Meloy striking out

[rimrockgriz]

That pretty well sums up Krakauer's angle on the "story," I would guess.

I too suspect the proposed book will be how a popular football player unfairly gets away with a crime. So if I were Jordan Johnson I'd be very cautious about signing any deal with the author. It's likely the project will be a hatchet job with JJ's neck on the other end of the axe.

I don't know how anyone could even argue that JJ got away with a crime at all--let alone because he was a popular football player. The better argument is that he was charged and pursued because he was a high profile football player. And the DOJ and others were putting heat on the county attorneys office.

I don't usually agree with PR very often but I agree 100% with him on this issue. In my opinion If it was anyone other than an athlete it wouldn't have even gone to trial.

+1... :egriz:

 

[getgrizzy]

I too suspect the proposed book will be how a popular football player unfairly gets away with a crime. So if I were Jordan Johnson I'd be very cautious about signing any deal with the author. It's likely the project will be a hatchet job with JJ's neck on the other end of the axe.

I don't know how anyone could even argue that JJ got away with a crime at all--let alone because he was a popular football player. The better argument is that he was charged and pursued because he was a high profile football player. And the DOJ and others were putting heat on the county attorneys office.

I don't usually agree with PR very often but I agree 100% with him on this issue. In my opinion If it was anyone other than an athlete it wouldn't have even gone to trial.

+1... :egriz:

-1
when someone has a rape kit conducted and has physical marks on her body that she claims are associated with the assault, then there's going to be a trial unless the accused can prove he was somewhere else at the time or the accuser drops the charge. there was plenty of evidence to go to trial here. many cases with less evidence than this have gone to trial.

the mere testimony of a victim can be enough for a charge and trial.

 

[Sportin' Life]

Leave it to you to jump into a thread without having read it, not understand what was being discussed and said, and make an ass of yourself.

As I said, if a claim were made, the plaintiff and his lawyer would argue/show the damages after discussing the liability/claim. Then, the university would have to "show" that there were no damages, or show that there wasn't a valid claim or liability. The civil procedure of a trial was not being discussed. What was being discussed was the claim and damages. Most claims are settled long before a trial. There are no civil procedure or rules to be followed in discussing settlement. Settlement can also occur before a lawsuit is filed.

Please don't tell us that you don't know these things. If any claim is filed and its going to trial, you can tell us all about civil procedure applicable to the trial. Please don't jump the gun on this, though. It gets in the way of the discussion some of us are trying to have.

Don't think any decent judge would prematurely dismiss a case with this strong view of a good federal court judge written in an order and presented to the court.

Um, no ... you were discussing the possible grounds for a lawsuit, and you were willfully ignoring the fact that it is a pretty high hurdle to show that there were real tangible damages. You are entirely misrepresenting what you said, and the way you said it, but you know that. You are just hoping that because you are well-known to be a lawyer that everyone will agree with your legal opinion about something, and the other lawyers on the board are usually sycophants that will look the other way anyways.

At any rate, don't let me derail you from your important fantasy conversation about .... where are you now -- the suit has been filed and (terrible) damages have been shown to exist and now we are negotiating a settlement, or are we answering a motion to dismiss -- oh right UM is struggling to prove that a person they didn't expel didn't suffer those terrible damages -- you move so quickly through the process that you can't blame us uneducated masses for not being able to keep up.

And about what Judge Christenson wrote -- at the time it seemed from the documents that he was looking at that there was every likelihood that Johnson would be expelled. His words telegraphed to UM -hey don't do this or you could get sued -- and UM listened. There just isn't much of a case.

 

[EverettGriz]

I agree with Sportin. It'll be a high hurdle for anyone to prove JJ was damaged through actions of the University -- yes, it's the plaintiff's responsibility to prove damages, not the other way around (PR, I hope you didn't attend UM Law).

I suppose one could file a suit against the accuser and argue damages, but even then they would be largely noneconomic in nature. And I seriously doubt anyone involved in the case has the stomach (or the gonads) to sue the accuser.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Sportin',

To be fair, a plaintiff need not "prove" actual damages, or any other element, in his complaint. It's usually not a high hurdle to plead that one suffered actual damages. In a some cases, it might not even be that high a hurdle to identify a triable issue as to whether there were actual damages. The ball would be on the right side of the 50 at that point re: settlement. But, as you point out and anyone should know, it is the plaintiffs' burden to prove damages at trial.

These are general statements not meant relate to any JJ situation whatsoever (largely because I have no idea of the facts of any JJ situation other than he plays QB and had better beat Shoota this year).

 

[horribilisfan8184]

PR knows what the federal judge said in those proceedings is neither relevant nor admissible in any subsequent lawsuit. What he's implying is that what the judge said should let the U know that civil rights violations are likely to be found in subsequent proceedings when considering how to proceed if faced with such a claim (settle or fight). And if PR knew civil rights law he would tell you that the mere deprivation of a constitutionally protected or other federally protected right in and of itself establishes both injury and damages. See, e.g. 466 F. Supp. 177, 181.

 

[signedbewildered]

PR said...."I don't know how anyone could even argue that JJ got away with a crime at all--let alone because he was a popular football player."

Haaaa!!!! Florio has had communication/connections for years with both Krakauer and Meloy. I think that says it all.

 

[PlayerRep]

I don't know how anyone could even argue that JJ got away with a crime at all--let alone because he was a popular football player. The better argument is that he was charged and pursued because he was a high profile football player. And the DOJ and others were putting heat on the county attorneys office.

I don't usually agree with PR very often but I agree 100% with him on this issue. In my opinion If it was anyone other than an athlete it wouldn't have even gone to trial.

+1... :egriz:

-1
when someone has a rape kit conducted and has physical marks on her body that she claims are associated with the assault, then there's going to be a trial unless the accused can prove he was somewhere else at the time or the accuser drops the charge. there was plenty of evidence to go to trial here. many cases with less evidence than this have gone to trial.

the mere testimony of a victim can be enough for a charge and trial.

Nope, you are wrong and inaccurate again. The rape kit didn't show anything inconsistent with normal sex. At trial, the defense experts testified how the rape kit nurse had done the exam incorrectly, and could have caused one minor nick during the exam. The accuser also admitted that she blatantly lied during the rape kit exam.

 

[getgrizzy]

I don't usually agree with PR very often but I agree 100% with him on this issue. In my opinion If it was anyone other than an athlete it wouldn't have even gone to trial.

+1... :egriz:

-1
when someone has a rape kit conducted and has physical marks on her body that she claims are associated with the assault, then there's going to be a trial unless the accused can prove he was somewhere else at the time or the accuser drops the charge. there was plenty of evidence to go to trial here. many cases with less evidence than this have gone to trial.

the mere testimony of a victim can be enough for a charge and trial.

Nope, you are wrong and inaccurate again. The rape kit didn't show anything inconsistent with normal sex. At trial, the defense experts testified how the rape kit nurse had done the exam incorrectly, and could have caused one minor nick during the exam. The accuser also admitted that she blatantly lied during the rape kit exam.

did you even bother to read the previous posts? your lack of attention to detail explains why you were practicing law in great falls despite hold an ivy league diploma.

she did, in fact, have a rape kit administered. she did, in fact, have marks on her body (bruised forearms and marks on her abdomen). she did, in fact, make the accusation not only to the police but several other people. those facts left the c.a. little choice but to proceed to trial. anyone saying the case never should've gone to trial is point blank talking out their ass.

 

[ranco]

I don't know how anyone could even argue that JJ got away with a crime at all--let alone because he was a popular football player. The better argument is that he was charged and pursued because he was a high profile football player. And the DOJ and others were putting heat on the county attorneys office.

I don't usually agree with PR very often but I agree 100% with him on this issue. In my opinion If it was anyone other than an athlete it wouldn't have even gone to trial.

+1... :egriz:

-1
when someone has a rape kit conducted and has physical marks on her body that she claims are associated with the assault, then there's going to be a trial unless the accused can prove he was somewhere else at the time or the accuser drops the charge. there was plenty of evidence to go to trial here. many cases with less evidence than this have gone to trial.

the mere testimony of a victim can be enough for a charge and trial.

you are right only to the extent there was enough evidence to go to trial, since the judge so rule. However, the case just as easily could have been dismissed and, more importantly, no reasonable prosecutor would have ever pursued the case on that evidence, unless of course the prosecutor was being forced to pursue it. The decision to prosecute the case was a travesty.

 

[getgrizzy]

I don't usually agree with PR very often but I agree 100% with him on this issue. In my opinion If it was anyone other than an athlete it wouldn't have even gone to trial.

+1... :egriz:

-1
when someone has a rape kit conducted and has physical marks on her body that she claims are associated with the assault, then there's going to be a trial unless the accused can prove he was somewhere else at the time or the accuser drops the charge. there was plenty of evidence to go to trial here. many cases with less evidence than this have gone to trial.

the mere testimony of a victim can be enough for a charge and trial.

you are right only to the extent there was enough evidence to go to trial, since the judge so rule. However, the case just as easily could have been dismissed and, more importantly, no reasonable prosecutor would have ever pursued the case on that evidence, unless of course the prosecutor was being forced to pursue it. The decision to prosecute the case was a travesty.

oh yeah, i know, and the fact he was found not guilty is proof that there is no possibly way he raped her and that she made a false claim. :roll:

 

[Raider]

+1... :egriz:

-1
when someone has a rape kit conducted and has physical marks on her body that she claims are associated with the assault, then there's going to be a trial unless the accused can prove he was somewhere else at the time or the accuser drops the charge. there was plenty of evidence to go to trial here. many cases with less evidence than this have gone to trial.

the mere testimony of a victim can be enough for a charge and trial.

you are right only to the extent there was enough evidence to go to trial, since the judge so rule. However, the case just as easily could have been dismissed and, more importantly, no reasonable prosecutor would have ever pursued the case on that evidence, unless of course the prosecutor was being forced to pursue it. The decision to prosecute the case was a travesty.

oh yeah, i know, and the fact he was found not guilty is proof that there is no possibly way he raped her and that she made a false claim. :roll:

Wait a tick here. Claire is this you?

 

[ranco]

+1... :egriz:

-1
when someone has a rape kit conducted and has physical marks on her body that she claims are associated with the assault, then there's going to be a trial unless the accused can prove he was somewhere else at the time or the accuser drops the charge. there was plenty of evidence to go to trial here. many cases with less evidence than this have gone to trial.

the mere testimony of a victim can be enough for a charge and trial.

you are right only to the extent there was enough evidence to go to trial, since the judge so rule. However, the case just as easily could have been dismissed and, more importantly, no reasonable prosecutor would have ever pursued the case on that evidence, unless of course the prosecutor was being forced to pursue it. The decision to prosecute the case was a travesty.

oh yeah, i know, and the fact he was found not guilty is proof that there is no possibly way he raped her and that she made a false claim. :roll:

You are right. There is no possible way he raped her and she made a false claim.

 

[PlayerRep]

+1... :egriz:

-1
when someone has a rape kit conducted and has physical marks on her body that she claims are associated with the assault, then there's going to be a trial unless the accused can prove he was somewhere else at the time or the accuser drops the charge. there was plenty of evidence to go to trial here. many cases with less evidence than this have gone to trial.

the mere testimony of a victim can be enough for a charge and trial.

Nope, you are wrong and inaccurate again. The rape kit didn't show anything inconsistent with normal sex. At trial, the defense experts testified how the rape kit nurse had done the exam incorrectly, and could have caused one minor nick during the exam. The accuser also admitted that she blatantly lied during the rape kit exam.

did you even bother to read the previous posts? your lack of attention to detail explains why you were practicing law in great falls despite hold an ivy league diploma.

she did, in fact, have a rape kit administered. she did, in fact, have marks on her body (bruised forearms and marks on her abdomen). she did, in fact, make the accusation not only to the police but several other people. those facts left the c.a. little choice but to proceed to trial. anyone saying the case never should've gone to trial is point blank talking out their ass.

The rape kit examination showed little, and was completely discredited at trial by 2 experts. Don't think your statement on forearms/abdomen is quite right either, but please don't tell us that any woman with little bruises/red sports like that is entitled to have a prosecutor charge someone with sexual assault. At any given moment, there must be millions of women with minor bruises/spots like that. As for detail, I attended the trial and read most of the court filings and articles. I'd be happy to put up my knowledge and recollection of the trial against yours anytime.

 

[statler & waldorf]

I'd like to see everything come out of the shadows, but I think this guy has an agenda, and there would be no good to come from this 'book.' Might just as well have Florio as a co-author.

 

[Fushiznitz]

This might deserve its own thread, but definitely germane to where this thread has gone.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/fed-plan-to-speed-campus-convictions-thwarted/

 

[ranco]

That's a breath of fresh air.

 

[PlayerRep]

Thanks for linking the article. Big news.

On the JJ front, this could also impact any claim. UM found JJ in violation under the lower preponderance standard, which UM had prematurely put in place and then used against him before the lower standard was officially in place. Now Kidston/Missoulian are running around saying he was found guilty of rape by UM. UM's assertion of a violation under the lower standard before it was actually put in place by UM, would be a huge negative for UM in any claim. Then, there's the Xavier lawsuit referenced in the article. I'm starting to think Johnson/Paoli stadium again. Can't recall who once posted that on the board.

 

[PlayerRep]

Two recent things from Dartmouth:

1. Athlete acquitted after short deliberation by jury after a two-week trial. Very odd facts. Accused supposedly came to accuser's room late at night, and very drunk, and crawled in bed with her. Accuser's very drunk friend was in same bed, but never woke up, and roommate was studying in the adjacent room. I've heard that both people are nice and normal.

http://www.dartreview.com/not-guilty-verdicts-end-gilbert-16-trial/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2. Proposed new sexual assault rules lowering the standard and using an incredibly unfair test for consent as well as an aiding and abetting concept.

"Consent would mean clear and unambiguous agreement, expressed in mutually understandable words or actions, to engage in a particular activity. Consent would not be valid if obtained by physical force, coercion, or threat, or if the student charged with sexual assault reasonably should have known that the reporting person was incapable of giving consent because of incapacitation, unconsciousness, or any circumstance rendering the person unaware that sexual activity is occurring or is about to occur."

"A trained external investigator engaged by the College would conduct the investigation and determine responsibility."

"The definition of sexual assault would include aiding, abetting or inciting others to commit sexual assault and retaliation against a person for making a good-faith report of sexual assault or for participating in good faith in a sexual assault investigation."

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~president/sap/sapqa.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[UMGriz75]

she did, in fact, have a rape kit administered. she did, in fact, have marks on her body (bruised forearms and marks on her abdomen). she did, in fact, make the accusation not only to the police but several other people. those facts left the c.a. little choice but to proceed to trial. anyone saying the case never should've gone to trial is point blank talking out their ass.

Of course she told several people. She made sure of it.

If I am recalling correctly, and it's been awhile, but the relatively mild nature of the marks were found to be inconsistent with the passage of time before she had the exam. It raised the question that they were self-inflicted just prior to the exam.

It didn't help that she waited until the next day, and that she "stopped by" for the exam on her way to a Super Bowl party.

It also didn't help that her Mother didn't believe her.

I'd say to the extent that Fred may or may not have had all of that in front of him, if he did, he knew out the outset that the probability was high that he was going to charge an innocent young man.

After he retires, it would be an interesting interview.

If somebody really wants to write a book about this case, as I noted last year, this one has "To Kill a Mockingbird" elements to it.