No Way JJ Can Be Convicted

[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?

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.

Yeah we only care about football, we could never know Jordan and think he is a good person and an honor student. The only good person here is the accuser and her defenders? Do you think before you post, ever?

 

[Sportin' Life]

Yeah we only care about football, we could never know Jordan and think he is a good person and an honor student. The only good person here is the accuser and her defenders? Do you think before you post, ever?

How do you consistently manage to screw up the quote feature --eta oops that was a mistake that I quoted without looking.

Anyways the only reason Johnson has had the privilege of your oh-so-sought after attention is because he is a football player. We all know that his jock would never have the pleasure of such a good sniffing if he were on the tennis team.

First I heard that he is an honor student.

And 75 goin' at it like it is your job. Must be a weird sort of internship, but I still think that you would do better by learning to research case law. I know the page hits number must make it seem like most of western montana has read this thread, but really that is likely mostly just argh being obsessive.

 

[GrizPony]

Yeah we only care about football, we could never know Jordan and think he is a good person and an honor student. The only good person here is the accuser and her defenders? Do you think before you post, ever?

How do you consistently manage to screw up the quote feature --eta oops that was a mistake that I quoted without looking.

Anyways the only reason Johnson has had the privilege of your oh-so-sought after attention is because he is a football player. We all know that his jock would never have the pleasure of such a good sniffing if he were on the tennis team.

First I heard that he is an honor student.

And 75 goin' at it like it is your job. Must be a weird sort of internship, but I still think that you would do better by learning to research case law. I know the page hits number must make it seem like most of western montana has read this thread, but really that is likely mostly just argh being obsessive.

I quote the whole post so peeps don't have to go back and see the context. I quoted YOUR entire post and that makes my quote messed up? Huh? First you heard Jordan was an honor student? Then you must not pay attention too often or you don't care. I guarantee I know case law better than you do.

 

[tnt]

A diversion agreement is neither a plea bargain OR a guilty plea FWIW (unless of course the guy screws up, but even then it would be less than "rape"....

As I pointed out before Long term (and even short term) it works well The Missoula County Republicans are being represented at the National Convention by a Guy who did a diversion for child molestation. Its clear he was innocent, but at the time he would have been convicted.

 

[PTGrizzly]

Yeah we only care about football, we could never know Jordan and think he is a good person and an honor student. The only good person here is the accuser and her defenders? Do you think before you post, ever?

How do you consistently manage to screw up the quote feature --eta oops that was a mistake that I quoted without looking.

Anyways the only reason Johnson has had the privilege of your oh-so-sought after attention is because he is a football player. We all know that his jock would never have the pleasure of such a good sniffing if he were on the tennis team.

First I heard that he is an honor student.

And 75 goin' at it like it is your job. Must be a weird sort of internship, but I still think that you would do better by learning to research case law. I know the page hits number must make it seem like most of western montana has read this thread, but really that is likely mostly just argh being obsessive.

I quote the whole post so peeps don't have to go back and see the context. I quoted YOUR entire post and that makes my quote messed up? Huh? First you heard Jordan was an honor student? Then you must not pay attention too often or you don't care. I guarantee I know case law better than you do.

Nope. I've talked to several good criminal lawyers and they all said you don't know case law better than me.

 

[HighLineGRIZ]

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.

Again, it's he said, she said. He said that this happend. Maybe it did and the defense will have the opportunity to explore that in trial. Maybe she, and other witnisses at the ball have another side of that particular event. I don't know and you don't know. We weren't there.

 

[GrizPony]

Yeah we only care about football, we could never know Jordan and think he is a good person and an honor student. The only good person here is the accuser and her defenders? Do you think before you post, ever?

How do you consistently manage to screw up the quote feature --eta oops that was a mistake that I quoted without looking.

Anyways the only reason Johnson has had the privilege of your oh-so-sought after attention is because he is a football player. We all know that his jock would never have the pleasure of such a good sniffing if he were on the tennis team.

First I heard that he is an honor student.

And 75 goin' at it like it is your job. Must be a weird sort of internship, but I still think that you would do better by learning to research case law. I know the page hits number must make it seem like most of western montana has read this thread, but really that is likely mostly just argh being obsessive.

I quote the whole post so peeps don't have to go back and see the context. I quoted YOUR entire post and that makes my quote messed up? Huh? First you heard Jordan was an honor student? Then you must not pay attention too often or you don't care. I guarantee I know case law better than you do.

Nope. I've talked to several good criminal lawyers and they all said you don't know case law better than me.

Funny. But you contradict your earlier claim that lawyers are scum by saying, and I quote, "several good criminal lawyers..." You really don't know which end is up do you?

 

[UMGriz75]

Again, it's he said, she said. He said that this happend. Maybe it did and the defense will have the opportunity to explore that in trial. Maybe she, and other witnisses at the ball have another side of that particular event. I don't know and you don't know. We weren't there.

I understand the theory: if she said it, it's what happened. If he said it, "it's he said, she said." In this case, there are witness statements for JJ's "version." She has not substantively contradicted those statements.

I was, by the way, at this year's Forester's Ball.

 

[PTGrizzly]

How do you consistently manage to screw up the quote feature --eta oops that was a mistake that I quoted without looking.

Anyways the only reason Johnson has had the privilege of your oh-so-sought after attention is because he is a football player. We all know that his jock would never have the pleasure of such a good sniffing if he were on the tennis team.

First I heard that he is an honor student.

And 75 goin' at it like it is your job. Must be a weird sort of internship, but I still think that you would do better by learning to research case law. I know the page hits number must make it seem like most of western montana has read this thread, but really that is likely mostly just argh being obsessive.

I quote the whole post so peeps don't have to go back and see the context. I quoted YOUR entire post and that makes my quote messed up? Huh? First you heard Jordan was an honor student? Then you must not pay attention too often or you don't care. I guarantee I know case law better than you do.

Nope. I've talked to several good criminal lawyers and they all said you don't know case law better than me.

Funny. But you contradict your earlier claim that lawyers are scum by saying, and I quote, "several good criminal lawyers..." You really don't know which end is up do you?

If you can't see what I'm doing here in this thread, then I really don't know what to tell ya bub.

 

[HighLineGRIZ]

Again, it's he said, she said. He said that this happend. Maybe it did and the defense will have the opportunity to explore that in trial. Maybe she, and other witnisses at the ball have another side of that particular event. I don't know and you don't know. We weren't there.

I understand the theory: if she said it, it's what happened. If he said it, "it's he said, she said." In this case, there are witness statements for JJ's "version." She has not substantively contradicted those statements.

I was, by the way, at this year's Forester's Ball.

Wrong. It's all "he said, she said" at this point. Prosecution hasn't had the opportunity to contradict JJ's motion yet. Guess that's why they have a trial... Nice try on trying to categorize my position though. Again. Only position I have is that people shouldn't be dreaming up speculations of what happened or make judgements on the character of people they don't know. You can't know what happened strictly from an affidavid and a motion to dismiss. It's classical "he said, she said" without any evidence or testimony to support either view. Trial will bring that information out for discussion and analysis. All we have now is bias interpretation of the two documents. You obviously have made your choice on who you support, TNT on his. I only support a fair trial for both parties involved that results in the correct ruling.

 

[getgrizzy]

Again, it's he said, she said. He said that this happend. Maybe it did and the defense will have the opportunity to explore that in trial. Maybe she, and other witnisses at the ball have another side of that particular event. I don't know and you don't know. We weren't there.

I understand the theory: if she said it, it's what happened. If he said it, "it's he said, she said." In this case, there are witness statements for JJ's "version." She has not substantively contradicted those statements.

I was, by the way, at this year's Forester's Ball.

Wrong. It's all "he said, she said" at this point. Prosecution hasn't had the opportunity to contradict JJ's motion yet. Guess that's why they have a trial... Nice try on trying to categorize my position though. Again. Only position I have is that people shouldn't be dreaming up speculations of what happened or make judgements on the character of people they don't know. You can't know what happened strictly from an affidavid and a motion to dismiss. It's classical "he said, she said" without any evidence or testimony to support either view. Trial will bring that information out for discussion and analysis. All we have now is bias interpretation of the two documents. You obviously have made your choice on who you support, TNT on his. I only support a fair trial for both parties involved that results in the correct ruling.

good job hilinegriz. that's the best post in the history of this subject. she's got a story to tell, he's got a story to tell. she's got an affidavit, he's got a motion to dismiss. they both have witnesses and lawyers. if necessary, they'll get a jury and a verdict.

 

[Grizzoola]

I would not want to be a juror in this trial.

Why the hell not, for godssakes? That's what it comes down to on this board with all the threads/posts. Everyone has theories/opinions, but what is your stance if you're a juror? Ok, JJ is guilty. Ok, he's not. Are you capable of going into this trial as a juror, completely impartial? I cannot understand how anyone would not want to be on the jury, if it comes to trial. Only then will you be faced with both the law and the facts. No more speculation, no more opinion, etc. If you have your mind made up, admit that in jury selection & get excused.

I expect a packed courtroom if this thing comes to trial. I wish I could get a reserved seat.

 

[UMGriz75]

Again, it's he said, she said. He said that this happend. Maybe it did and the defense will have the opportunity to explore that in trial. Maybe she, and other witnisses at the ball have another side of that particular event. I don't know and you don't know. We weren't there.

I understand the theory: if she said it, it's what happened. If he said it, "it's he said, she said." In this case, there are witness statements for JJ's "version." She has not substantively contradicted those statements.

Wrong. It's all "he said, she said" at this point. Prosecution hasn't had the opportunity to contradict JJ's motion yet. Guess that's why they have a trial... Nice try on trying to categorize my position though. Again. Only position I have is that people shouldn't be dreaming up speculations of what happened or make judgements on the character of people they don't know.

Well, you got past TNT's 23 pages of endless dreaming speculations just fine, so perhaps your protests are their own evidence of the speculation you prefer rather than the facts as they exist.

However, your point is, in fact, wrong.

Both sides have taken extensive witness statements, under oath and otherwise, of the other. There is little to "speculate" about regarding Jane Doe's contradictory statements. There is no speculation. She made them. They are now part of the public record.

They are not "he said/she said." Instead, the main prosecution weaknesses in this case comes from "she said/she said," and "she said/she did."

Anytime a case revolves around contradictory complaining witness statements, that is just the beginning of the problems for the prosecution.

Any time you have to parse the meaning of "it's" and "all" and "good" and just about every other word she ever uttered, the case is in trouble because juries are ordinarily extremely sensitive to the continuing and endless explanations from the complaining witness that "what I meant was ...," over and over again throughout a case, at each turn sounding more and more like "I didn't set this up very well, let me re-tell the story to make it sound better," even as that is invariably the open door to make it worse. This case already has the fatal rot of contradictory stories by the complaining witness.

And blowing a gasket about it, pretending the facts are not already well established is either a simple ignorance of where the case is at at this point, or a fantasy hope that it isn't because you don't like how the evidence is lining up, adds little to the discussion except to inform knowledgeable readers that you aren't one of them.

As I noted earlier, there are three statements by the two people actually present at the time. Two of the statements are by Jane Doe. Two of the three statements are in favor of JJ's view of the case.

 

[br fan]

Again, it's he said, she said. He said that this happend. Maybe it did and the defense will have the opportunity to explore that in trial. Maybe she, and other witnisses at the ball have another side of that particular event. I don't know and you don't know. We weren't there.

I understand the theory: if she said it, it's what happened. If he said it, "it's he said, she said." In this case, there are witness statements for JJ's "version." She has not substantively contradicted those statements.

I was, by the way, at this year's Forester's Ball.

Wrong. It's all "he said, she said" at this point. Prosecution hasn't had the opportunity to contradict JJ's motion yet. Guess that's why they have a trial... Nice try on trying to categorize my position though. Again. Only position I have is that people shouldn't be dreaming up speculations of what happened or make judgements on the character of people they don't know. You can't know what happened strictly from an affidavid and a motion to dismiss. It's classical "he said, she said" without any evidence or testimony to support either view. Trial will bring that information out for discussion and analysis. All we have now is bias interpretation of the two documents. You obviously have made your choice on who you support, TNT on his. I only support a fair trial for both parties involved that results in the correct ruling.

With the motion the defense in essence is arguing we have not yet reached the "he said, she said" point. Whether JJ knowingly committed the crime is based on "she said" evidence, and the defense is arguing that as a matter of law the prosecution cannot cherry pick some "she said" evidence which alleges he did know, while ignoring other "she said" evidence that suggests he did not know, to find probable cause. Assuming the court denies the motion I agree with Highline that this will be a "he said/she said" case that a jury will need to decide. Right now though, we're still at a "she said/she said" point that the defense is asking the court to decide.

 

[UMGriz75]

Anyways the only reason Johnson has had the privilege of your oh-so-sought after attention is because he is a football player. We all know that his jock would never have the pleasure of such a good sniffing if he were on the tennis team.

You're jealous, aren't you?

 

[Umista]

It's official, this post about sex will run way over 30 pages! On a football forum no less. Keep postin and see if we can't set some type of record to make us all proud.

 

[UMGriz75]

It's official, this post about sex will run way over 30 pages! On a football forum no less. Keep postin and see if we can't set some type of record to make us all proud.

This will set a record for the number of posts asking why this thread is still ongoing, which is the main driver of the number of posts and the number of pages.

It is amazing what a thread on a football forum about the star quarterback of the football team will generate.

Who wudda thought? It is obviously a stunning development to certain posters.

 

[HighLineGRIZ]

Again, it's he said, she said. He said that this happend. Maybe it did and the defense will have the opportunity to explore that in trial. Maybe she, and other witnisses at the ball have another side of that particular event. I don't know and you don't know. We weren't there.

I understand the theory: if she said it, it's what happened. If he said it, "it's he said, she said." In this case, there are witness statements for JJ's "version." She has not substantively contradicted those statements.

I was, by the way, at this year's Forester's Ball.

Wrong. It's all "he said, she said" at this point. Prosecution hasn't had the opportunity to contradict JJ's motion yet. Guess that's why they have a trial... Nice try on trying to categorize my position though. Again. Only position I have is that people shouldn't be dreaming up speculations of what happened or make judgements on the character of people they don't know. You can't know what happened strictly from an affidavid and a motion to dismiss. It's classical "he said, she said" without any evidence or testimony to support either view. Trial will bring that information out for discussion and analysis. All we have now is bias interpretation of the two documents. You obviously have made your choice on who you support, TNT on his. I only support a fair trial for both parties involved that results in the correct ruling.

With the motion the defense in essence is arguing we have not yet reached the "he said, she said" point. Whether JJ knowingly committed the crime is based on "she said" evidence, and the defense is arguing that as a matter of law the prosecution cannot cherry pick some "she said" evidence which alleges he did know, while ignoring other "she said" evidence that suggests he did not know, to find probable cause. Assuming the court denies the motion I agree with Highline that this will be a "he said/she said" case that a jury will need to decide. Right now though, we're still at a "she said/she said" point that the defense is asking the court to decide.

I can agree with that. The court will have to find admissible evidence at trial that there is "she said, she said" that is enough to throw this out. That evidence might be there but it hasn't been displayed yet and will have to be at trial. I have a tough time that the "she said" evidence is enough to throw out the case. I'm sure it could have an effect on the jurors and that is why we have a trial.

 

[HighLineGRIZ]

Again, it's he said, she said. He said that this happend. Maybe it did and the defense will have the opportunity to explore that in trial. Maybe she, and other witnisses at the ball have another side of that particular event. I don't know and you don't know. We weren't there.

I understand the theory: if she said it, it's what happened. If he said it, "it's he said, she said." In this case, there are witness statements for JJ's "version." She has not substantively contradicted those statements.

Wrong. It's all "he said, she said" at this point. Prosecution hasn't had the opportunity to contradict JJ's motion yet. Guess that's why they have a trial... Nice try on trying to categorize my position though. Again. Only position I have is that people shouldn't be dreaming up speculations of what happened or make judgements on the character of people they don't know.

Well, you got past TNT's 23 pages of endless dreaming speculations just fine, so perhaps your protests are their own evidence of the speculation you prefer rather than the facts as they exist.

However, your point is, in fact, wrong.

Both sides have taken extensive witness statements, under oath and otherwise, of the other. There is little to "speculate" about regarding Jane Doe's contradictory statements. There is no speculation. She made them. They are now part of the public record.

They are not "he said/she said." Instead, the main prosecution weaknesses in this case comes from "she said/she said," and "she said/she did."

Anytime a case revolves around contradictory complaining witness statements, that is just the beginning of the problems for the prosecution.

Any time you have to parse the meaning of "it's" and "all" and "good" and just about every other word she ever uttered, the case is in trouble because juries are ordinarily extremely sensitive to the continuing and endless explanations from the complaining witness that "what I meant was ...," over and over again throughout a case, at each turn sounding more and more like "I didn't set this up very well, let me re-tell the story to make it sound better," even as that is invariably the open door to make it worse. This case already has the fatal rot of contradictory stories by the complaining witness.

And blowing a gasket about it, pretending the facts are not already well established is either a simple ignorance of where the case is at at this point, or a fantasy hope that it isn't because you don't like how the evidence is lining up, adds little to the discussion except to inform knowledgeable readers that you aren't one of them.

As I noted earlier, there are three statements by the two people actually present at the time. Two of the statements are by Jane Doe. Two of the three statements are in favor of JJ's view of the case.

There you go again. Speculating incorrectly on my views of this case.

Speculation and premature judgement are actually the two issues that have really upset me about this thread, regardless of which side is presenting those judgements. I've been critical of TNT in other posts as well, but he hasn't been nearly as judgemental on the character of the accused and accuser as you have and that's what really bothers me most. Unless you know either of the two individuals, I don't think its prudent to attack their character. Most of your posts have included attacks on Jane Doe's character based only on information from those 2 documents.

I am ignorant about this case as is anybody who forms their analysis completely on the documents that have been presented. I don't have any fantasies on this case or any hopes on any outcomes other than the truth. I haven't made any speculations of what happened and I'm hopeful that more evidence and credible testimony comes to fruition to make the best judgement.

The justice system does not run on speculation it runs on facts, evidence, and credible testimony. Both sides should and will have the opportunity to use these tools to explain their case. If that information comes out and further supports your arguments, I really will actually be satisfied in that the case will work out in JJ's favor and he can look towards moving on with his life a better person. We aren't there yet though. Nobody on this board knows what happened and shouldn't pretend to.

 

[getgrizzy]

maybe i missed this in the motion to dismiss and its already been done, but the text messages need to be authenticated before they can be used in court or used to dismiss the case. either she admits to writing them or her phone/text records show that only she could've been using her phone at the time those texts were written. the texts also have to include language that confirms, not saying they don't, she either didn't resist in any way or he had no idea she didn't want to have sex with him.