-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
No Way JJ Can Be Convicted
- Thread starter PlayerRep
- Start date
snap said:
nah, just because i can't seem to be led around by the nose by a relative/lawyer/something of johnson, or whoever the guy is. i don't know how you do it - if only i could believe the gospel of the prophet um75, it would simplify things a whole lot, and i could just go ahead and be a self-righteous dick about the whole thing, constructing a story line that is pure conjecture and proclaiming it the truth.... that would be fun!
having said that, if it really is the truth, why doesn't he march his ass down to the prosecutor and the judge, and reveal to them all that has been missed in this obviously easy case, so that the gross miscarriage of justice is stopped right now? hell, why didn't he do that before the case ever got charged, since he has so much first hand knowledge?
i don't understand these things. please enlighten me.
Grizzoola said:
Jesus Christ! Stop!! Griz75 shows what a UM psych 101 class and beginning creative writing course can create. The woman is NOT a psychopath. It takes one dildo on this forum to put forth a heavily flawed "fact sheet" on what transpired and many of you jump in line because it fits your agenda of protecting our golden boy.
I want to believe that JJ wouldn't do this too. But I don't know what happened that night and don't claim to. When ever faced with making a decision I like to consider my own bias or potential bias in drawing a conclusion. I suggest you all do the same. These psych evals done by the naive are getting old. Why don't we all just be adult men show some humanity here and let the case play out without running this young women through the egiz meat grinder. I don't see piling on with conjecture helps anyone here. STOP thinking in black and white terms and dragging this woman down. Lets see what happens at trial. I don't find anything manly about attacking this girl, right or wrong. You come off as a bully and a pandering sycophant. And my girlfriend, mailman and dog all agree with me.
UMGriz75
Well-known member
You are more than welcome to examine her statements. Why is the "fact sheet" heavily flawed? Do you know something? Or nothing? Or is it an "agenda?"Ursa Major said:
"Evidence" does not happen in a vacuum. There is considerable evidence now in the public record. Is it consistent with rape? Is it consistent with a false accusation of rape? But now you know she is NOT a psychopath. And you know that ... how? Or is that the rampant speculation you despise?
Ossie Ardiles
Member
UMGriz75 said:
Thanks. But I'm performing brain surgery tomorrow morning after my shift at the scrapple factory. See you there.
Noches de Passion
Well-known member
UMGriz75 said:
UM, if you truly are who you say you are and not PlayerRep, I would advise you to be very careful in how you approach identifying and exposing this alleged victim. Your fact sheet is based on what Kirsten Pabst and Dave Paoli wrote in their motion to dismiss. That motion is no more factual than what Suzy Boylan wrote in her charging documents. All three are obligated to act with candor toward the court. You, UMGriz75, as a poster on Egriz, are not. The jury will decide what the facts are and the judge will determine whether or not the victim's alleged vulnerable mental condition is relevant to the case.
It is truly a sad reflection on our fan base that we are so upset when a Defendant is considered guilty until proven innocent but that we will not extend the same courtesy to the alleged victim, of whom we know nothing about. Those facts will come to light eventually, and UmGriz75 and PR ought to give it a rest and let the court process work itself out.
I'm going to laugh like hell when the Johnson's sue the hell out of the University of Montana(and rightfully so) because of some politically motivated bunch of bullshit. In the end the Griz will have lost out on one of the best QB's ever, the feminist movement will have taken several steps backwards, and Plugrad will be left scratchinfg himself saying what the hell just happened. All because Jordy got hooked up with Jane Doe.. the last of the great conivers..........................NO WAY WILL 12 PEOPLE CONVICT. This should have never got this far............the county attorneys office is about to look like a bunch of fools :lol: :lol:
Noches de Passion
Well-known member
nzone said:
Wait a minute! Are you telling me that the County doesn't win every single case it ever tries? It looks like they should have consulted you before they charged him then.
UMGriz75
Well-known member
You are welcome to point out any factual reference I have made to the alleged victim, and point out where that reference was not made to something in the charging document, affidavits filed under her signature, and quotations made by specific reference to statements she made under oath in interviews.Noches de Passion said:
As you noted, Suzy, Kirsten and Dave have obligations to the Court when they repeat those statements, which were all made under oath at one point or another by the same person: the alleged victim. And we are entitled to rely on that obligation of candor, even as one of the pointed claims in this case is the lack of that candor by Suzy Boylan. However, where the facts alleged by both parties are consistent, there cannot be a question.
And that's the clear problem here: a variety of contradictory statements, and acknowledged events before, during, and after the "evening" in question to which no credible alternative evidence has been offered that is different from the existing documented record.
Now, after an extensive identification of the admitted facts, very little of which is based on JJ's account, the benefit of any doubt has to go to JJ. However, in presenting those facts, they don't happen to add up reasonably to a very pretty picture. Yes, that's a problem sometimes with facts.
Now, intersecting with those facts are specific studies of abused people. The alleged victim's behaviors are consistent with those studies, even as her inconsistent statements are likewise consistent with someone fabricating a story. This is called "analysis."
You are free to point out where you disagree, but when you can't find a basis to factually disagree, a generic claim that is not factually based without being able to identify how is superficial at best.
If you have an explanation for a TRO affidavit made under oath, for instance, at the point in time that it was made, with no remote hint, even by the county attorney's view of things, that there was a basis for it, is that the behavior of a normal, honest person?
Particularly after SHE was the one who had made contact, complaining of her "humiliation?" I have interpreted it as dishonest and malicious because the available evidence points in that direction. If you have available evidence to suggest otherwise, let's hear it. Otherwise, simply admit you don't. And if you have contrary evidence for any other contention, let's hear it. If not, simply admit you don't. And if your whole reasoning is that you don't like where the available evidence leads, and you have nothing to suggest the contrary, then simply admit that you don't.
I do happen to think that when an adult female admits to breaking off boyfriend relationships "because of a relationship with JJ" knowing that the "relationship with JJ" didn't exist, there's a problem here, and it is psychological, and it does fit a pattern of similar such cases, for which this pattern is well established. "Normal" people don't do those things.
Noches de Passion said:
Lets put it this way dumbass this case was a loser from the beginning. If you can't see that find an eye doctor. JJ got the shaft on this one!! I believe th University's insurance covers about 750,000 or the amount the Johnson's are about to receive after they're lawsuit. All because of a vindictive girl who felt humiliated. Brother!
Noches de Passion
Well-known member
But this is where you miss the point, UmGriz75. Unless you yourself are Dave Paoli or Kirsten Pabst, your views and my views are wholly irrelevant. You have read too much into presentations offered by lawyers from both the state and the alleged Defendant and believe only Paoli and Pabst to be capable of offering a truthful account. You accuse Boylan of lacking candor but don't support that with anything other than what I presume to be your belief in the motion to dismiss. You don't think the facts add up, and of course before testimony, complete discovery, and a trial, they do not. This of course is not surprising given that we have a grand total of two documents presenting very one-sided accounts of the alleged victim and defendant.
There are facts and statements in the JJ file that are not known and should not be known by the public. Wouldn't it be silly if the JJ file only had the facts presented by Boyland in the charging document? Again, you should slow down and let the process work itself out. It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think. The only time our thoughts will be relevant is if any when any of us are on this jury, which of course is highly unlikely.
My analysis is incomplete, as should yours be too. Analysis is often incomplete when all the facts are not known. I am sure that if you are as knowledgeable as you are promoting yourself to be, you too will realize that a true analysis cannot be complete at this juncture in the proceedings.
There are facts and statements in the JJ file that are not known and should not be known by the public. Wouldn't it be silly if the JJ file only had the facts presented by Boyland in the charging document? Again, you should slow down and let the process work itself out. It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think. The only time our thoughts will be relevant is if any when any of us are on this jury, which of course is highly unlikely.
My analysis is incomplete, as should yours be too. Analysis is often incomplete when all the facts are not known. I am sure that if you are as knowledgeable as you are promoting yourself to be, you too will realize that a true analysis cannot be complete at this juncture in the proceedings.
Noches de Passion
Well-known member
nzone said:
I doubt you know whether or not this case was a "loser" from the beginning. I don't know whether or not it was a "loser" from the beginning. You should give your County Attorney more credit than that, unless you know more than he does.
Noches de Passion
Well-known member
nzone said:
I'm not saying they will. I'm not saying they won't. I'm saying that County Attorneys don't just prosecute cases they know they can win. They also prosecute cases they are afraid they can lose. If they always knew they could win each case they try, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the criminal justice system?
