Grizzoola said:
They focus on the situation, itself, and maintain that once Ms. Doe said, "no," JJ should have stopped, and since he did not, that is grounds for rape. This may be an extreme view, but there it is.
And that underscores the "preferential" treatment at work here. It is presumed she said "no." You see several commentators say it: "No means NO!!"
The problem is that there are three versions of that incident:
1) Jane Does says she said No.
"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..... He began pulling her on top of him. She tried keep things light and tried to discourage his advances. 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."
2) JJ says she took off her shirt, took off his shirt, and straddled him. She confirms that this happened. He says she did not say "no" but enthusiastically participated.
"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 stil on her back. They continued to kiss.
... Doe, still on her stomach, turned her head around to look at Jordan and say. "Oh, you're bad!" in a flirtatious tone. According to Jordan, this statement is the only thing that Doe said during the time they were having sex.
3) Jane Doe later does not describe saying "no," only "I did not say 'yes.'" Well, that starts to get complicated. Her specific statement is as follows:
"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. ... 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....". She does not identify why that other kind of "signal" she might have given, such as a "no," or pushing him away or calling to her roommate seven feet away.
The "No" is specifically missing from that account. That is no small omission.
Rather, a detailed but convoluted argument is presented as to why
Jordan "might have" thought she wanted to have sex. She seems to argue that taking off her shirt, taking off his shirt, and straddling him might have been a "mixed signal." The second account is far, far removed from her first account. It is as though two different people are describing two completely different events. And I think that goes to underlying "problems" in this case that have to do with the complicated abuse history of the complaining witness. The accounts are too different. They are nearly impossible to reconcile
rationally. And, more importantly,
two of the three accounts are consistent: JJs and Jane Doe's second version.
A couple of days later, she is texting:
"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 so Idk :/" ... "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." Is she referring to a "rape" or to being left in line in front everyone at the Forester's Ball and publicly humiliated? It is an oddly flippant and casual text conversation. Would she be "super sensitive" about something that happened in the privacy of her bedroom? Who would know about
that at that point?
So what would there be to be "super sensitive" about, and to who?
Or is she referring to something that happened in front of 1500 people at the University's premier social event of the year and THAT is what she is "super sensitive" about? That everyone saw University of Montana Starting Quarterback Jordan Johnson walk away from her in the Marriage Booth line and left her standing there all by herself being stared at by everyone?
He "didn't show any remorse?" She hadn't seen him since the sexual encounter. She
had seen him since the Forester's Ball incident and that is the only circumstance that she could be claiming that "he didn't show any remorse" -- and that had to be for
what had happened at the Forester's Ball. With regard to "rape," described on this thread as a "trauma," it is hard to read the "it's all good" as reflecting any particular level of trauma.
"I'm not too sensitive about the subject too much anymore..."? Three days AFTER A RAPE???? That's not "rape" trauma she's talking about. Her anger is about the Forester's Ball. ...
