indian-outlaw
Well-known member
Funny! I was thinking the same thing.tnt said:
-
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!
No Way JJ Can Be Convicted
- Thread starter PlayerRep
- Start date
you are delusional. Only a magician could fill in all of the substantial blanks to get a conviction, and then only in a 'Vegas show room. I know it vastly disappoints you that JJ will not be convicted of sexual intercourse without consent, but the sooner you accept that fact, the better you will feel.tnt said:
I feel fine Ranco, the courts will do what they do along with the NCAA, DOJ, DOE, The radical boosters will scream and holler rail against the unfairness of it all, while the rest of us knowing that the program is not depenent on either AD, coaches, key player, or a bunch of hero worshipping middle aged has beens bragging about their connections, wil be meeting each other at the first tailgates enjoy the games and each other while looking forward to next week. We may even take time to pity the poor slobs who can't seperate life from football, and spend more time being po'd than anything having a dropped pass, bad call, or god forbid an actual loss ruin their whole week.
mtgrizrule
Well-known member
I think some posters are really twisting this to their personal interests, opinions, etc.
When I 1st read the prosecuting charging documents, somethings did not make sense. However, I felt very bad for the girl, and it did make me question, who JJ really is, and what he is capable of? Then I read defense documents, and they managed to reel me back toward their side (which is what they are supposed to do).
The prosecution, and defense, each did their initial jobs for their clients. With that said, so far the prosecution, has done a good job. However, the defense, has done an excellent job for their client (JJ). Take JJ, and the victim out of the equation. I know that is easier said, than done. Seriously, if we did not know the parties involved, their backgrounds, community standing, etc, and basically be blindfolded. Who would think, which side has done better for their client? I honestly believe, the edge is pretty decisive in favor of the defense. Both sides are passing, but if this were to be graded, so far the prosecution passes with B-. Meanwhile, the defense gets an A to A+.
For me, it is not about JJ, and the accuser, which some of us have turned it into. This has become very personal on each side of the debate. As a few others have said, I too hope for justice to be served properly, when all is said, and done. Right now, I am open minded to the prosecution to pushing me back toward them. I admit, their challenge for me, is the text messaging of something like, "I am not sure, if he...........(whatever she texted)".
The defense would have one hell of a time to convince me, her text came out wrong, or it was hearsay. I honestly do not see how a jury of 12 could all be convinced of this. The other aspects of he said, she said, tests, etc, I could be pursued either way, quite easily.
Who other than me, has trouble getting pass her own text message? How can that be misinterpreted or taken out of context, by most anyone? Please tell me, if that is not what she meant, what did she mean?
I agree with those thinking the prosecution is working against a stacked deck, at least so far in this case.
When I 1st read the prosecuting charging documents, somethings did not make sense. However, I felt very bad for the girl, and it did make me question, who JJ really is, and what he is capable of? Then I read defense documents, and they managed to reel me back toward their side (which is what they are supposed to do).
The prosecution, and defense, each did their initial jobs for their clients. With that said, so far the prosecution, has done a good job. However, the defense, has done an excellent job for their client (JJ). Take JJ, and the victim out of the equation. I know that is easier said, than done. Seriously, if we did not know the parties involved, their backgrounds, community standing, etc, and basically be blindfolded. Who would think, which side has done better for their client? I honestly believe, the edge is pretty decisive in favor of the defense. Both sides are passing, but if this were to be graded, so far the prosecution passes with B-. Meanwhile, the defense gets an A to A+.
For me, it is not about JJ, and the accuser, which some of us have turned it into. This has become very personal on each side of the debate. As a few others have said, I too hope for justice to be served properly, when all is said, and done. Right now, I am open minded to the prosecution to pushing me back toward them. I admit, their challenge for me, is the text messaging of something like, "I am not sure, if he...........(whatever she texted)".
The defense would have one hell of a time to convince me, her text came out wrong, or it was hearsay. I honestly do not see how a jury of 12 could all be convinced of this. The other aspects of he said, she said, tests, etc, I could be pursued either way, quite easily.
Who other than me, has trouble getting pass her own text message? How can that be misinterpreted or taken out of context, by most anyone? Please tell me, if that is not what she meant, what did she mean?
I agree with those thinking the prosecution is working against a stacked deck, at least so far in this case.
Wrong again. He is not using edited quotes from the defense to make his point. He has pointed out over and over that he is using her own words in the charging affidavit to make his points. He is using the defenses dismissal motion only to show where the two stories jibe with each other. His "opinions" are well thought out and logical and he is kicking your ass. He is using common sense and you are talking about "grammatical sense". You lose.tnt said:
UMGriz75
Well-known member
tnt said:
"Yeah, I moidered da bum!"
"Ladies and Gentlemen, I implore you. How can you possibly take my client at face value? You don't know what he really meant, can you? He was underprivileged, his speaking diction is certainly not to be judged by you and I. And can you really consider that an incomplete thought -- we don't know his facial expression, the tone of his voice -- was not completely mitigated by something else he said on a different day? To a different person? Before asking them to lunch?"
GrizMusician
Well-known member
UMGriz75 said:
:lol:
I applaud you good sir!
UMGriz75
Well-known member
TNT:
It is an overt lie, therefore, which however suggests who you are and where you are coming from: it is important to you to defame Jordan Johnson and clearly, you will fabricate a scenario to do so; one that was, in fact, specifically rejected by Jane Doe.
Have you no shame?
See, the above about "shame".
As I suggested at the outset, when in doubt, simply have the witness tell their story over several times. If they are lying, you will get different stories every time, because they have no actual truth to refer to.
In your case, your extreme bias against JJ is a moral prejudice for which guilt or innocence of the charges is a side issue. For you, it is moral, simply because he had sex.
You made that clear:
...
Let's see here, tnt is the guy that is looking for evidence, right? So where did that slander come from?
"Post rape trauma?" And how is that manifested? Remember, you are looking for facts? Right? "It's all good" is a standard symptom of "post rape trauma" right? "Wanna go to lunch" is the normal physiological response to rape, right? Kind of like that evening: "I think I was raped. Do we have any peanut butter in the cupboard for my sandwich?"
It's just that easy! In other words, she should blame herself. That's proof of "the process"!!
It results in comments to friends like, "it's all good," right? Please show the "reading" for that.
I've tried to refer consistently to the published, known record. You, on the other hand, know all about his "cavalier" attitude, right? And you know this ... how? Indeed, when I refer to the record, you call it
And refer to nothing in the available record. You make it up.
Where is THAT in the affidavits of either side? The County Attorney doesn't reference it. Jane Doe doesn't reference it. You are inserting this stuff that bothers you; and has nothing to do with the case. That is a direct falsification of the controversy.
The State doesn't argue that. Jane Doe doesn't suggest that. I've never mentioned it. The Defense certainly never makes any such suggestion, It is, in fact, a reprehensible suggestion. Again, you are making up accusations that don't exist; fabricating a non-existent defense. Indeed, isn't she the one that showed up at the Forester's Ball to intercept his date, announced she would "do him any time," and you come away with the notion that he's the slut?
Nice slander. The State doesn't argue that. Jane Doe doesn't suggest that. Again, you are making up accusations that don't exist; fabricating a non-existent case. Simply an unsupported bias that obviously drives your prejudice without a single suggestion in the known record that supports it.
Hmmm. At best? And how did you come to that conclusion? The documented record? Her admission that she sent "mixed signals?" Convicted and sentenced. And you are pretending to be ... what? A strong advocate of relying on evidence?
Wow, given your accusations that commentators are selectively "interpreting" the available record, you seem to enjoy the process without any supporting record at all.
Ha!Ha!Ha! You just spent three days "interpreting" JJ's motivations and behavior without a shred of supporting evidence, and you are criticizing anyone who looks at actual evidence?
Well, the logical non sequiturs are astonishing. You refuse to "judge" evidence, you make a bunch of stuff up and claim that "lots of evidence is not here ...". Yeah, virtually all of the motivations and actions you claim are, indeed, not here. But, when you are done making stuff up, how do you know what is not known on the public record and whether or not it exists or not? Some psychic ability here? If you "know" what "evidence is not here," why don't you make a list of it for the rest of us?
No, Fred always keeps the best stuff secret. It's a well known tactic prescribed by the Montana Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Wow. Fred doesn't mention ANY of this. Jane Doe doesn't mention ANY of this. Indeed, Jane Doe specifically said she didn't think JJ had been drinking at all. The suggestion of JJ being drunk shows up NOWHERE in this case. So where do you get off creating 1) a false suggestion contrary to the evidence, based on 2) hearsay from ... high school? And when I say "Wow," I mean you are fabricating a totally different prosecution case that NOBODY has even suggested in the charging documents or the defense. It is not just a bias, it is a poison that is completely unsupported by any allegation of Jane Doe.
It is an overt lie, therefore, which however suggests who you are and where you are coming from: it is important to you to defame Jordan Johnson and clearly, you will fabricate a scenario to do so; one that was, in fact, specifically rejected by Jane Doe.
Have you no shame?
Really? You know this from personal experience? How does that explain THAT nagging email, "it's all good?"
Really? After you have claimed that JJ was looking for "notches," that he was "drunk," that he wants to "get his way," you complain of "no context" when other posters actually refer to the published statements of Jane Doe providing all of the context that she is able to provide? After fabricating a series of allegations that not even Jane Doe claims, You have the nerve to claim that, based on actual statements, someone else is "interpreting" something?
See, the above about "shame".
But you DO? JJ was drunk? He's used to "getting his way?" He was getting "notches?" Excuse me, but in the absence of any evidence of any of that from either the charging document or the separate statements of Jane Doe suggesting none of that, you are accusing someone else of having "no clue?"
You are comparing this, of course to conclusions you have made throughout this thread to JJ being drunk, entitled, abusive, on and on, not just falsifying the record completely on a wholesale slander of Jordan Johnson, but you justify it by arguing that "sworn statements" are not complete? Really? So that gives you a free hand to invent all of your motivations, allegations, and suggestions which all just happen to be entirely negative to JJ without a shred of support in "sworn statements" or otherwise?
Including the entire series of your fabrications? So "facts" in your view are only equivalent to the stuff you make up?
And in contrast to those "assumptions" -- actually conclusions -- made from the statements of Jane Doe, you make the opposite very WRONG assumption that it must be JJ that is lying, right, based on nothing at all?
See above. JJ getting "notches," "drunk" get's "what he wants," a "predator when fueled with alcohol," a "different person" things you specifically represented as necessary "facts" to consider when, in fact, there is no support in the record at all. "A predator when fueled with alcohol." Yeah, that's quite an interpretation, considering Jane Doe was the one "fueled" when she confronted him at the Forester's Ball and offered publicly she'd "do him any time."
Which you know is there. Right. That compares with your established record of fabricating "information" nobody claimed in the first place.
This is delusional. The Defense filled in the substantial blanks in the prosecution version. And one of the problems is the celebratory email -- "It's all good" is, in fact, grammatically understandable -- and the other problem is two diametrically opposite detail statements of Jane Doe.
As I suggested at the outset, when in doubt, simply have the witness tell their story over several times. If they are lying, you will get different stories every time, because they have no actual truth to refer to.
In your case, your extreme bias against JJ is a moral prejudice for which guilt or innocence of the charges is a side issue. For you, it is moral, simply because he had sex.
You made that clear:
You want him punished for that and your extended character assassination of Jordan Johnson on this thread is proof of nothing but that.
...
Well, I don't much care about grammer. But I do know what she said, and her story was different at least two times, and the third was all over the map. For her sake, I hope the interviews are complete, because there is no way she can hold up to more questioning and be consistent.tnt said:
AZGrizFan said:
And this includes proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she said no, and that JJ knowingly sexually assaulted her.
Her testimony is that she said no several times. His testimony is no she didn't so. She was a willing participant. Okay TNT, now show how the prosecution proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she clearly said no.
Also, given what she has said in texts and interviews, how does the prosecution prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knew he was having sex with her against her will. She herself has made several contrary statements.
The nurse who did the rape analysis said it was consistent with rape. Two other experts have said no it's consistent with sex. How is beyond a reasonable doubt proven there?
The only thing the accuser has going for her is the text to her roommate from the room. Why would have caused her to do that? Showing she was irked from being humiliated the previous night at the ball is doable, but a more complicated story. However, there are rumors that her roommate in the next room texted back that he didn't believe her.
I have never seen or heard of a case in which the prosecution will have some many fires to put out and so many things to explain. I wonder if the prosecution's case will get lost in the process of putting out dozens of fires and making explanations and excuses.
indian-outlaw said:
Maybe the GREAT FALLS TRIBUNE could do a story on this? Just thinking out loud...
UMGriz75
Well-known member
You might guess from my summary of "tnt's" comments the following:mtgrizrule said:
1) no references to the published statements of either Jane Doe or JJ. TNT has little interest in the documented facts of the case.
2) repeated references to moral characteristics of athletes, with no acknowledgement that Jane Doe is the one who marched into a public place and announced her willingness to "do" the UM quarterback "any time."
3) repeated references to JJ's moral character, none to hers.
4) repeated references to JJ being drunk and being a "sexual predator when drunk," which is found absolutely no where in the published record of this case,
5) angry references to monogamy for college students and that tnt's perception -- also unsupported by the record -- that JJ is running around "notching" conquests is really what JJ needs to be "punished" for.
You see repeated efforts to twist the published record -- "it doesn't mean what it says," "she used poor grammar and actually meant the opposite of what she said," "so what if she contradicts herself, that's proof she was raped!" -- and bizarre references to "things that we don't know" that are somehow in the record that will convict JJ and that Fred is just somehow keeping those in reserve for some Perry Mason moment.
You get the picture of someone fixated on college quarterbacks and their rigid ideological perception that a "culture" must be punished, for which Jordan Johnson is merely symbolic for him.
He has shown this by consistently overlooking any published information regarding Jane Doe, her obvious motives, her direct statements, her problematic psychiatric history, her fantasy claims surrounding her perceived relationship with JJ which prevented her from having a boyfriend, and her specifically documented drunken behaviors showing virtual stalking of Jordan Johnson, while at the same time fabricating whole cloth a behavior set -- with emphasis on drunken, entitled, notches, predator -- for JJ that doesn't appear anywhere in this case record, it is clear what his unbalanced presentation is designed to show: that it doesn't really matter what happened, JJ was an athlete at UM and therefore she was raped.
That is the sum of his comments on this thread.
PlayerRep said:
Here's the problem with that, the ONLY thing the prosecution has laid out it is what they believe happened. The asked to be able to press charges. They were granted those charges. They haven't presented all their evidence or even most of it. Neither have they made public any of the interviews. For a week maybe more even you kept you mouth shut. It looked pretty bad.
Now we have an answer, saying no, no, NONE of that is true. There is a lot of smoke about what happened before or after the incident, and there is the accused's version what happened, and the faithful are happy again.
The first question NOW is did they convince the judge that there is SOOOOOO much doubt that the charges should be dropped.
The second question is how well did the prosecution answer that request? They HAVEN'T. But according to the faithful there is no need, the case is decided..... So all the fluff here, ONLY has meaning if the motion is granted.
But the case won't be tried based on affidavits and motions. The faithful are concerned that there could be doubts about the accused's character but have no problem going after the accuser's. The only difference being one was the starting quarter back for the football team and one was not, so there is an obvious bias. Even if a security cam caught the whole incident, there would be those claiming it was a set up.
The jury won't care about that. They will hear the prosecutions WHOLE CASE, not just enough to explain to a judge why charges are being brought. You want answers, you will hear them. There is not one thing in the list of "contradictions" that can not be explained. Like or not there are no small number of folk who see it now.
And when the trial narrows down to the "event" as it will, you had better hope that you have a jury that believes a seductress moving toward the act was "wanting rough sex" as the instigator "aroused" and why JJ who had entry came elsewhwere???
"its all good" certainly wasn't refering to her experience with JJ but does refer to being able to Talk about it.
I'm waiting for the trial.
UMGriz75
Well-known member
And the other roommate didn't find out about any of this for week. What, he wasn't a necessary part of the plan? She didn't need him?PlayerRep said:
She was "raped," texted her roommate, he was sitting on the couch receiving the text, and ... she didn't come out? She didn't sit with him? She didn't ask for a ride to the rape center? She went and made a sandwich? She had just been violently raped, didn't say anything directly to her roommate who was sitting on the couch, and got in the car with someone who had just violently raped her and gave him a ride home?
When I first read the details on all of this, I no doubt reacted like a typical juror. That is, "wait a minute," this doesn't even make sense. Then, when I got to the email written three days later to the O'Day boy, it was clear, to me at least, "this was all a set-up," and now she's running around trying to get a reaction out of JJ by telling all of his friends about "the rape."
Let's see here, tnt lectured us on "rape trauma," embarrassment," and "humiliation," "anxiety" and "depression," but here's little Miss Forester's Ball "I'll do you any time," running around tellling JJ's friends he's going to be in for a big surprise. That, all by itself, is weird enough. If there was a genuine rape, don't you think JJ would have sort of suspected it. Why would she think the accusation was going to "hit him like a ton of bricks?" Well, duh, because it hadn't happened! And why is she telling his friends, and her friends? Because she's embarrassed? Humiliated? Sure doesn't sound like it; instead, she almost sounds giddy about it, she wants to tell people: "this is going to hit JJ like a ton of bricks!" She's excited about this. "Wanna have lunch??" That whole text message was celebratory; not something you expect three days after a violent rape.
Indeed, that text message sounds exactly like someone who got exactly what she wanted -- revenge for her "humiliation at the Forester's Ball" and now that she got it, she is "over" the embarrassment and with what is "about" to happen to JJ, she is positively happy about it:
Those three words are the end of the case.
Every single juror is going to pause at that phrase, and conclude, this is not the behavior of someone who was raped.
Fred ultimately knows that. There isn't going to be a trial.
UMGriz75
Well-known member
It is interesting that someone who has framed the issue in moral terms -- that JJ should be punished for being a college athlete because of their entitlement culture -- it is interesting that you have now begun to refer to everyone that disagrees with your pious and moralistic sentiments as "the faithful."tnt said:
