses to confront his accuser by seeking his day in court. Obviously, the actions of an accused speak volumes. Here, one has moral integrity the other does not. As the one who fled the country will never be tried, you can reach your own conclusion as to whether you believe he is guilty. As to JJ, he will not be convicted.

 

[UMGriz75]

Is that what I did or was I just laughing at you. I doubt still anyone commenting has reviewed the texts meaning of course all the texts.

Forgive me if I continue to wonder why with all this inside information you and a few others have pointing to JJ's innocence, why a prosecutor with years of experience and his staff would go about humiliating themself, When the absolute proof of his innocence, that you have all seen is taken from the crooked judges hands and made public.

and someone in your line of work should know that this is a joke. they let a REAL RAPEST GO and they are trying to save face with this LIE from people like you and others. YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A LIAR :liar: :hater:

A little consistencey on your part might help you relax a bit. A girl accuses a foreign national and he is a real rapist (not charged and innocent until proven guilty???) A girl accusess the starting quarterback who's charged and shes a whore.

I'm willing to wait for the trial and assume there exists enough doubt that a jury is being asked to decide the matter.

No you're not.

A "little consistency" would be welcome, all right, but it's not coming from someone who repeatedly, on another thread, was quick to label JJ an "alcohol-fueled sexual predator."

 

[Jerry Punch]

While I am reasonably doubtful that the pervasive belief that there is a huge conspiracy afoot involving multiple agencies, judges, university officials, press personal, reagents, and local citizens to destroy the football program, is false, it is possible that the defenses attempt to involve every facet of the alleged victims life since she was 5 years old, could be an attempt to dissuade her resolve.

Would it bother you that Fred and Judge Townsend went to the same wedding in Europe? Would it cause doubt if you knew that Carol Williams was a friend of the accuser's mother? Would it cause doubt if you knew that the accuser's parents met with Royce immediately before he fired O'Day and Pflu? Would it bother you if Aronofsky and Couture were pressured to leave their positions after the way the conduct code hearing was conducted? Does it cause you any doubt, that JJ is still in school and on scholarship, despite the "expulsion order"? Does it make sense that all discovery has not been turned over to the defense and trial is rapidly approaching? If none of this causes you any doubt, then I don't think you understand the concepts of innocent until proven guilty, privacy, freedom, due process or conspiracy. :roll:

+1 :clap:

This need to identify the accuser on this board is sad and embarrassing for anybody who cares about potential victims. JJ got the shaft, there is NO DOUBT about that. There are many things working against him in this system that are uniquely unfair because UM is trying to make an example out of him. NOTHING about the campus due process affected whether or not Jordy committed the crime. It is impossible to assume that the University had the idea to shaft JJ before he even committed the alleged crime.

But why in the hell is any of this the accuser's fault? Certain posters have made it their goal to identify her, to make her feel uncomfortable, and JJ's attorney wishes to interrogate her Inquisition-style and be a jerk just as he has always been to almost every person he has ever been up against. It is sick and disgusting. These posters should be taking on UM, not this alleged victim. They had more to do with this becoming an insanely large issue than the victim ever did. UM created a problem. She did not.

 

[tnt]

Be careful how you report that buddy. I was refering to the materials and possible interpretations of them and why the evidence you were saying exhonerated him was also the very same info that was leading to his trial. I was also referring to Jane Does behavior that you said made her a liar was consistent with that of a victim. The fact that there is two sides, an upcoming trial, a lot of expert testimony may be disturbing to some of you BUT the fact remains the prosecution has a case to present and they have a lot more than he said she said, or they wouldn't do it.

Looking for an easy lay after a few drinks , by a guy who wasn't getting where he wanted with the girl he wanted but was willing to take advantage of the girl who was willing hoping for a relationship is predatory (not rape, maybe not illegal) and alcohol fueled.

 

[GrizPony]

While I am reasonably doubtful that the pervasive belief that there is a huge conspiracy afoot involving multiple agencies, judges, university officials, press personal, reagents, and local citizens to destroy the football program, is false, it is possible that the defenses attempt to involve every facet of the alleged victims life since she was 5 years old, could be an attempt to dissuade her resolve.

Would it bother you that Fred and Judge Townsend went to the same wedding in Europe? Would it cause doubt if you knew that Carol Williams was a friend of the accuser's mother? Would it cause doubt if you knew that the accuser's parents met with Royce immediately before he fired O'Day and Pflu? Would it bother you if Aronofsky and Couture were pressured to leave their positions after the way the conduct code hearing was conducted? Does it cause you any doubt, that JJ is still in school and on scholarship, despite the "expulsion order"? Does it make sense that all discovery has not been turned over to the defense and trial is rapidly approaching? If none of this causes you any doubt, then I don't think you understand the concepts of innocent until proven guilty, privacy, freedom, due process or conspiracy. :roll:

+1 :clap:

This need to identify the accuser on this board is sad and embarrassing for anybody who cares about potential victims. JJ got the shaft, there is NO DOUBT about that. There are many things working against him in this system that are uniquely unfair because UM is trying to make an example out of him. NOTHING about the campus due process affected whether or not Jordy committed the crime. It is impossible to assume that the University had the idea to shaft JJ before he even committed the alleged crime.

But why in the hell is any of this the accuser's fault? Certain posters have made it their goal to identify her, to make her feel uncomfortable, and JJ's attorney wishes to interrogate her Inquisition-style and be a jerk just as he has always been to almost every person he has ever been up against. It is sick and disgusting. These posters should be taking on UM, not this alleged victim. They had more to do with this becoming an insanely large issue than the victim ever did. UM created a problem. She did not.

There would be no charges, regardless of what the U does or did, without her. JJ has a right, under the Constitution, to confront his accuser. How is Paoli's request to interview her wrong? You say JJ "GOT THE SHAFT", but its not in to the root yet and he's trying to pull it out with the help of the Constitution. Are you American?

 

[GrizPony]

Be careful how you report that buddy. I was refering to the materials and possible interpretations of them and why the evidence you were saying exhonerated him was also the very same info that was leading to his trial. I was also referring to Jane Does behavior that you said made her a liar was consistent with that of a victim. The fact that there is two sides, an upcoming trial, a lot of expert testimony may be disturbing to some of you BUT the fact remains the prosecution has a case to present and they have a lot more than he said she said, or they wouldn't do it.

Looking for an easy lay after a few drinks , by a guy who wasn't getting where he wanted with the girl he wanted but was willing to take advantage of the girl who was willing hoping for a relationship is predatory (not rape, maybe not illegal) and alcohol fueled.

Who was hoping for the easy lay? Who initiated the texting? I thought you knew about some of the texts.