Krakaeur's book "Missoula" to be released April 21

[Grizo406]

If I spend any money on a book that's gonna' be released in April, it'll be for The Secrets We Keep, by Trisha Leavers.

Seems appropriate, don't ya' think?!!?

 

[PlayerRep]

@getgrizzy: Your "non-accusation accusation" is sickening. It is a twist on the tactic of "damn with faint praise". Oh yeah, you never said he was a rapist but you sure as heck never said he wasn't. You seem to want to believe that you know better than all of the processes that have been in place for hundreds of years to adjudicate guilt. Why can't you deal with two simple concepts "presumption of innocence" and "not guilty" is beyond me. Forget pretending you have inside knowledge and accept that justice was done and shut the hell up. Or show us the proof the prosecution missed. Anything else smacks of a sad attempt to simply be the center of attention.

Great post.

Her response will be a massive spin job, but you hammered the nail on the head.

Yes, nice post. To the point.

 

[getgrizzy]

@getgrizzy: Your "non-accusation accusation" is sickening. It is a twist on the tactic of "damn with faint praise". Oh yeah, you never said he was a rapist but you sure as heck never said he wasn't. You seem to want to believe that you know better than all of the processes that have been in place for hundreds of years to adjudicate guilt. Why can't you deal with two simple concepts "presumption of innocence" and "not guilty" is beyond me. Forget pretending you have inside knowledge and accept that justice was done and shut the hell up. Or show us the proof the prosecution missed. Anything else smacks of a sad attempt to simply be the center of attention.

Great post.

Her response will be a massive spin job, but you hammered the nail on the head.

why would anyone try to state something as fact either way when they know that they aren't sure.

 

[getgrizzy]

The only thing we know with 100% dead solid confidence about the whole 'JJ incident' is that JJ didn't commit rape. We know this because the jury told us so. Much of everything else is conjecture or opinion.

thanks for posting this. this is exactly what i'm talking about.

a jury once told us reuben carter was guilty, then years later said he wasn't guilty. was he therefore factually guilty for x years, and now factually not guilty? can someone be both guilty and not guilty of something? is that what you're saying.

 

[Counter Assault]

The only thing we know with 100% dead solid confidence about the whole 'JJ incident' is that JJ didn't commit rape. We know this because the jury told us so. Much of everything else is conjecture or opinion.

Uh, no. This is factually incorrect.

 

[mtgrizrule]

The only thing we know with 100% dead solid confidence about the whole 'JJ incident' is that JJ didn't commit rape. We know this because the jury told us so. Much of everything else is conjecture or opinion.

thanks for posting this. this is exactly what i'm talking about.

a jury once told us reuben carter was guilty, then years later said he wasn't guilty. was he therefore factually guilty for x years, and now factually not guilty? can someone be both guilty and not guilty of something? is that what you're saying.

Until time says otherwise, then yes "innocent until proven guilty".
Cases like the above example are a very small minority. As far as I am concerned, JJ is innocent based on what was presented to the public.

Would someone please show evidence of him being guilty even after being found not guilty?

 

[grizindabox]

18 pages



arty: ray: :shocker: :jack: :butt: :birth: :beer: :dance: :flash: :finger:

 

[grizcountry420]

 

[ranco]

GG is obviously just trolling. He was asked several times to come up with facts to support his positions. Yet, despite repeated requests, not a single fact. He states the jury verdict doesn't mean JJ was innocent. I say, look at the evidence the jury heard. Not a single person, with a functioning brain, hearing that evidence would think JJ was guilty of rape. Hell, the accusers own mom apparently did not think so. JJ is and was innocent. JJ student taught at Hellgate High School last semester. I have it from solid sources, my son, he is a great stand up guy. GG, quit trolling.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

JJ made 2 mistakes that night. First, he slept with a girl he didn't know well enough to know she was bat shit crazy. Her parents knew and didn't believe her. Her close friends knew her sand didn't believe her. His second mistake, he didn't sleep with her a second time after the sandwich. I'm sure GG knows all about validation.

#AG1isAG2ormore

 

[Grisly Fan]

@getgrizzy: Your "non-accusation accusation" is sickening. It is a twist on the tactic of "damn with faint praise". Oh yeah, you never said he was a rapist but you sure as heck never said he wasn't. You seem to want to believe that you know better than all of the processes that have been in place for hundreds of years to adjudicate guilt. Why can't you deal with two simple concepts "presumption of innocence" and "not guilty" is beyond me. Forget pretending you have inside knowledge and accept that justice was done and shut the hell up. Or show us the proof the prosecution missed. Anything else smacks of a sad attempt to simply be the center of attention.

Great post.

Her response will be a massive spin job, but you hammered the nail on the head.

why would anyone try to state something as fact either way when they know that they aren't sure.

By your reasoning: I don't know that you aren't a murderer so you might be one., right? There are several numerous unsolved in the world and I'd bet even in places where you live or have lived. Clearly you should be a suspect and law enforcement should reasonably crawl through your life. If it means you need to mortgage all you own to defend yourself then so be it. Wow, you live in a really crappy world.

 

[UMGriz75]

The fact is, certain people want to exploit a generic ambiguity in the criminal justice system to overcome the clear meaning of this trial, in this instance, with this athlete, for which anyone who listened to the trial testimony, including the jurors, knew exactly what the outcome meant. This is meant to support their inherent bias, and an apparent ongoing bitterness that an injustice was not committed.

 

[AZGrizFan]

This thread has more views than the actual book will get.

 

[getgrizzy]

The fact is, certain people want to exploit a generic ambiguity in the criminal justice system to overcome the clear meaning of this trial, in this instance, with this athlete, for which anyone who listened to the trial testimony, including the jurors, knew exactly what the outcome meant. This is meant to support their inherent bias, and an apparent ongoing bitterness that an injustice was not committed.

The trial means just as much to me as it does to you. I'm just as satisfied with the verdict as you or anyone is. Having served on a jury in a criminal trial I also have a good understanding of how verdicts are reached.

What I'm not satisfied with (and I've stated this numerous times) is the desire of some to use a verdict as a be-all, end-all that separates fact from opinion (be it strong or weak) and creates an absolute, undeniable truth. Once those people accept this quite simple certainty, I'll gladly move along.

Additionally, I've never said JJ should've been found guilty or that the girl didn't make a false accusation. All Ive ever done is be honest with myself and accept, as i do with anything that isn't proven, that I don't know for sure what happened.

 

[getgrizzy]

@getgrizzy: Your "non-accusation accusation" is sickening. It is a twist on the tactic of "damn with faint praise". Oh yeah, you never said he was a rapist but you sure as heck never said he wasn't. You seem to want to believe that you know better than all of the processes that have been in place for hundreds of years to adjudicate guilt. Why can't you deal with two simple concepts "presumption of innocence" and "not guilty" is beyond me. Forget pretending you have inside knowledge and accept that justice was done and shut the hell up. Or show us the proof the prosecution missed. Anything else smacks of a sad attempt to simply be the center of attention.

Great post.

Her response will be a massive spin job, but you hammered the nail on the head.

why would anyone try to state something as fact either way when they know that they aren't sure.

By your reasoning: I don't know that you aren't a murderer so you might be one., right? There are several numerous unsolved in the world and I'd bet even in places where you live or have lived. Clearly you should be a suspect and law enforcement should reasonably crawl through your life. If it means you need to mortgage all you own to defend yourself then so be it. Wow, you live in a really crappy world.

We can believe whatever we want, but believing it doesn't make it a reality. I think most people understand that.

 

[getgrizzy]

GG is obviously just trolling. He was asked several times to come up with facts to support his positions. Yet, despite repeated requests, not a single fact. He states the jury verdict doesn't mean JJ was innocent. I say, look at the evidence the jury heard. Not a single person, with a functioning brain, hearing that evidence would think JJ was guilty of rape. Hell, the accusers own mom apparently did not think so. JJ is and was innocent. JJ student taught at Hellgate High School last semester. I have it from solid sources, my son, he is a great stand up guy. GG, quit trolling.

I never had a position that said JJ was guilty. Please stop misrepresenting what I've said.

 

[Raider]

The fact is, certain people want to exploit a generic ambiguity in the criminal justice system to overcome the clear meaning of this trial, in this instance, with this athlete, for which anyone who listened to the trial testimony, including the jurors, knew exactly what the outcome meant. This is meant to support their inherent bias, and an apparent ongoing bitterness that an injustice was not committed.

The trial means just as much to me as it does to you. I'm just as satisfied with the verdict as you or anyone is. Having served on a jury in a criminal trial I also have a good understanding of how verdicts are reached.

What I'm not satisfied with (and I've stated this numerous times) is the desire of some to use a verdict as a be-all, end-all that separates fact from opinion (be it strong or weak) and creates an absolute, undeniable truth. Once those people accept this quite simple certainty, I'll gladly move along.
Additionally, I've never said JJ should've been found guilty or that the girl didn't make a false accusation. All Ive ever done is be honest with myself and accept, as i do with anything that isn't proven, that I don't know for sure what happened.

Let me see if I understand this:

If everyone on this board admits that we have no way of knowing for sure what happened between JJ and the accuser, you will drop the crusade and constant tirades about the legal troubles of the football team and FINALLY move on. Did I hear that correctly?

Or, will you simply drop the banter on this thread and move on another subject of player trouble that you can obsesses over?

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

No way this makes 31 pages...................

 

[getgrizzy]

The fact is, certain people want to exploit a generic ambiguity in the criminal justice system to overcome the clear meaning of this trial, in this instance, with this athlete, for which anyone who listened to the trial testimony, including the jurors, knew exactly what the outcome meant. This is meant to support their inherent bias, and an apparent ongoing bitterness that an injustice was not committed.

The trial means just as much to me as it does to you. I'm just as satisfied with the verdict as you or anyone is. Having served on a jury in a criminal trial I also have a good understanding of how verdicts are reached.

What I'm not satisfied with (and I've stated this numerous times) is the desire of some to use a verdict as a be-all, end-all that separates fact from opinion (be it strong or weak) and creates an absolute, undeniable truth. Once those people accept this quite simple certainty, I'll gladly move along.
Additionally, I've never said JJ should've been found guilty or that the girl didn't make a false accusation. All Ive ever done is be honest with myself and accept, as i do with anything that isn't proven, that I don't know for sure what happened.

Let me see if I understand this:

If everyone on this board admits that we have no way of knowing for sure what happened between JJ and the accuser, you will drop the crusade and constant tirades about the legal troubles of the football team and FINALLY move on. Did I hear that correctly?

Or, will you simply drop the banter on this thread and move on another subject of player trouble that you can obsesses over?

Pushing to the side your poor diplomatic skills, YES! I'd be ecstatic if everyone agreed with what I've been saying for nearly two years. I actually think everyone already does, but they can't bring themselves to admit it for whatever reasons. Nothing ive said is incorrect and it's very easy to understand. Which is, we only know what we know and we don't know what we don't know.

 

[tnt]

The book as I read the release notes is about the entire process in a small football town when something of this nature happens. I would guess 18 (or is it 19) pages several years later on a fan board indicates there was/is a quite a bit of community involvement and high running emotions.........

Pretty much confirms there was something to write about. Guess we'll have to wait until somebody actually reads the book to see what part he wrote about. I'd bet a dollar its isn't what a jury verdict means