No Way JJ Can Be Convicted

[argh!]

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.

again and again and again and again my point gets proven. it makes me sad.

 

[AZGrizFan]

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.

Thanks for that clarification. :thumb:

 

[tnt]

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.

again and again and again and again my point gets proven. it makes me sad.

Really? in the last 6 mos, the alleged victim hasn't been interviewed and prepped by both her personal attorney and the County attorney. The supposed contradictions are at the very least debatable (at this point)....

You may be able to claim a"point" in a few months, and you may not.

BUT after all this if that IS what happens there had better be a major house cleaning in the County Attorneys office and some serious ethics questions asked of the alleged victims personal attorney, and I would lead the charge.

With the controversy, the potential damage to not only the kids involved but the University and Community and 6 mos time to prepare. The County attorneys office had better be able to bring a case that at the WORST comes down to the last juror at the last moment before the Judge calls a mistrial.

 

[argh!]

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.

again and again and again and again my point gets proven. it makes me sad.

Really? in the last 6 mos, the alleged victim hasn't been interviewed and prepped by both her personal attorney and the County attorney. The supposed contradictions are at the very least debatable (at this point)....

You may be able to claim a"point" in a few months, and you may not.

BUT after all this if that IS what happens there had better be a major house cleaning in the County Attorneys office and some serious ethics questions asked of the alleged victims personal attorney, and I would lead the charge.

With the controversy, the potential damage to not only the kids involved but the University and Community and 6 mos time to prepare. The County attorneys office had better be able to bring a case that at the WORST comes down to the last juror at the last moment before the Judge calls a mistrial.

you obviously haven't read anything i have posted in this thread. my "point" is that people posting here keep sticking very biased conjecture into their analysis of "facts" and come to the conclusion that the girl is 'guilty'. it is sickening.

 

[tnt]

You are right and I'm sorry, I misread your last post as another "see, its gonna be dismissed fantasy." If anything Karen previous experience will keep it from being dismissed. She was perhaps the fairest and most competent prosecutor in recent memory

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

I wonder if the prosecutor could win the case (behind a reasonable doubt), even if JJ didn't testify at all. The admissions as well as inconsistent statements of the accuser would likely cause jurors to be unable to conclude (beyond a reasonable) doubt that the crime was committed. Jeez, even the accuser sometimes doubts that a crime was committed.

 

[grizindabox]

I have reasonable doubt from what is known. We will just see what else becomes known throughout the process.

 

[PlayerRep]

Both my wife and college-age daughter don't believe the accuser and don't be a rape occurred, just for the record. This was based on looking at the affidavit and later the motion to dismiss. They don't think it's even a close call.

 

[tnt]

Both my wife and college-age daughter don't believe the accuser and don't be a rape occurred, just for the record. This was based on looking at the affidavit and later the motion to dismiss. They don't think it's even a close call.

Guess that goes to show why there will be a trial. BTW one of things addressed in the original charging document was that whole victim doubt thing.... its well know that part of the process is doubt self blame, its not HIS fault, its MINE. Its easily addressed in most trials. and things move on to other issues

 

[ranco]

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.

again and again and again and again my point gets proven. it makes me sad.

Really? in the last 6 mos, the alleged victim hasn't been interviewed and prepped by both her personal attorney and the County attorney. The supposed contradictions are at the very least debatable (at this point)....

You may be able to claim a"point" in a few months, and you may not.

BUT after all this if that IS what happens there had better be a major house cleaning in the County Attorneys office and some serious ethics questions asked of the alleged victims personal attorney, and I would lead the charge.

With the controversy, the potential damage to not only the kids involved but the University and Community and 6 mos time to prepare. The County attorneys office had better be able to bring a case that at the WORST comes down to the last juror at the last moment before the Judge calls a mistrial.

you obviously haven't read anything i have posted in this thread. my "point" is that people posting here keep sticking very biased conjecture into their analysis of "facts" and come to the conclusion that the girl is 'guilty'. it is sickening.

Last I checked Ms. Doe hasn't been charged with a crime and I'm not sure anyone here believes she is guilty of anything. The issue, at this time, is whether the state has enough evidence to bring a charge, especially in light of their ethical obligations. If you had the ability to look objectively at the facts as laid out in the charging affidavit and the motion, you would agree its highly questionable whether the charge should have been brought. Obtaining a conviction is a whole different matter. If the "victim" isn't even sure if she was raped, how in the hell can the State prove to 12 people, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was? Simply said, the State can't and it wont.

 

[PlayerRep]

Both my wife and college-age daughter don't believe the accuser and don't be a rape occurred, just for the record. This was based on looking at the affidavit and later the motion to dismiss. They don't think it's even a close call.

Guess that goes to show why there will be a trial. BTW one of things addressed in the original charging document was that whole victim doubt thing.... its well know that part of the process is doubt self blame, its not HIS fault, its MINE. Its easily addressed in most trials. and things move on to other issues

No, it's not easily addressable. The prosecution can put on an expert to testify, but the jury would decide based on what it thinks. In this case, with so many of the statements in writing, and the number of statements, it will be a difficult task to overcome the impact that they will have on the case. Also note that some of the statements are not even in the category of self-doubt; they are admissions against interest.

 

[garizzalies]

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"?

great question, actually, and I don't know for sure. I would think it is the prosecutor's burden of proof so they should have to prove she did NOT consent, but then are they being forced to prove a negative???

 

[tnt]

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"?

great question, actually, and I don't know for sure. I would think it is the prosecutor's burden of proof so they should have to prove she did NOT consent, but then are they being forced to prove a negative???

Hidden in the motion but pulled out for TV was the claim of mens rea, I would think that would be a pretty slippery slope for a defense, isn't it? It would seem to claim such the ONLY thing the prosecution would have to deal with is showing she ever said no once........ It would make just about everything else moot. Instructions might be interesting to say the least.

 

[br fan]

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.

Thanks Grizlaw. To take it one step further, the defense is actually requesting the judge to make a very narrow determination. The prosecution must have probable cause as to each element of the crime, and the defense is really only arguing about one of the elements. Pabst is claiming there is not enough evidence, as a matter of law, to prove JJ's state of mind in order to show that he "knowingly" had sex with her without her consent. In this regard, the court will presume she did not want to have sex, but did she adequately convey that to JJ so that he (not her) knew he was having sex with her against her will. The only direct evidence that he "knew" is her testimony, which to a certain extent is offset by his testimony. According to the defense, all the circumstantial evidence leads to a conclusion that he was unaware he had sex with her against her will until he was charged 6 weeks.

 

[UMGriz75]

tnt: its well know that part of the process is doubt self blame, its not HIS fault, its MINE. Its easily addressed in most trials.

Well known. By who?

Jane Doe: "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 ...

... "I'm not super sensitive about the subject too much anymore so Its all good.

"Wanna get some lunch" and "it's all good," does not suggest trauma, doubt, angst, amnesia, PTSD, shell shock, or multiple personality disorder.

It is amazing to me how many excuses are made for people who don't tell the truth.

 

[Grizbacker1]

The women that say she was raped are all ugly. If this goes to trial, the defense will excuse all ugly female jurors, the prosecution will do the same to the good looking ones, and Jordy will be tried by a jury of his male peers, who realize this is a bullshit case.

 

[tnt]

tnt: its well know that part of the process is doubt self blame, its not HIS fault, its MINE. Its easily addressed in most trials.

Well known. By who?

Jane Doe: "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 ...

... "I'm not super sensitive about the subject too much anymore so Its all good.

"Wanna get some lunch" and "it's all good," does not suggest trauma, doubt, angst, amnesia, PTSD, shell shock, or multiple personality disorder.

It is amazing to me how many excuses are made for people who don't tell the truth.

Do a little reading about rape trauma syndrome..........

Of course if it is all an evil plot her nearly text book responses (and texts) could all be clevelry crafted.

 

[grizfnz]

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.

Dat boy good ..

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

 

[UMGriz75]

great question, actually, and I don't know for sure. I would think it is the prosecutor's burden of proof so they should have to prove she did NOT consent, but then are they being forced to prove a negative???

Jane Doe stated she said "no, not tonight."

She has also stated that "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." And in THAT interview, she did not claim she said "no."

It was an extremely nuanced account of her claiming "I did not tell him that I did want to have sex" which does not contrast with her statements at other times that "I'd do you," and "I would have had consensual sex with him at some point."

"No means No," is a good rule; but "I did not say "yes,"" does, in fact, change the burden of proof, and the logic of proof considerably. The odd way that she phrased it is not natural. It is easier to say "I said no," and that is what she claimed at one point. To then state, in essence, "well maybe I didn't say "no" but I didn't say "yes," either," leaves a gaping legal hole in the fundamental charge itself which requires the act "without consent," surely, because she has squarely placed doubt on exactly what she did say after she admits she took off his shirt and "climbed on top of him."

I doubt, at that point, that he "understood" that she was a lady wrestler and merely wanted to apply an arm bar. Maybe I just can no longer remember, but when young women crawl on top of young men after taking their clothes off ... there were "messages" in that conduct. Let's have an ice cream wasn't one of them.

She then follows the muddle that she created -- by claiming she stated a negative, then changed the story to be that she did not state an affirmative verbally, but that she "might have" sent non-verbal signals -- by stating "anything I did that night could have given Jordan the idea that I wanted to have sex...".

The truth cannot be that difficult. She did or she didn't. She seems remarkably unwilling to say what happened, and so has offered stories that cover just about any alternative, including ... that JJ believed she had consented.

 

[MTOutsider]

None of this will matter when Monte comes riding his Harley into the court room, grabs the victim, plants one on her then rides with her off into the sunset. Opps I forgot Monte can't ride a Harley, better make that a moped.