No Way JJ Can Be Convicted

[UMGriz75]

"its all good" certainly wasn't refering to her experience with JJ but does refer to being able to Talk about it.

"It certainly wasn't?" When did you climb into her head?

But, just to show that you can argue out of both sides of your mouth:

I don't think I'd be judging "evidence" here. There are lots of explanations, lots of interpretations, and lots of evidence not here.....

Lots and lots. But, it's interesting how quickly you make an explanation and interpretation that typically has no basis in the existing factual record, while gainsaying nearly every explanation that does, as the example above, where it has become a "certainty" shows.

You really want this your way, don't you?

 

[UMGriz75]

Here's the problem with that, the ONLY thing the prosecution has laid out it is what they believe happened.

Yeah, that's pretty much what they do in trials, too, lay out what they believe happened.

And, after discovery -- the Defense already has everything that Fred has, Fred does not necessarily have everything the Defense has -- the bottom line is that there are two statements of the complaining witness that contradict each other on multiple key factual points.

The second statement backs away from the claims made in the first statement almost entirely. Rather than a violent and aggressive confrontation, it is phrased entirely in terms of "how JJ may have gotten the wrong idea; that I sent mixed signals when I took him into my bedroom, put him on my bed, took off my shirt, straddled him, and took off his shirt."

I don't happen to see those signals as particularly "mixed," but of course, it is JJ that is the "alcohol fueled sexual predator" here according to tnt; not the alcohol fueled Jane Doe of the night before claiming to want to "do him any time," and who now has him in her bedroom on her bed, has removed her clothing and is straddling him, removing his. On my signal post, there is nothing "mixed" about it; that is generally the "green" signal.

Her revised version, instead of claiming "I said no, not today," was to not claim that at all and instead state that "I didn't specifically say 'yes," but so he may have gotten the impression from virtually everything else that I did that I did want to have sex." "This is my fault."

The statements are very, very different. As noted above, the "no's" disappeared entirely. In the first one, "he took off my shirt after I said no the first time." In the second, "I took off my shirt and straddled him."

The fact is, there are three statements of what happened. Two of them are fundamentally in agreement.

 

[AZGrizFan]

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???

:? :? :? :?

"had entry"?
"came elsewhere?"

You've never heard of the concept of "pulling out" when there's no condom involved? :roll:

 

[UMGriz75]

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???

:? :? :? :?

"had entry"?
"came elsewhere?"

You've never heard of the concept of "pulling out" when there's no condom involved? :roll:

That must be the evidence that tnt keeps threatening "is not here."

 

[br fan]

TNT, to answer one of your earlier questions, this is what I'd like you, or anyone, to do.

Based on the evidence known at this point, why don't you lay out the prosecution's case for how they prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that JJ is guilty.

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.

tnt, I admire your tenacity but I don't think you realize how difficult it is going to be for the prosecution to prove guilt. The prosecution needs to prove its version of the events, with no doubt that it could have happened in any other manner. The defense does not need to prove its version of the events. The defense doesn't even need to prove its version "probably" occurred. If the defense can sow a seed of doubt in any one of the twelve jurors minds, for example a juror thinking "JJ probably raped her but the text "all's good," or the text "I think he thinks," or etc. gives a single juror reasonable doubt, the prosecution has a problem.

The problem the prosecution has is compounded by the fact that there are not just one or two items that possibly can raise reasonable doubt, there are several, each of which must be explained away for all twelve jurors. I will not go so far as to say it is impossible for the prosecution to convict, but absent a silver bullet the prosecution is going to have an extremely difficult time finding twelve jurors who will all find that the victim's actions, both before and after the event, gives none of them reasonable doubt. If you will the prosecution needs to prove black and white, this is what happened, while the defense needs only prove there is some grey.

 

[UMGriz75]

If you will the prosecution needs to prove black and white, this is what happened, while the defense needs only prove there is some grey.

TNT very much wants this to happen; as his extended and collected comments show, it has nothing at all to do with the actual merits of the case either way. He could care less. It is, instead, and extraordinary and malicious bias.

 

[AZGrizFan]

If you will the prosecution needs to prove black and white, this is what happened, while the defense needs only prove there is some grey.

TNT very much wants this to happen; as his extended and collected comments show, it has nothing at all to do with the actual merits of the case either way. It is, instead, and extraordinary and malicious bias.

....because JJ is a pussy-hound just interested in putting notches in his belt. Damned 20-year old athletes.... :? :roll:

Something tells me tnt's girlfriend was stolen from him by his HS quarterback.

 

[UMGriz75]

The faithful are concerned that there could be doubts about the accused's character but have no problem going after the accuser's.

Well, you do keep bringing up his "character" when even Jane Does has not, the County Attorney has not, and Coach Pflugrad got fired over his support for JJ's character.

It seems to be your obsession, but of course you don't know him, but even as it is the one thing that Jane Doe appears to readily concede: he's a nice young man. Isn't that why she was after him? She even said so.

Or are you suggesting she really actually liked "bad boys?" That she lied about that too?

Your weird theories, taken to logical conclusions, don't help your already fabricated case -- the one you claim is still "out there" with "undisclosed" evidence -- at all. Indeed, to the extent that may be possible, they make it even weirder.

 

[br fan]

The faithful are concerned that there could be doubts about the accused's character but have no problem going after the accuser's.

Well, you do keep bringing up his "character" when even Jane Does has not, the County Attorney has not, and Coach Pflugrad got fired over his support for JJ's character.

It seems to be your obsession, but of course you don't know him, but even as it is the one thing that Jane Doe appears to readily concede: he's a nice young man. Isn't that why she was after him? She even said so.

Or are you suggesting she really actually liked "bad boys?" That she lied about that too?

Your weird theories, taken to logical conclusions, don't help your already fabricated case m-- the one you claim is still "out there" with "undisclosed" evidence -- at all. Indeed, they make it even weirder.

I didn't write that :shock:

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I sure hope this thread gets to 30 pages before Titleless gets done with his vacation and locks it...........

 

[Sportin' Life]

I sure hope this thread gets to 30 pages before Titleless gets done with his vacation and locks it...........

It will as long as the retainer don't run out. 75 has a job to do and he's damn well gonna do it.

For my part I think he could better spend his time doing actual legal research, but putting fanciful narratives and rumors of psychoses out in the community is another way I suppose ... and it is easier.

 

[tnt]

The one who seems obsessed here 75 is you. I'm perfectly willing to let the courts do their thing. You have no idea whether I have a clue about the difficulty of prosecuting a rape case or not. What you need to get a hold of is that victim blaming/mixed signals as a defense is working less frequently. Of the last three years of trial cases, 48% resulted in acquittal, of those only 16% have been the result of the "defense" you have laid out. Prior actions less than 2% and "inconsistent" actions following the assault an other 2%. You need to understand while the Paoli/Pabst team is busy attacking the character of the alleged victim, the prosecution will be doing the same. whether it was "published" or not it won't be hard. Simple perceptions can sink him. One team member testifying to the "contest" can do the same.

Some of the Griz failthful laying out a case based on defense document and screaming to the high heavens that its the TRUTH and ALL the TRUTH may carry you all through the next few months, but you better grasp just how hard it will be for the defense to mount a case. These are by far the hardest.

Your "she said/she said" defense is going to be harder than you think there is not one thing in those emails that can not be explained nor the explanation confirmed with othe activities/comments/profile.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Of the last three years of trial cases, 48% resulted in acquittal, of those only 16% have been the result of the "defense" you have laid out. Prior actions less than 2% and "inconsistent" actions following the assault an other 2%.

Where, pray tell, did you pull those numbers out of? :lol:

 

[tnt]

Of the last three years of trial cases, 48% resulted in acquittal, of those only 16% have been the result of the "defense" you have laid out. Prior actions less than 2% and "inconsistent" actions following the assault an other 2%.

Where, pray tell, did you pull those numbers out of? :lol:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/xn53825416860314/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You might work your way through these (there are about 8,) then go through the additionaal studies listed at the side that are using these studies as reference in theirs (there are about 40)

If you do a simple google search you will start with this study (granted its UK) http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2012/03/20/myths-about-myths-about-rape-conviction-rates/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and work backwards take careful notes. You will learn how to pick a jury based on your "defense" and how not to pick a jury. You will find each of those numbers. I realize its much easier to blow anything off that steps on your agenda than to spend some time figuring out just how it fits (or doesn't fit)

This case is far from a slam dunk for the defense. Should they prevail which is likley, understand there will not be enough left of JJ to leave town. The prosecution will work just as hard on his "character" as the nonbiased fans here have worked on the girls. Acquittal seldom means innocence. There are ways out if the door hasn't been closed. BUT the issue here isn't JJ, for many, very possibly the defense, and certainly the faithful here, its the football program on trial and subsequently the ego of the super fans and defenders (at all cost) Its intersting that other than maybe Florio, most folks don't make that strong of connection. Its intersting just how much the faithful and Florio have in common.

 

[jagur1]

I sure hope this thread gets to 30 pages before Titleless gets done with his vacation and locks it...........

+1

 

[AZGrizFan]

Of the last three years of trial cases, 48% resulted in acquittal, of those only 16% have been the result of the "defense" you have laid out. Prior actions less than 2% and "inconsistent" actions following the assault an other 2%.

Where, pray tell, did you pull those numbers out of? :lol:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/xn53825416860314/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You might work your way through these (there are about 8,) then go through the additionaal studies listed at the side that are using these studies as reference in theirs (there are about 40)

If you do a simple google search you will start with this study (granted its UK) http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2012/03/20/myths-about-myths-about-rape-conviction-rates/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and work backwards take careful notes. You will learn how to pick a jury based on your "defense" and how not to pick a jury. You will find each of those numbers. I realize its much easier to blow anything off that steps on your agenda than to spend some time figuring out just how it fits (or doesn't fit)

This case is far from a slam dunk for the defense. Should they prevail which is likley, understand there will not be enough left of JJ to leave town. The prosecution will work just as hard on his "character" as the nonbiased fans here have worked on the girls. Acquittal seldom means innocence. There are ways out if the door hasn't been closed. BUT the issue here isn't JJ, for many, very possibly the defense, and certainly the faithful here, its the football program on trial and subsequently the ego of the super fans and defenders (at all cost) Its intersting that other than maybe Florio, most folks don't make that strong of connection. Its intersting just how much the faithful and Florio have in common.

a) asking for a source to numbers doesn't equate to "blowing things off that step on your agenda".
b) this case doesn't have to be a slam dunk for the DEFENSE. It has to be a slam dunk for the PROSECUTION. That's the way this country's legal system works.
c) I could care less about the "football program". What I DO care about is a young man possibly wrongly convicted of something that, if HE'S guilty, probably 97% of men in America are guilty.

 

[tnt]

I was referring to the "defense" being put forward here. We have no clear idea what the prosecution case is - yet. Actual witnesses and evidence along with testimony could change a lot including perceptions of either party. If there were not at least two ways to look at this, there would be no case. Who knows maybe there isn't and the motion to dismiss will succeed.

And ask away, it isn't necessary to make up numbers odds are odds nothing more.

 

[ilovethecats]

some of you guys care about this sad situation WAAAAYYYY too much.....

:?

 

[UMGriz75]

What you need to get a hold of is that victim blaming/mixed signals as a defense is working less frequently. Of the last three years of trial cases, 48% resulted in acquittal, of those only 16% have been the result of the "defense" you have laid out.

Well, you are generating all sorts of reasons to "get" JJ," all except the actual documented facts of the case. Why? I have an idea, I summarized your specific comments. They are fact free. They are venom laden.

In the current instance, if only 16% of acquittals were the result of the "defense" I laid out, what is that supposed to mean? I am not discussing a case "strategy," I am looking at the facts of this particular case, something you are notably unwilling to do.

However, just to have fun with your statistical prowess, if only 16% acquittals were the "result of the strategy," and only 16% used that strategy, then it must be a pretty good one right? My point being, you have a meaningless statistic that you think justifies your previous meaningless references to evidence that "no one knows about" and that will somehow get you the conviction you obviously fervently desire because JJ, as you noted, has committed in your eyes the ultimate sin of a being a college football quarterback.

The "facts" of the case will determine the outcome. Those are the "facts" you claim are really not relevant compared to the "unknown" facts that Fred is carefully holding in reserve, as well as not relevant because a strategy has only resulted in 16% of acquittals even though that very well may represent a 100% success rate using that strategy.

What other weird things besides the facts of the case being overwhelmed by the non-facts of the case that you claim are "out there" are you going to dream up?

 

[UMGriz75]

Some of the Griz failthful laying out a case based on defense document and screaming to the high heavens that its the TRUTH and ALL the TRUTH may carry you all through the next few months, but you better grasp just how hard it will be for the defense to mount a case. These are by far the hardest.

Your "she said/she said" defense is going to be harder than you think there is not one thing in those emails that can not be explained nor the explanation confirmed with othe activities/comments/profile.

Jane Doe's contradictory statements are hardly "he said/she said."

This is a textbook case of "she said/she said."

The problem is, you don't care what she said: JJ is guilty. He's a football player. Your blatant disregard of documented facts makes this clear this is an agenda with you, and has nothing to do with what actually happened.

The tragic part is that you could not give one d*** about Jane Doe. She's merely a pawn in this for your explicit agenda which is becoming clearer with each successive posts that denies the factual record, and substitutes one that does not exist.