-
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
UMGriz75
Well-known member
Normal people, when somebody asks how "things are going," don't just look puzzled and ask, "what do you means, "things?" And this word "going" that you use, are you speaking metaphorically, or literally?"tnt said:
Cripes, jury trials are not Star Trek episodes.
You must be one entertaining dude to have a conversation with.
One useful, normal conversational paradigm for how people talk in the real world, is the question "how's life?" A normal, real world answer could likely be "it's all good."
In your world, "It's" obviously is what depressed, ravaged victims of violent rape identify as "not life" or any reasonable generality, nor would that be underscored using the generic and inclusive "all" -- odd, you add and subtract key words of others with abandon, and then complain when someone accurately cites you.
But, you know, that's for you to explain to a jury when you complain that you think that when she says "it's all good," presumably meaning "everything," that she actually meant "nothing," because that's her secret decoder ring message: "I was raped."
"It's all good," is pretty inclusive. I am sure, based on your reading of her mind, that she "meant" to say, "except for the following items:
"I was raped.""
But, other than that, "it's all good." Just except for that one "thing."
She's one lucky young lady that you are not prosecuting this case. The jury would get up and bodily throw you out of the courtroom; the first example in Montana of the little-used policy of "Jury Defenestration."
Sitting at a Griz game beside tnt and his girl friend could be the end. If the Griz win he makes it out to be a horrible loss. A Griz loss could be a great thing he would explain.
I forget re-hab, go back to drinking and buy a new airplane, move to..........#
Please convict JJ or let him off. In any event his is screwed for life.
Please let this so called thread die!
I forget re-hab, go back to drinking and buy a new airplane, move to..........#
Please convict JJ or let him off. In any event his is screwed for life.
Please let this so called thread die!
NorthwestFresh
Well-known member
I've been receiving numerous phone calls from a number listed under something called Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe over the last two days. :shock:
UMGriz75
Well-known member
TNT doesn't get it. Juries are not there to play his cute word games around Clintonesque parsing of "is," "it's," "nearly," or for that matter, the meaning of the word "good."AZGrizFan said:
They won't give him 23 pages to explicate that "nearly" does not mean a "fully" alcohol fueled predator, but actually means something much different -- "dramatically" different -- and otherwise trying to explain himself and then on to Jane Doe's state of mind by arguing and parsing every word she uttered in the phrase "its all good," similarly seeking a different explanation and often opposite interpretation from what the jury will naturally give it.
It's not a word game, but TNT thinks it should be. It is inherently self-defeating.
At some point, the collective mind of the jury is asking, "if this young lady has such a hard time with clear expression, and every word she uses "really" means something else and needs an "easy explanation" that seems so hard to make, and this guy NEEDS to explain what each word "really means" to us just to get through this trial, what was JJ supposed to do? Hire an interpreter?"
NorthwestFresh
Well-known member
UMGriz75 said:
Case closed.
Be "yourself", Greenie.
NorthwestFresh
Well-known member
NorthwestFresh said:
You know what, I take that back. There is no way that other poster that goes by Greenie could be as coherent and as convincing, flawed as it is, as you, UMGriz75. You put Greenie to shame, and it's funny seeing him chime in with the "yeah go get them!!" act that his intellectual power has been reduced to since you started posting.
So, thanks for at least giving me that pleasure in this thread, although my life is apparently ruined by the intellectually inferior Greenie's siccing of his lawyer on me. Hats off to you for not having to resort to such nonsense.
HighLineGRIZ
Well-known member
The problem is 75 you forget that it will be JJ on trial. The prosecution speaks first. As result they don't have to argue your definition of the emails, or the "words'
"Ms doe, you said this will hit him like a ton of bricks, what did you mean by that?" "He had the attitude, he could do no wrong, if he wanted to have sex with me He could even if I wanted to stop. I'm sure it would surprise him to find out that was wrong"
A legal expert like you should know the Prosecution lays out the case and the defense answers. Do you seriously you believe that the "changing story" based on "words" won't be addressed when that is done? It won't be the prosecution trying to split hairs. You scenario is absolutley correct, but it will be the defense trying to say "She really meant when she was telling friend its good, I can talk about it that she wasn't raped." Good luck with that. They will have to answer the testimony, and evidence laid out by the prosecution before (if they do it) JJ gets on the stand to say "Nope, I never heard her say stop........" and the end that is all that will matter.
"Ms doe, you said this will hit him like a ton of bricks, what did you mean by that?" "He had the attitude, he could do no wrong, if he wanted to have sex with me He could even if I wanted to stop. I'm sure it would surprise him to find out that was wrong"
A legal expert like you should know the Prosecution lays out the case and the defense answers. Do you seriously you believe that the "changing story" based on "words" won't be addressed when that is done? It won't be the prosecution trying to split hairs. You scenario is absolutley correct, but it will be the defense trying to say "She really meant when she was telling friend its good, I can talk about it that she wasn't raped." Good luck with that. They will have to answer the testimony, and evidence laid out by the prosecution before (if they do it) JJ gets on the stand to say "Nope, I never heard her say stop........" and the end that is all that will matter.
UMGriz75
Well-known member
Well, for somebody who constantly complains of "interpreting" evidence, the idea presented that three days after a violent rape, she is all giddy with the idea that she was going to "teach him a lesson," and that he was going to be "surprised," is far less consistent with her initial claims that she said "no," and far more consistent with her subsequent, vastly changed story, that "well, I didn't explicitly say yes, and I can see how he would have received mixed signals."tnt said:
And it represents a considerable change, as well, in your initial "diagnosis" of how authentic victims of traumatic rape react afterwards, which you advised reading up on, which "reading up on" suggests that those authentic victims are not generally "chirpy" about what they are going to "do" to their alleged assailant. That's really not what they are thinking about.
Nor are they generally found to be happily announcing the fact that they were violently raped to their rapist's friends announcing that "it's ALL good," and perkily inviting them to lunch.
The "victory dance" cannot be found in the literature that you advised reading.
Now, that attitude IS in fact found in alternative circumstances of ASPD, which I generally refer to as sociopathy. Control, manipulation, infliction of distress are found in those conditions, and Jane Doe's behaviors "post-date," are remarkably similar to her "pre-date" behaviors, her "Forester's Ball date:" control, manipulation, infliction of distress.
And you can't have it both ways: psychological "trauma" from violent rape and "it's all good," don't operate in the same psychological universes.
if Fred or Suzy took your approach, they would be as thoroughly dismantled as a prosecution can possibly be, before a jury whose patience for your endless parsing of the "meaning" of the words "it,", 'all" and "good" will not exist.
Your's is a fantasy that wants to suggest that her vastly conflicting statements, her bizarre behaviors, her admitted ongoing infatuation with JJ, her admitted inability to form normal relationships because of her "relationship with JJ" that did not, in fact, exist, her completely bizarre, drunken Forester's Ball behavior, and her declarations freely made that "she knew she would have a relationship with JJ someday," coupled with her equally bizarre "post-date" text messages, will show that she is credible and JJ is not.
Good luck with that; it not only fails to reach the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, it does not meet any plausibility standard whatsoever.
GrizPony
Well-known member
tnt said:
How will she clear up the text where she says she gave him mixed signals and he probably didn't know he was doing anything wrong? Oh, and just so you know, she will get cross examined long before the prosecution ends its presentation so the word play will come up earlier than you think. But you know that, because you are a legal expert too right? :roll:
A
