No Way JJ Can Be Convicted

[mtgrizrule]

Tell all of you what...... if J.J. goes to trial, and is convicted of rape, i'll kiss any 10 of your sorry arses on the steps of the Missoula County court house!

haha.. that's bold, Growler. Do you pick who goes first?

I would not want Growler, or any guy kissing my ass. This is one I won't hold him to, personally. Then again, I doubt he will have to follow up with it. There just is not enough to convict him. Will it go to trial? It depends on how much pressure their is on the Missoula justice system. Normally, I would be surprised to see it go to trial.

 

[Skookum-Jim]

i think it will go to trial and he has a 50/50 chance of being convicted.

 

[PlayerRep]

i think it will go to trial and he has a 50/50 chance of being convicted.

Okay, let's see your analysis of why you think this. Everyone is welcome to an opinion, but I don't recall you having a track record on the board to make anyone think you may know what you what you're talking about.

 

[PlayerRep]

So crack, you exactly the order they will call the witnesses, and that none of the "hard questions" will be adressed prior to her being called. or the witness prepped. I have suggested there are plenty of ways for the prosecution to go and certainly not only one. Get used to it

Lets do one at a time:

When did you first think you might of been sending mixed signals:

possibility 1: "when I kept playing it over and over in my mind first thinking no, it couldn't have happened, he just came over to watch movies and we were making out. I told him not tonight. Then I realized it did happen, so it must have been my fault, eventually I realized when wouldn't talk to me or even come to get the watch his sister gave him that all he wanted that night was sex. IUt wasn't my fault and nothing would have changed his mind.......

possibility 2: " I realized this wasn't about getting together to get acquainted anything me flirting anything else when he was holding me down with his forearm on my chest to gain entry. Then I realized it was all about his needs when after penetrating me from on top he turned me over. I didn't know whether he just wanted to humiliate me by doing it doggy style, or whether he wanted to do it anally. Fortunately, I never found out as he ejaculated before he could do either. He went to the bathroom, to clean up, and I went to the kitchen in shock at what just happened. He was so cavalier assuming what he had done and tried to do to me was "normal" when he asked me to take him home I did. I just wanted it over - all of it, I wasn't even sure what happened. For days I didn't know what to do what to say who to say it to. Some days were great some days weren't. Its still like that.........

There are other possibilities of course, but the grueling cross-examination you are all expecting will be tremendously toned down. Everytime the defense starts to get on a roll, there will be an objection. from badgering to leading. Thats if it gets started right away more than likley the girl will be called towards the end of the day. her testimony will be drawn out so as to be finished the next day giving the jury plenty of time to visualize what happened. Of course the police reports, physical evidence etc will in part been given. at worst the cross will happen the next day or after a break only to be followed with more physical and professional evidence to cement the circumstances.

The prosecution will cross the defense witnesses too. How do you know her state off mind etc. What were you talking about. Do you often (never) have lunch? and on it will go.

Beyond a reasonable doubt,who knows??? Will there always be a doubt?

This needs settled OUT of court.

Why in the world would JJ settle this out of court? He claims innocence, and will stick to his guns. 75 is kicking your phony ass up and down the internet, and it will continue as long as you post your nonsense. You lose, over and over and over.

Tell all of you what...... if J.J. goes to trial, and is convicted of rape, i'll kiss any 10 of your sorry arses on the steps of the Missoula County court house!

I'll do the next 10.

 

[Bear Axed]

only an individual with a huge agenda would Now want this settled out of court.
Any fair minded person would be a little more interested in truth and justice

 

[GrizPony]

Why out of court? Lots of innocent people go to prison, especially in emotionally charged and highly publicised case. Not Guilty Verdicts especially in sex cases do not establish innocence. Pabst and Paoli collect their checks and move on. Avoiding court is JJ's best way to get his life back.

Whether the JJ fans take delight in 75's debating ability, the simple fact is the accuser is smart, involved in the community, and pretty darn successful ( except in love apparently) Things could go bad quickly. That pro JJ crowd votes 75 as the butt kicker here won't help in the real world. If a trial can be avoided, it should.

If a not guilty verdict doesn't establish innocence, tell me how a plea bargain does again? The real truth comes out in this post clearly, you know the accuser so well that you know her intellectual level, her involvement in the community and her financial acumen! Is she one of your messed up adoptees? Now that you see real attorneys showing you what will likely happen, you want to save some face for your agenda and badger someone into a plea deal. Then you can claim victory right? Buddy you are pathetic. Just quit posting on here.

 

[go4two]

i think it will go to trial and he has a 50/50 chance of being convicted.

Okay, let's see your analysis of why you think this. Everyone is welcome to an opinion, but I don't recall you having a track record on the board to make anyone think you may know what you what you're talking about.

Not so fast PR. There is a reason why JJ was voted 7-0 to be expelled from UM. The accuser is not your average student. She is a highly successful, accomplished student with impressive credentials. In my opinion, the UM honor court couldn't see past this, and immediatly believed JJ had to be guilty. I feel they just could not fathom that she would fabricate such a story. This is not a jock chasing bimbo that the "rumor" mill would leave you to believe. Now, I know the UM honor court was kangaroo justice. I am just bringing it up because this girl's accomplishments had them all convinced JJ just had to be guilty. As I stated in the other thread, I would not want to be a juror in this trial. As it really comes down to what the jury believes.

I can only hope the TRUTH comes out in the trial. I really feel compassion for both sides. Either the girl is a sociopath or JJ is guilty.

 

[GrizPony]

i think it will go to trial and he has a 50/50 chance of being convicted.

Okay, let's see your analysis of why you think this. Everyone is welcome to an opinion, but I don't recall you having a track record on the board to make anyone think you may know what you what you're talking about.

Not so fast PR. There is a reason why JJ was voted 7-0 to be expelled from UM. The accuser is not your average student. She is a highly sucessful, accomplished student with impressive credentials. In my opinion, the UM honor court couldn't see past this, and immediatly believed JJ had to be guilty. I feel they just could not fathom that she would fabricate such a story. This is not jock chasing bimbo that the "rumor" mill would leave you to believe. Now, I know the UM honor court was kangaroo justice. I am just bringing it up because this girl's accomplishments had them all convinced JJ just had to be guilty. As I stated in the other thread, I would not want to be a juror in this trial. As it really comes down to what the jury believes.

I can only hope the TRUTH comes out in the trial. I really feel compassion for both sides. Either the girl is a sociopath or JJ is guilty.

He wasn't convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the honor court. It was a preponderance of the evidence standard. Huge difference: actually the difference is as big as the difference between gossip and due process. Also, the Judge in the real courtroom won't come in with an arm around the accuser. That is what Couture did. That is one reason why he is gone. :thumb:

 

[PlayerRep]

i think it will go to trial and he has a 50/50 chance of being convicted.

Okay, let's see your analysis of why you think this. Everyone is welcome to an opinion, but I don't recall you having a track record on the board to make anyone think you may know what you what you're talking about.

Not so fast PR. There is a reason why JJ was voted 7-0 to be expelled from UM. The accuser is not your average student. She is a highly successful, accomplished student with impressive credentials. In my opinion, the UM honor court couldn't see past this, and immediatly believed JJ had to be guilty. I feel they just could not fathom that she would fabricate such a story. This is not a jock chasing bimbo that the "rumor" mill would leave you to believe. Now, I know the UM honor court was kangaroo justice. I am just bringing it up because this girl's accomplishments had them all convinced JJ just had to be guilty. As I stated in the other thread, I would not want to be a juror in this trial. As it really comes down to what the jury believes.

I can only hope the TRUTH comes out in the trial. I really feel compassion for both sides. Either the girl is a sociopath or JJ is guilty.

Nope, apples to oranges. Completely not applicable. From what I can tell, the dean was completely biased and didn't know what he was doing, the biased dean essentially served as a prosecutor, JJ wasn't allowed to present his side of the story, JJ's attorney was not allowed to speak, the texts, interviews and evidence gathered by the university was not provided to JJ's attorney, and JJ had to be very careful what he said due to the possible criminal case in the background, I don't believe the accuser was able to be questioned, and the standard used was preponderance and not beyond a reasonable doubt. My guess is that virtually nothing provided by the defense in the recent motion to dismiss was presented at the panel hearing.

 

[go4two]

Nope, apples to oranges. Completely not applicable. From what I can tell, the dean was completely biased and didn't know what he was doing, the biased dean essentially served as a prosecutor, JJ wasn't allowed to present his side of the story, JJ's attorney was not allowed to speak, the texts, interviews and evidence gathered by the university was not provided to JJ's attorney, and JJ had to be very careful what he said due to the possible criminal case in the background, and the standard used was preponderance and not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fair enough, I agree. The standard facing JJ now will be much more in his favor. What I was trying to explain was that she does not fit the role the rumor mill has brought forth. In my opinion, the jury is going to have a hard time believing she is not telling the truth.

 

[pussycatkillerz]

This tread needs to go away.

 

[PlayerRep]

Fair enough, I agree. The standard facing JJ now will be much more in his favor. What I was trying to explain was that she does not fit the role the rumor mill has brought forth. In my opinion, the jury is going to have a hard time believing she is not telling the truth.

So how is the jury going to learn about or figure out all of those good things about her? How will they learn about her "high morals", and that she is "intelligent", an "over-achiever" and a "model citizen"? Will a jury care about her being intelligent or an over-achiever? Is that relevant? How will she handle questions about all of her inconsistent stories?

 

[GrizPony]

Fair enough, I agree. The standard facing JJ now will be much more in his favor. What I was trying to explain was that she does not fit the role the rumor mill has brought forth. In my opinion, the jury is going to have a hard time believing she is not telling the truth.

So how is the jury going to learn about or figure out all of those good things about her? How will they learn about her "high morals", and that she is "intelligent", an "over-achiever" and a "model citizen"? Will a jury care about her being intelligent or an over-achiever? Is that relevant? How will she handle questions about all of her inconsistent stories?

If the prosecution opens the door on her character, then she will be open to every attack on her character. Any past action that looks less than savory will be dredged up. I doubt they will open that door as it is too risky. And to be clear, I don't know anything about the accuser and have never tried to insinuate that she has character issues. All I know about her is from the inconsistent statements she has given.

 

[UMGriz75]

I think the part about showing up slobbering drunk at the Forester's Ball and trying to create a scene with JJ will mitigate, to a large extent, her "good image."

Not that she would be described as an "alcohol-fueled sexual predator," but in fact, the only time that excess alcohol played a role at all in the ongoing Jane Doe/JJ shenanigans was when Jane Doe herself was "alcohol-fueled" in front of 1,500 witnesses and announced how willing she was, while thusly "alcohol-fueled," to "do" the University of Montana's star quarterback.

I don't know if that makes her a "sexual predator" or not, but in that state of high intoxication, she seemed VERY aggressive about publicly promoting her view of sex and her desire to have it specifically with the star quarterback, and in particular to not only announce it in front of the star quarterback's Date, but that her intentions possibly extended beyond merely announcing it in front of said Date to doing it in front of said Date and possibly 1499 other spectators.

She did, after all, use the word "anytime," a word that requires little further imagination.

Jane Doe presents, if nothing else, an extraordinary gift of award-winning social charm that I am sure will provoke among the jurors a collective wish that she was their daughter.

I don't know specifically that President Engstrom made a big deal about alcohol at the Forester's Ball just because one drunken participant made something of a public scene about having sex with the University's star quarterback, but, geez folks, it is interesting that "alcohol fueled" would be a term applied to JJ negatively on this thread, when it was completely untrue at any time herein, whereas the actual fact of that condition described ... Jane Doe.

 

[AZDoc]

So what's the longest thread in the history of egriz???

 

[argh!]

Not that she would be described as an "alcohol-fueled sexual predator," but in fact, the only time that excess alcohol played a role at all in the ongoing Jane Doe/JJ shenanigans was when Jane Doe herself was "alcohol-fueled" in front of 1,500 witnesses and announced how willing she was, while thusly "alcohol-fueled," to "do" the University of Montana's star quarterback.

I don't know if that makes her a "sexual predator" or not, but in that state of high intoxication, she seemed VERY aggressive about publicly promoting her view of sex and her desire to have it specifically with the star quarterback, and in particular to not only announce it in front of the star quarterback's Date, but that her intentions possibly extended beyond merely announcing it in front of said Date to doing it in front of said Date and possibly 1499 other spectators.

gawd, you are like a hysterical little girl. worse, actually.

(sorry for the aside, please continue "winning" whatever it is you think you are winning)

 

[GrizPony]

Not that she would be described as an "alcohol-fueled sexual predator," but in fact, the only time that excess alcohol played a role at all in the ongoing Jane Doe/JJ shenanigans was when Jane Doe herself was "alcohol-fueled" in front of 1,500 witnesses and announced how willing she was, while thusly "alcohol-fueled," to "do" the University of Montana's star quarterback.

I don't know if that makes her a "sexual predator" or not, but in that state of high intoxication, she seemed VERY aggressive about publicly promoting her view of sex and her desire to have it specifically with the star quarterback, and in particular to not only announce it in front of the star quarterback's Date, but that her intentions possibly extended beyond merely announcing it in front of said Date to doing it in front of said Date and possibly 1499 other spectators.

gawd, you are like a hysterical little girl. worse, actually.

(sorry for the aside, please continue "winning" whatever it is you think you are winning)

Are you sexist much? Or since you are so balanced and fair, its ok for you to pigeon-hole hysteria as a female trait. :?

 

[UMGriz75]

Not that she would be described as an "alcohol-fueled sexual predator," but in fact, the only time that excess alcohol played a role at all in the ongoing Jane Doe/JJ shenanigans was when Jane Doe herself was "alcohol-fueled" in front of 1,500 witnesses and announced how willing she was, while thusly "alcohol-fueled," to "do" the University of Montana's star quarterback.

I don't know if that makes her a "sexual predator" or not, but in that state of high intoxication, she seemed VERY aggressive about publicly promoting her view of sex and her desire to have it specifically with the star quarterback, and in particular to not only announce it in front of the star quarterback's Date, but that her intentions possibly extended beyond merely announcing it in front of said Date to doing it in front of said Date and possibly 1499 other spectators.

gawd, you are like a hysterical little girl. worse, actually.

(sorry for the aside, please continue "winning" whatever it is you think you are winning)

Are you sexist much? Or since you are so balanced and fair, its ok for you to pigeon-hole hysteria as a female trait. :?

I enjoy the fact that an individual, whose sole "contributions" to a thread consists entirely of already strained ad hominem and obsessive remarks about other posters, is only able to do so by references to "little girls," which is, all by itself, weird enough.

 

[UMGriz75]

(sorry for the aside, please continue "winning" whatever it is you think you are winning)

And please continue whining about whatever it is you think you need to be whining about.

 

[Sportin' Life]

Fair enough, I agree. The standard facing JJ now will be much more in his favor. What I was trying to explain was that she does not fit the role the rumor mill has brought forth. In my opinion, the jury is going to have a hard time believing she is not telling the truth.

So how is the jury going to learn about or figure out all of those good things about her? How will they learn about her "high morals", and that she is "intelligent", an "over-achiever" and a "model citizen"? Will a jury care about her being intelligent or an over-achiever? Is that relevant? How will she handle questions about all of her inconsistent stories?

But the only reason any of you care is that Jordan Johnson is a good football player. So maybe the jury won't care that she is a good person and an honor student, but likewise they might not care that Johnson can throw a tight spiral while rolling left.