• 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

Egriz is great. No matter the topic or the information (Motion to Dismiss) you get viewpoints across the board. Here is mine. The document influenced me heavily in to thinking Jordan may have not raped Jane Doe. Up until I read it, I thought he was guilty because the only information was the "she said" statements.
That is the problem.

I think Pabst did a masterful job of refuting the charge point by point. It brings probable cause into question whereas before it was a no brainer. It makes Jane Doe's allegation look suspect. The release to the media of slanted information is also a legal question. Even so, I think with just that the charges could stand. However, the main reason for the case being dismissed is the intentional omission of facts known in the charge of all the "he said" and some of the "she said" that the magistrate was given by the state. It was biased and misleading which violates "Due process". The state screwed up. I think there is a good chance of dismissal, but that depends on the prosecutions rebuttal and of course the mindset of the judge.

Last night's news coverage of Pabst was one sound bite that they chose which if you read the motion seems to take Pabst out of context in terms of "knowingly".
 
argh! said:
PlayerRep said:
I wouldn't want to be the prosecutor trying to win a case with facts like this.
i wouldn't want to be the ass-clown who reads "facts" into a statement full of conjecture.
i found a typo in the "facts" presented by the defense on pg 6: "When Jordan came back into Doe's room, she asked him if he wanted to go home right now or later, as Doe's friends at the Forrester's Ball needed a ride." The Ball was the night before, right? Small error but it shows that the credibility sword cuts both ways, particularly when a lay person can spot a falsity in what is supposed to be the "real" facts. clearly there are questions of fact all over the place for the jury to decide.
EDIT: never mind, i just saw the Ball is two nights. But didn't it also say in the MTD that she picked Brian Oday up at the bar?
 
I thought the typo you were refering to was the mis-spelling of the word "Forrester". Forester's ball is a 2 night deal.
 
snap said:
I thought the typo you were refering to was the mis-spelling of the word "Forrester". Forester's ball is a 2 night deal.

Correct. One is Friday night and the other Sat night.
 
bigforkgriz said:
I think there is a good chance of dismissal, but that depends on the prosecutions rebuttal and of course the mindset of the judge.
IMO, there is virtually no chance of dismissal based on the major question of fact: did she consent? A judge cannot decide that question regardless of his "mindset." It is a question of fact that only a jury can decide. Judges decide questions of law, juries decide questions of fact. Thus, the only chance of dismissal (if any) lies in the alleged procedural missteps and not the "facts" as you stressed.
 
grizfan95 said:
HighLineGRIZ said:
GRIZFAN20 said:
Today I had a chance to read the motion. While I am not a law major and tried to read it with an unbiased attitude, I too found the story lacking hard, credible evidence. The information I read makes one believe JJ is not the greatest person when it comes to treating a woman right, but makes it appear he didn't do anything illegal. Just like people shouldnt rush to say he's guilty, I do not want to say 100% innocent as well. I hope it turns out he isnt guilty, not for the sake of him playing football again, but that a young mans live isn't ruined forever.

I agree. The defense did their job by clarifying facts and giving their client's side of the story. However, I still didn't read anything in there that would constitute enough for a dismissal. There are more facts and evidence that need to come out and examination/cross-examination of witnesses. There wasn't anything in the motion that dispells that rape didn't happen. I still see this as a "he said, she said" type situation. Hopefully, evidence and testimony will bring out the truth of what happened.

I know a lot of people on here are rooting for JJ, but you have to remember that there is a young lady who felt she was victimized. Whether you belive her or not, I see it as crummy for people to dream up their own speculations of what happened or to blindly state that JJ has to be aquitted or justice is wrong. This case will continue in my opinion and I wish it to be a fair and speedy trial for JJ's sake.

This is the problem with most people's mindset with the issue. Why is it with a rape case one is guilty until proven innocent? I've read the affidavit a number of times, understanding both sides will be exaggerated and biased, and even in that over-the-top accusation there is no hard evidence that PROVES rape. We have word of mouth from the victim and that is it. Even her roommates had nothing to supply to her case. The markings were nothing out of the ordinary for consensual sex. In 6 months the case they brought forth has very little to no substance besides 1 person's story. That's not going to be anywhere near enough to send a young life to prison and change it forever. Without federal pressure, a competent judge would dismiss this until substantial, tangible evidence was provided.

He is innocent till proven guilty. That's why they are having a trial to sort through the facts to see if he was guilty or not. You just can't state there is enough doubt because of a defense's motion to dismiss and say "well that's it, there's your reasonable doubt". Our country doesn't and shouldn't approach rape cases that way. My statement was referring only to the motion to dismiss. For a judge to dismiss the case without giving the prosecution a chanse to argue their case there has to be either proof that it didn't happen or misconduct in the charging process. My point is that there isn't enough to throw out this case.
 
tnt said:
PlayerRep said:
Skookum-Jim said:
I wouldn't want to sit in front of a jury with the evidence I have read in that affidavit against JJ. I personally think it's probably a bit of a gray area. He obviously thinks she invited him over to have sex, it sounds like he already has a girlfriend and just went over there to bite a chunk off. She invited him over to dangle a little tail in his face to keep him chasing but didn't want to give it up right away. He didn't want to invest to much time and just took it because he could. It pissed her off, hurt her feelings and here we are.

I wouldn't want to be the prosecutor trying to win a case with facts like this.


Probably not, when one puts maroon colored glasses over rose colored glasses, you can't see anything. FWIW I listened to my wife and too adult daughters screaming at the TV last night - specifically at Pabst. I would hate to try to win a cases when my defense boiled down to "he's innocent because he didn't know he was raping her." As all three gave thier "opinion", I would guess Skookum-Jim prolly has it right, with the addition he took it because he could, and INDEED would be surprised to find out he couldn't.

All this proves is that you married someone who jumps to conclusions like you and you are raising your children to be hyper-judgmental from a particular perspective. Do you think Pabst, a 15 year employee who ONLY prosecuted during that time, just all of a sudden has become a rapist coddler? Do people like you ever notice your own, unbalanced and prejudicial snap judgments?
 
These are key factual statements from the defense motion, incorporating the Prosecutions' Affidavit, and how this can present to a jury:

1) Their relationship could be described as casual and friendly with a flirtatious component. They hung out occasionally, watching movies, having ice cream. texting and talking, At one time last year, the two were alone In her room kissing. Jordan expressed an Interest In engaging In sexual behavior with Doe. Doe told him "no" and he discontinued the sexual advances.

2) The two drifted in separate directions yet Doe continued to periodically send Jordan text messages which were friendly and complimentary of his athletic performances. Doe began dating another man for a while but after they broke up, in part because of her relationship with Jordan, she again Initiated contact with Jordan. They had been texting each other over the winter holidays between December 2011 and January 2012 and after they returned to school after the holidays. These texts were flirtatious and sexual In nature. For example, there were discussions about taking showers together, etc. Doe later said that she thought Jordan was kind, attractive and thought she would have a relationship with him some day.

3) On February 3, 2012, Doe attended the Forrester's Ball at the University of Montana with some of her friends and Jordan attended with several of his friends. Doe had been drinking a significant amount of alcohol and was intoxicated. Doe saw Jordan dancing with and kissing his friend Kelly, with whom Jordan maintains a romantic interest. Doe approached Jordan and put her arm around his back, leaned Into him and said, "Jordy, I would do you anytime," according to Jordan and Alex Sieneman, who heard Doe make the comment. She slid her hand along the small of his back and asked Jordan if he wanted to dance with her. They danced a couple of songs and Doe asked Jordan if he wanted to get "married," at a pretend ceremony at the Bail in which pairs of people exchange plastic rings. Jordan got in the "marriage" line with Doe but left Doe In the line when he saw Kelly and his other friends across the gym.

4) Doe brought Jordan straight Into her bedroom and the two of them lay down on her bed and started watching a movie. Doe suggested the movie "Easy A," a comedy about a young woman who lies about fictitious sexual escapades to gain popularity, and they started watching.

5) According to Doe, As they watched the movie. Defendant started to kiss Jane Doe. She kissed him back but disengaged, saying "Let's just watch the movie." She later said that she did not want to get physical that night, but just wanted to relax. In her own words, Doe wrote, "After playfully arguing with him for a minute, I gave In and let him take off my long sleeve shirt. After he took off my shirt, I took off his shirt." She continued, "We continued kissing while I was on top of him ...."

But then, Doe also states that "He tried to take off her shirt. She pulled it back down and told him "no, not tonight," to which he responded, "oh, come on." He subsequently tried again to take off her shirt and she let him. She then took off his jacket and shirt. She then described a change in his demeanor as going from playful to aggressive. He got on top of her and started thrusting his hips into her. She started to get scared and told him "no, not tonight" repeatedly. Defendant put his left arm across her chest and held her down as he pulled her leggings and underwear off. She put her knees up and tried to push against him. He then told her to tum over. He said "turn over or I will make you.~ Jane Doe said "no."

Does' accumulated statements show egregious inconsistencies in what happened.

JJ's version is, of course, different:

7) According to Jordan, Jordan was on his left side and Doe was also on her left side tucked up next to Jordan, with her back to him and his arms around her. After about 20 minutes, Doe turned onto her right side, directly facing Jordan very close to his face and began kissing him on the mouth. After kissing for a few minutes, Doe rolled over completely on top of Jordan while they continued to kiss.

8) Jordan took off Doe's long-sleeved shirt. In response, she took off Jordan's shirt and continued to kiss him. Jordan removed her yoga·type pants. She cooperated with him removing her pants by arching her back and lifting her hips to allow room for them to move under her. They continued to kiss and Doe was on her back on the bed. Jordan touched Doe's vaginal area outside of her underwear. Jordan then
took off her underwear and touched In and around her vagina with his hand and fingers. In response, Doe asked Jordan whether he had a condom. When Jordan told him he did not have a condom, Doe told him "that's ok." Jordan took off his own pants and then the two began having sex, with her still on her back. They continued to kiss.
...

9) At First Step, Doe was instructed to collect her blanket for evidentiary purposes but declined to do so because she didn't want to give up her blanket.

10) In written statements obtained by Jordan's attorneys, Doe said, "The reason I feel this whole situation is my fault is because I feel like I gave Jordan mixed signals which caused him to act in the way he did. She blames herself for the sex happening at all because she gave him mixed signals, in other words-signals of consent. Doe also wrote, "Maybe it was the clothes I was wearing that day, us making out, or me taking off my shirt that made Jordan think that I wanted to have sex? Anything I did that night could have given Jordan the idea that I wanted to have sex, but in no verbal way did I tell him that I wanted to. Granted I probably would have had sex with him In a consensual way In the future, but I did not want to have sex that night....". Doe also wrote, "When I first met Jordan Johnson I was attracted to him Instantly, not only by his physical appearance but by his sweet and genuine nature ....He was particularly quiet when we first met, but when we talked he was honest and caring."

11) Despite having no contact with Jordan, approximately four weeks after the incident, Doe applied for an order of protection. In the OP process, more than one month after the alleged incident, Doe claimed to be presently afraid for her safety, a legal element necessary in order to qualify for the order, even though Jordan had never threatened her and has had no contact with her in any way since February
4th

12) In a letter dated March 6, 2012, Doe wrote Jordan a letter in which she tells him she thinks that deep down he is a truly good person and doesn't want to ruin his life. In the letter she continually refers to her feelings being hurt. However, to the contrary, Doe and her attorney sent a letter to the Missoulian which was the source of an article published on March 28, 2012. According to Doe's attorney, she was angry that he was not having to suffer any consequences and appeared to be living a "normal life."

13) In a series of text messages with Brian O'Day on February 7, 2012, Doe admitted that Jordan would be very surprised when he learned of her allegations of rape. "It will hit him like a ton of bricks which I'm okay with,so wanna get lunch Thursday?" ... ... "I'm not super sensitive about the subject too much anymore so Its all good...and I don't think he thinks he did anything wrong."

Wow. This is quite a history. She appears throughout to have been actively pursuing JJ, and when he left her standing in line at the Forester's Ball -- literally, "at the altar," -- it's easy to feel sorry for people in situations like this. But, the vindictive edge that all of this also clearly shows, and demonstrates what defense counsel will be able to do on the witness stand with "Doe." In particular, her recorded statements:

"The reason I feel this whole situation is my fault is because I feel like I gave Jordan mixed signals which caused him to act in the way he did." She blames herself for the sex happening at all because she gave him mixed signals, in other words-signals of consent. Doe also wrote, "Maybe it was the clothes I was wearing that day, us making out, or me taking off my shirt that made Jordan think that I wanted to have sex? Anything I did that night could have given Jordan the idea that I wanted to have sex, but in no verbal way did I tell him that I wanted to."

This is contrary to her claims that she verbally said "no." These are the wildly inconsistent statements that were not allowed at the Honor Court, and to which a Federal Judge has already remarked that the failure to allow contradictory statements is an extraordinary miscarriage of justice.

She refused to turn over evidence, because she didn't want to lose her blanket? She waited a month to ask for an Order of Protection even though JJ hadn't tried to contact her since the "date?" Really?

She alleged -- and there is an element of perjury here -- a "fear" for her physical safety although there was not a single factual basis for that --- but, it must be alleged to get the order. She was willing to commit a perjury to get an order which served no direct purpose with regard to JJ. In her March 6 letter, she certainly expressed no "fear" of JJ, she did "continually refer to her feelings being hurt." According to Doe's attorney, she was angry that he was not having to suffer any consequences and appeared to be living a "normal life."

He did not respond to her March 6 letter. Two weeks later, she filed a police report. She cannot have set this up any more clearly to show retribution, not justice, was her motive.

JJ had still not contacted her since February 4. Skilled defense counsel will make that appear to be the "problem" -- she was not getting the attention she had always wanted from JJ, and this incident, rather than establishing the relationship that she admitted she wanted -- including having sex -- had resulted in the exact opposite happening.

The Order of Protection four weeks later? What was that all about?

All that did was place into the record sworn evidence that she would lie to get JJ's attention.

Filing the police report after he failed to answer her letter? The oddly boastful claim to Brian O'Day: that JJ would be very surprised when he learned of her allegations of rape. "It will hit him like a ton of bricks which I'm okay with so wanna get lunch Thursday?" "I don't think he did anything wrong to be honest ... he didn't show any remorse or anything 50 Idk :/"

Remorse? In the context, this folds together as "remorse for hurting her feelings." That instead of "I love you now and want to get married," all she got was a kind of guilty "gee I already have a girlfriend, this probably shouldn't have happened, don't read too much into this, why don't you drive me home?"

Followed by six weeks of escalating "YOU BASTARD!"

That's how it WILL sound to a jury.

The facts of this case do not line up well for Jane Doe.

The primary witness against her is Jane Doe.
 
garizzalies said:
bigforkgriz said:
I think there is a good chance of dismissal, but that depends on the prosecutions rebuttal and of course the mindset of the judge.
IMO, there is virtually no chance of dismissal based on the major question of fact: did she consent? A judge cannot decide that question regardless of his "mindset." It is a question of fact that only a jury can decide. Judges decide questions of law, juries decide questions of fact. Thus, the only chance of dismissal (if any) lies in the alleged procedural missteps and not the "facts" as you stressed.

I agree, if there is a dismissal it will because of the procedural missteps. However, as Pabst cited legal case precedents so will the state in their rebuttal. There are so many legal precedents to refer that I am unaware of that could easily influence a judges decision. Also conservative and liberal judges rule differently often based on the same questions of law.
 
This is a motion to dismiss for lack of "probable cause" based on the "evidence," not the "facts," before the prosecutor, and now the judge. Some of that evidence may be uncontroverted, and as such is a "fact," but a lot of its is going to be contested, and as such at this point none of that evidence is a "fact."

The prosecutor, and now the judge, weighs the "evidence" to determine if there was "probable cause" to charge JJ for the crime. This is a lower burden than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that will be needed to convict him.

Pabst' motion argues that not all of the "evidence" was considered. The prosecution has an expert who will testify that the exam is consistent with the victim's claim of rape, Pabst points out that two independent medical examiners will testify the exam is consistent with consensual sex; the victim will testify she said no, JJ will testify she did not say no; the prosecution has texts from the victim consistent with rape, the defense has texts consistent with consensual sex, etc. At this point the issue is whether a "reasonable" person, considering all the evidence, would come to the conclusion it was "probably" rape. The defense is arguing that is not the case.

If the judge denies the motion and this proceeds to trial, the jury will determine which parts of the contested evidence constitutes fact.
 
this thread would make for a good sociological study. it is almost unbelievable how so many can't see that they are putting all sorts of very biased opinions in their analysis of the "facts". for instance the guy who reads johnson's 'innocence' into a statement by the victim saying johnson will be surprised by the allegations. how do you know that she doesn't see johnson as an arrogant prick who thinks he can just do whatever he wants with her sexually, even when she says "no"? in other words, these things can be read two ways, but so many on here act as if there is only one interpretation for everything - the one that turns the charges around and makes the woman the guilty party.

slow down.
 
br fan said:
This is a motion to dismiss for lack of "probable cause" based on the "evidence," not the "facts," before the prosecutor, and now the judge. Some of that evidence may be uncontroverted, and as such is a "fact," but a lot of its is going to be contested, and as such at this point none of that evidence is a "fact."

The prosecutor, and now the judge, weighs the "evidence" to determine if there was "probable cause" to charge JJ for the crime. This is a lower burden than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that will be needed to convict him.

Pabst' motion argues that not all of the "evidence" was considered. The prosecution has an expert who will testify that the exam is consistent with the victim's claim of rape, Pabst points out that two independent medical examiners will testify the exam is consistent with consensual sex; the victim will testify she said no, JJ will testify she did not say no; the prosecution has texts from the victim consistent with rape, the defense has texts consistent with consensual sex, etc. At this point the issue is whether a "reasonable" person, considering all the evidence, would come to the conclusion it was "probably" rape. The defense is arguing that is not the case.

If the judge denies the motion and this proceeds to trial, the jury will determine which parts of the contested evidence constitutes fact.

Shouldn't a "reasonable" person come to the conclusion that it was DEFINITELY rape for him to be convicted?
 
AZGrizFan said:
Shouldn't a "reasonable" person come to the conclusion that it was DEFINITELY rape for him to be convicted?
And that's the problem here, as Jane Doe's own statements show: how can a jury possibly convict using the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," when Doe's own statements are, literally, all over the place?

She's the one who committed, to writing, the observation that "I don't think he did anything wrong to be honest ...".

And that's emphatically NOT a "he said, she said" ambiguity.

A jury will not be able to get past that.
 
garizzalies said:
bigforkgriz said:
I think there is a good chance of dismissal, but that depends on the prosecutions rebuttal and of course the mindset of the judge.
IMO, there is virtually no chance of dismissal based on the major question of fact: did she consent? A judge cannot decide that question regardless of his "mindset." It is a question of fact that only a jury can decide. Judges decide questions of law, juries decide questions of fact. Thus, the only chance of dismissal (if any) lies in the alleged procedural missteps and not the "facts" as you stressed.


May sound like an odd question, but is the question "did she consent" or "did she not consent"?
 
ranco said:
TNT, her wife and her "too" daughters are the only ones allowed to pre-judge on this site!

Well I hesitate so far as opinion legal and otherwise I would trust their Judgement. One is a clinical social worker Washington) another is a Judge (in Kansas)

Of course Pabst knows the blame the accuser defense, it works in 16% of acquittals. It used to be much higher. The problem is the number of acquitals is dropping as is the number using victim blaming.

It will be a dogfight, but the focus will be the night in question.

Of the three emails two are easily explained, the third very consistent with post rape trauma. Little of it can be decided WITHOUT a trial. So of course everyone can decide which story they want to buy. A lot easier to go second though. The 22nd (or whatever the date is) will sound different again.
 
argh! said:
this thread would make for a good sociological study. it is almost unbelievable how so many can't see that they are putting all sorts of very biased opinions in their analysis of the "facts". for instance the guy who reads johnson's 'innocence' into a statement by the victim saying johnson will be surprised by the allegations. how do you know that she doesn't see johnson as an arrogant prick who thinks he can just do whatever he wants with her sexually, even when she says "no"? in other words, these things can be read two ways, but so many on here act as if there is only one interpretation for everything - the one that turns the charges around and makes the woman the guilty party.

slow down.

+1

This is got to be the most typed about subject in the history of the internet. What happens happens, a 1200 word essay on Egriz isnt going to effect much.
 
AZGrizFan said:
Shouldn't a "reasonable" person come to the conclusion that it was DEFINITELY rape for him to be convicted?

For him to be convicted, yes -- a jury of 12 reasonable people has to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was rape. That's not the issue in this motion, though. The standard, which br griz spelled out in his post, is probable cause.

A lot of people in this thread seem to want to skip the trial entirely, assume that the facts asserted in either the charging document or the motion to dismiss (depending on which "side" they're on) are 100% true, and decide the case accordingly. That's not the way the process is supposed to work, though.

If the allegations asserted in the Motion to Dismiss are able to be supported by admissible evidence at trial, then they may very well be sufficient to create reasonable doubt. But that does not mean the case should be dismissed at this point, or that charges should not have been filed.
 
The presiding judge is an experienced prosecutor in her own right. She had the unfortunate distinction of having had two, possibly three, relatively high profile rape allegations at the U over the years that she prosecuted that went south, with ultimate dismissals prior to trial, based on exactly the circumstances here: 1) the parties have a history, 2) there was a jealousy motive, 3) the alleged victim's story had multiple inconsistent versions.

The last circumstance is, of course, the important one. People telling the truth have no difficulty with accurate and consistent recitations of the facts. Liars do not have similar benefit and that is the standard way of obtaining key admissions, simply ... "please Jane Doe, just tell us your story." And, when she's done, "please Jane Doe, could you please tell us the story again."

I doubt she would dismiss this case on a motion; however, the purpose of the motion is to bring the argument directly to the county attorney. There are more "interviews." More explanations of inconsistent facts are offered, which then typically create their own contradictions. That process has already begun, and from the prosecution's standpoint, the case is already beginning to fall apart. They know it. Their obligation to the alleged victim is equal to their obligation to the "pursuit of justice," and they will be talking to her "quite a bit." She will begin to offer "new" changes to her story. These will contradict previous versions, and this story already has major contradictions in the alleged victim's own words. And, mark my words, once these indicators are present, the case never gets any better, only worse.

The presiding Judge knows from hard experience that this is how it works, and there is nothing to be gained by dismissing the case at this point except creating a divisive issue. The ultimate motion to dismiss will come from the County Attorney's office.
 
Back
Top