No Way JJ Can Be Convicted

[grizindabox]

Where are the ponies? #wahlberg

 

[PlayerRep]

As I've said a number of times, TNT is quite old and a bit senile (losing former mental capacity). He essentially admitted the old age thing today, and I can see the age/senility things in the mistakes and misstatements in some of his posts (they remind me of what I've seen again family members do over time). He's also very old-fashioned. Because he exaggerates and makes so many incorrect statements, he's a bit dangerous. As I've said before, it's almost a full-time job to correct all of his incorrect statements and exaggerations. He knows little of the legal process, but that doesn't stop him from making bold (and frequently incorrect) assertions. On the other hand, he sometimes has some information, but then stretches it to be incorrect, and he was probably smart back in his day. I wonder if he once worked at the university. While he is a bit dangerous (with the incorrect information), I actually kind of like the guy.

 

[JBS]

You missed (conveniently I'm sure) about 80% of what i said, but you are probably still trying to get laid. Most College students (and for that matter normal folks) sleep with one person at a time and usually with in a relationship, they don't collect notches either in a bed post or belt. THAT behavior leads to problems. That is something every kid (male or female) should be aware of. Now either JJ was never taught any different, or he lacks a lot of character. Otherwise he would never have put his future, his career, school, or team at such risk. Relationships are risky enough. Now I realize you don't get that and could care less but that simply is the way the real world works. Skanks and players don't usually have a lot work out for them in life and way too many ex-jocks spend the rest of their lives trying to relive their glory days (if they ever REALLY had them) If you think thats normal, go for it. I have often wondered what kind of adult worships 20 year old ball players as opposed to enjoying the game. The sad thing is in all that normalcy some pretty good kids get hurt. You have watched way too many movies or dreamed way too many fantasy's, and/or read too much college porn if you truly believe most kids don't show some restraint in who and when they sleep with someone and their whole college career, is one party after another hooking up with whoever whenever.

You are a tool. I assume you are trying to lecture me in your latest gospel. No response to it, it is just more dumb. If you just dropped the occasional facade of being objective in all this, and admitted your bias, folks would probably go a little easier on you. But your objectivity is so obviously phony that some of us don't give a sh** what else you say because it is likely a lie. Talk about inconsistency.

 

[grizophile]

Very sad deal for all involved but JJ will walk as there is "Reasonable Doubt" and he has no past record of any kind? He will probably leave Montana for obvious reasons and end up being an All American at some FCS School or maybe even a FBS School (not All American). The kid is a real talent IMHO. I cherished watching him evolve last year into one of the top 5 QB's I have witnessed in my 60 years of watching the Griz......nobody quicker on the run. That said there are no winners in this situation and I feel for all involved. No villans in this tragedy just a sad set of circumstances of 2 young people under the infuence and feelings being hurt, etc. Life goes on!

 

[tnt]

I'm not sure the Brian banks issue is necessarily the best way to reference anything. There have been a fair number of guilty people walk in this community alone. Pretty recently a fellow who turned out to be serial rapist and more than one chimo. So using that logic JJ should already be in Deer Lodge.

I have never suggested that JJ is a rapist, only that there are two side and numerous explanations to the issues raised. It was a bad situation, a bad decision, and something that absolutely should not have happened. The "contest" has been a well known tradition among SOME on the FB team for a long while along with their initiation night (optional I know) Is it possible for fear of being "out of touch" nothing has been said that lead to some serious problems, and no matter how things turn out for JJ the messing up of a lot of things? The boys will be boys explanation just doesn't cut it.

I've said several times there should be a better way to settle this one than the legal system.

 

[JBS]

I'm not sure the Brian banks issue is necessarily the best way to reference anything. There have been a fair number of guilty people walk in this community alone. Pretty recently a fellow who turned out to be serial rapist and more than one chimo. So using that logic JJ should already be in Deer Lodge.

I have never suggested that JJ is a rapist, only that there are two side and numerous explanations to the issues raised. It was a bad situation, a bad decision, and something that absolutely should not have happened. The "contest" has been a well known tradition among SOME on the FB team for a long while along with their initiation night (optional I know) Is it possible for fear of being "out of touch" nothing has been said that lead to some serious problems, and no matter how things turn out for JJ the messing up of a lot of things? The boys will be boys explanation just doesn't cut it.

You HAVE suggested he is a rapist. Over and over and over. You obviously presume his guilt, because you keep telling us that every action this girl has taken since that night is consistent with the social workers views of how a woman acts after being raped. Yes there are 2 sides to every story, and up until yesterday we only heard one side. Hers, which you support. That story contradicts itself all over the place in just 1 affidavit.

 

[HighLineGRIZ]

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.

Two very reasonable, accurate and objective posts that need to be read again. Many people on here have already decided to take a side and the motion to dismiss is getting alot of people all worked up with analysis and screams of dismissal. Truth is, the affidavit and responding motion still don't address everything that needs to be addressed. Obviously, if the court was going to decide right now, the ruling would be not guilty because of reasonable doubt displayed by the defense. However, if our judicial system always reacted after a written defense statement, then 95% of those crimininal trials would result in an aquittal. People need to simmer down and let the process go to work. We are very early in the process and this case deserves all the facts, evidence, and testimony needed to come up with appropriate ruling.

 

[grizfan95]

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.

Nailed it.

 

[argh!]

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.

Two very reasonable, accurate and objective posts that need to be read again. Many people on here have already decided to take a side and the motion to dismiss is getting alot of people all worked up with analysis and screams of dismissal. Truth is, the affidavit and responding motion still don't address everything that needs to be addressed. Obviously, if the court was going to decide right now, the ruling would be not guilty because of reasonable doubt displayed by the defense. However, if our judicial system always reacted after a written defense statement, then 95% of those crimininal trials would result in an aquittal. People need to simmer down and let the process go to work. We are very early in the process and this case deserves all the facts, evidence, and testimony needed to come up with appropriate ruling.

absolutely, great posts. all the one-sided, biased speculation is a poor reflection on those engaging in it. let's save that for our endless personal attacks against the other aliases on the board!

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

Two very reasonable, accurate and objective posts that need to be read again. Many people on here have already decided to take a side and the motion to dismiss is getting alot of people all worked up with analysis and screams of dismissal. Truth is, the affidavit and responding motion still don't address everything that needs to be addressed. Obviously, if the court was going to decide right now, the ruling would be not guilty because of reasonable doubt displayed by the defense. However, if our judicial system always reacted after a written defense statement, then 95% of those crimininal trials would result in an aquittal. People need to simmer down and let the process go to work. We are very early in the process and this case deserves all the facts, evidence, and testimony needed to come up with appropriate ruling.

Do you understand that it is rare for the defense side to be spelled out in an early motion like this, and it is not common for the defense side to even be put in writing prior to a trial. Generally, the defense keeps its information and case close to the vest, watches how the prosecution case unfolds, and decides how to present its defense and whether the defendant will testify. I talked to a criminal lawyer friend about the motion today, and he said he had done this only once in his 35 or so years of being a criminal defense lawyer. He liked the motion, and thought it was very well done.

 

[HighLineGRIZ]

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.

Two very reasonable, accurate and objective posts that need to be read again. Many people on here have already decided to take a side and the motion to dismiss is getting alot of people all worked up with analysis and screams of dismissal. Truth is, the affidavit and responding motion still don't address everything that needs to be addressed. Obviously, if the court was going to decide right now, the ruling would be not guilty because of reasonable doubt displayed by the defense. However, if our judicial system always reacted after a written defense statement, then 95% of those crimininal trials would result in an aquittal. People need to simmer down and let the process go to work. We are very early in the process and this case deserves all the facts, evidence, and testimony needed to come up with appropriate ruling.

Do you understand that it is rare for the defense side to be spelled out in an early motion like this, and it is not common for the defense side to even be put in writing prior to a trial. Generally, the defense keeps its information and case close to the vest, watches how the prosecution case unfolds, and decides how to present its defense and whether the defendant will testify. I talked to a criminal lawyer friend about the motion today, and he said he had done this only once in his 35 or so years of being a criminal defense lawyer. He liked the motion, and thought it was very well done.

I'm not a lawyer, and I could be wrong, but from my understanding it is common in rape cases where there are two sides to the story. The motion was well done but the case won't be dissmissed, nor should it. Time to listen to both sides from an objective and open mind and sort out the facts.

 

[Flathead Griz]

Let’s just suppose that no new damning evidence comes out. Let’s also suppose that he is convicted and is registered as a sex offender. What does that say about other sex offenders? I had always assumed that they were vile individuals that should be avoided. Doesn’t this case raise questions on the entire system?

 

[BWahlberg]

Where are the ponies? #wahlberg

 

[GrizMusician]

You guys are still talking about this? Jesus.

 

[GrizPony]

8 weeks after the event I'm not sure what wanna get some lunch means? Maybe she was Hungry??? Think she might have been able to eat after a couple months???

Said the great explainer of all that is not logical?

 

[granitegriz]

Uh, I may be wrong but I think Argh!!, tnt, and NWunfresh could be convicted for being too smart, if not all the same person.

 

[GrizPony]

I have often wondered about why and how folks use some emoticons. But it doesn't take a lot of reading to know that that exact behavior after sometime is not quite so odd. The point is here ANYONE who thinks there is a slam dunk, will be surprised. I wouldn't suggest trying to call out either party. No matter how this comes out JJ's rather cavalier attitude about adding notches to his belt whether it rises to the level of a crime or not will have dramatically altered his life. If we have leadership who thinks that respresents high character, we had a problem. No wonder a change in leadership. There are a fair number of middle age has been, never was'es wish they coulda beens" who figure its okay. They will never see the problems its caused.

It may old fashioned but it would SEEM that somehwere along the line someone would have told these kids that it was a real good idea to keep their pants on while watching a movie and for someone to have told JJ, his chance of being the college football star were pretty much dependent on his keeping his on. Frankly IF that message were transmitted there wouldn't have been group blow jobs, or a "rape problem" and believe it or not that is NOT normal college behavior for most.

Yeah it really seems like JJ is the one that wanted to add a notch to his belt. Have you ever been objective?

 

[GrizPony]

8 weeks after the event I'm not sure what wanna get some lunch means? Maybe she was Hungry??? Think she might have been able to eat after a couple months???

Well, before she gave him a ride home, she did so "after fixing herself a snack In her kItchen and eating it." Perhaps it was just normal routine trauma-induced munchies. The next day she managed a trauma-induced Super Bowl Party with her friends.

I understand the theory. All evidence of frustration means she was raped. All unusual behaviors means she was raped. All perfectly normal behaviors means she was raped. Leading a perfectly normal life means she was raped. Seeking revenge for a jilted one-sided love affair means she was raped. If she was hungry, it means she was raped. If she wasn't hungry, it means she was raped. Saying she thought JJ really didn't do anything wrong means she was raped.

I understand the theory.

This is such and awesome and intelligent retort to TNT. Boom you stupid bastard!

 

[GrizPony]

9 kids?

Yup,they are adopted age ranged from 6-12 when we got them. (One girl was 4) I'm only 60 going on 90. Still know the youth court judges by their first name.

Because you are a horrible parent? I raised five and don't know the youth court judges. You are an idiot.

 

[argh!]

9 kids?

Yup,they are adopted age ranged from 6-12 when we got them. (One girl was 4) I'm only 60 going on 90. Still know the youth court judges by their first name.

Because you are a horrible parent? I raised five and don't know the youth court judges. You are an idiot.

slow down on the crack, gina. for the good of you.