who seriously thinks JJ would stay/play???

[Cats2506]

I do. If he wasn't planning on staying, why wouldn't he have left already?

Well there is this little thing called a trial coming up in Febuary

 

[tnt]

Again what evidence exists he was expelled??? (other than an attempt by Paoli to get "confidential" information to the public in a PR attempt? He's a great attorney but criminal defense? That ship needs (and has) a different driver.) If JJ was expelled and the decision held up in the time frames specified, he'd be gone. Most of this is supposition on Egriz.

Dean, I'll let you finish the semester and then you leave, I'm the final authority, Couture is gone

 

[grizhunter]

I sat almost next to Jordan at the cat/griz game and was able to talk with him. Very polite and a well spoken kid, which ever way it goes I wish him the best. I really hope his young life will be able to rebound and he will be able to fulfill his dreams. Before someone gets all bent, who am I to say he is innocent or guilty, just hate to see young lives wasted.

 

[MNGriz04]

Number 2. Acquital is not a slam dunk. The prosecuters brought a case because they think they have enough evidence to prove it.

While acquital is never a slam dunk, prosecutors often do bring cases even when they don't have enough evidence to prove it. Sometimes it's because of public pressure, whether perceived or real. Sometimes it's because of higher aspirations. Sometimes it's because of ego.

I don't know the merits of the case but it's unrealistic to say that prosecutors don't bring cases that they don't have enough evidence to prove it.

 

[griz4life]

Mr. Johnson is in school working toward a degree, which is exactly what he should be doing. Whether that means he will participate in UM athletics again remains to be seen. I have to wonder where his parents stand on their young man playing for a university that treated him so poorly. The Dean of Students mishandled this matter so badly, it's hard to imagine Johnson's parents, or Johnson for that matter, chalking things up as a big misunderstanding.
If Mr. Johnson sues the university, it's hard to imagine he'd stay at UM. Doing so would mean spending what should be the best years of his life in endless conflict and public drama. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

 

[go96griz]

Number 1. He is staying because he needs to for his case. Number 2. Acquital is not a slam dunk. The prosecuters brought a case because they think they have enough evidence to prove it. Number 3. Even if he is acquited, he still has the university honor court thing. I really don't think he is coming back. As far as the offense is concerned, there are multiple variations of the spread that do not require a "dual threat" quarterback. The offense does not need to change that much is say, Gustafson wins the job. Oregon's quarterback is not a real large running threat,and they do fine getting their athletes in space to make plays.

I wrote this on another thread, but it is applicable here as well.

I have seen this response from several well respected posters on here. I respect this opinion, but I just don't buy it.

JJ was voted to be expelled based on highly suspect actions of the Dean of Students. At the time the criminal charges were finally filed, JJ's expulsion case was being appealed to the highest level. However, the comments out of Main Hall were that JJ would be allowed to continue in school pending results of the criminal case.

Why do you let somebody continue in school that was voted to be expelled? This just doesn't make any sense other than UM officials/BOR/legal counsel/?? viewed the investigation and process against JJ as highly suspect. As a result, they are saving themselves against legal action by allowing JJ to stay in school pending criminal results with a real trial and unbiased investigation. Worst case, the trial validates UM's process and JJ is gone. Best case, JJ is found innocent and the school can rely on the legal process to keep him in school. Either way, the school is now protected from the original kangaroo court actions.

Assuming JJ is acquitted, I see no reason he won't return to action for the griz if he still wants to.

 

[Grisly Fan]

It takes great strength of character to face your problems head on and not run from them. Assuming JJ is acquitted, I hope he stay and plays. I would see it as a giant F-YOU to the reactionary CYA by RE. If in that case the school were attempt further action against JJ, I think it would be the beginning of the end of RE.

 

[Grizzoola]

it would be a poor decision to leave town and hinder your ability to work with your attorneys on a case that might put you in prison for years? that alone would keep him in missoula.

This. Also, his attorneys may have told him it would "look bad" to a jury if he left town and transfered.

My one thought here, is aquitted and not guilty are not the same thing. At this point none of us will ever know if JJ did it or not. If he is found not guilty and aquitted, it means that he was not proven guilty "beyond a resonable doubt". Not that his attorneys proved he didn't do it. I suppose they may possibly prove he did not do it, but I would think if that were possible, he wouldn't be going to trial.

That all said, the university has to consider the court of public opinion in this case, and what already happened with whatever went down with him getting expelled. After this case, if he if aquitted, we will see what transpires there. Unless there is a court injuction seeing him back to school, I see him transfering after the spring semester and starting over new somewhere. Just my opinion.

I don't know what you mean by "did it." Did what? Have sex w/ her? No question. Consensual? THAT'S the question, not your ambiguous "did it." At least this is my understanding of the case. If he is acquitted OF THE CHARGES, it means he did nothing more than have consensual sex, or believed it was consensual at the time. That's the issue, here: Was the sex consensual, in the sense that he knew it was or was not?

Again, if he is acquitted, it means that he did no different than any other male UM student with a girl. How can UM expel him for doing nothing more than what goes on all the time between male & female students? If he is expelled after all this, it has to be for reasons the UM thinks valid, despite his doing nothing more than any other male student.

This case has been sliced and diced to death on this board, already, & I'm not into that. I also stand to be corrected, respectfully, but this is how I see the situation.

 

[Grizbacker1]

Number 1. He is staying because he needs to for his case. Number 2. Acquital is not a slam dunk. The prosecuters brought a case because they think they have enough evidence to prove it. Number 3. Even if he is acquited, he still has the university honor court thing. I really don't think he is coming back. As far as the offense is concerned, there are multiple variations of the spread that do not require a "dual threat" quarterback. The offense does not need to change that much is say, Gustafson wins the job. Oregon's quarterback is not a real large running threat,and they do fine getting their athletes in space to make plays.

They brought a case because they didn't have a choice due to the Justice Dept investigation. FVV was feeling the heat. JJ has told several people he intends to play. He didn't leave because he maintains his innocence, and I think that makes sense. Do you honestly think that UM is STUPID enough to expel him if he is acquitted? Even you can't make that stretch can you? :roll:

And, any time a case is brought, there is always a chance of a gulty decision by the jury. I am not going to say that I know he is going to be found guilty or not guilty. Once the wheels of justice start turning, you take your chances with the jury.

There are also LOTS of cases that never make it to trial, both civil and criminal. I actually subscribe to the theory innocent until PROVEN guilty in a Court of Law. I know many holier than thou people and jackass cat fans don't, but that is their problem.

 

[getgrizzy]

Number 1. He is staying because he needs to for his case. Number 2. Acquital is not a slam dunk. The prosecuters brought a case because they think they have enough evidence to prove it. Number 3. Even if he is acquited, he still has the university honor court thing. I really don't think he is coming back. As far as the offense is concerned, there are multiple variations of the spread that do not require a "dual threat" quarterback. The offense does not need to change that much is say, Gustafson wins the job. Oregon's quarterback is not a real large running threat,and they do fine getting their athletes in space to make plays.

They brought a case because they didn't have a choice due to the Justice Dept investigation. FVV was feeling the heat. JJ has told several people he intends to play. He didn't leave because he maintains his innocence, and I think that makes sense. Do you honestly think that UM is STUPID enough to expel him if he is acquitted? Even you can't make that stretch can you? :roll:

And, any time a case is brought, there is always a chance of a gulty decision by the jury. I am not going to say that I know he is going to be found guilty or not guilty. Once the wheels of justice start turning, you take your chances with the jury.

There are also LOTS of cases that never make it to trial, both civil and criminal. I actually subscribe to the theory innocent until PROVEN guilty in a Court of Law. I know many holier than thou people and jackass cat fans don't, but that is their problem.

:ding: gb1 that's your microwave calling. dinosaur nuggets are done. get 'em while their hot.

 

[spsyk]

Number 1. He is staying because he needs to for his case. Number 2. Acquital is not a slam dunk. The prosecuters brought a case because they think they have enough evidence to prove it. Number 3. Even if he is acquited, he still has the university honor court thing. I really don't think he is coming back. As far as the offense is concerned, there are multiple variations of the spread that do not require a "dual threat" quarterback. The offense does not need to change that much is say, Gustafson wins the job. Oregon's quarterback is not a real large running threat,and they do fine getting their athletes in space to make plays.

They brought a case because they didn't have a choice due to the Justice Dept investigation. FVV was feeling the heat. JJ has told several people he intends to play. He didn't leave because he maintains his innocence, and I think that makes sense. Do you honestly think that UM is STUPID enough to expel him if he is acquitted? Even you can't make that stretch can you? :roll:

Well, they were stupid enough to fire the coach of the year, for watching Johnson's back, as well as firing, arguably the best AD that the University has had.

I would expect, Engstom to do everything he can, to keep himself above the fray, and to protect, a certain regent, and the regents wife.

 

[Copper Griz]

I had the frigging answer concerning JJ's acquittal/guilt and his decision to stay/leave UM - then my damn crystal ball rolled off my desk and broke before I could read the answers.

 

[grizpack]

Yes. I believe he will be suiting up next year in Washington-Johnson-Paoli-Pabst-Grizzly Stadium, playing for the Montana Johnson-Paoli-Pabst Grizzlies.

 

[Thurman Murman]

It is a fact that JJ has stated not only that he would, but that he will come back and play after found not guilty. I can see why many would be bitter and leave but I believe JJ sees it as his "revenge" to all the nay sayers and people who declared him guilty before trial. And rest assured that when he is found not guilty and it is politically correct to do so, Mick is 100% in JJ's corner and will make that clear at the proper time.

That’s all my surveillance has revealed.

 

[Allezchat]

it would be a poor decision to leave town and hinder your ability to work with your attorneys on a case that might put you in prison for years? that alone would keep him in missoula.

This. Also, his attorneys may have told him it would "look bad" to a jury if he left town and transfered.

My one thought here, is aquitted and not guilty are not the same thing. At this point none of us will ever know if JJ did it or not. If he is found not guilty and aquitted, it means that he was not proven guilty "beyond a resonable doubt". Not that his attorneys proved he didn't do it. I suppose they may possibly prove he did not do it, but I would think if that were possible, he wouldn't be going to trial.

That all said, the university has to consider the court of public opinion in this case, and what already happened with whatever went down with him getting expelled. After this case, if he if aquitted, we will see what transpires there. Unless there is a court injuction seeing him back to school, I see him transfering after the spring semester and starting over new somewhere. Just my opinion.

I don't know what you mean by "did it." Did what? Have sex w/ her? No question. Consensual? THAT'S the question, not your ambiguous "did it." At least this is my understanding of the case. If he is acquitted OF THE CHARGES, it means he did nothing more than have consensual sex, or believed it was consensual at the time. That's the issue, here: Was the sex consensual, in the sense that he knew it was or was not?

Again, if he is acquitted, it means that he did no different than any other male UM student with a girl. How can UM expel him for doing nothing more than what goes on all the time between male & female students? If he is expelled after all this, it has to be for reasons the UM thinks valid, despite his doing nothing more than any other male student.

This case has been sliced and diced to death on this board, already, & I'm not into that. I also stand to be corrected, respectfully, but this is how I see the situation.

Really? I need to spell it out for you? By "did it" I meant "left the toilet seat down". Sorry that wasn't clear enough.

Again, if he(JJ) is aquitted, it does not mean that he(JJ) is not guilty of raping this woman. It(the verdict) means he(JJ) is either not guilty of raping this woman or the jury did not think it(rape) was proven beyond a resonable doubt. They(the jury) may have felt that he(JJ) is guitly, but that he was not proven guilty or it(rape). No smack here(this post), it(the situation) just becomes tricky with the court of public opinion. I could see the um using that(my reasoning in the last line) as a means of expelling JJ. The honor court has a lesser burden than the court system.

If by "he" you mean JJ, then we are talking about the same person, but I'm not sure you are talking about JJ. :lol:

I want to say that I am not saying JJ is or is not guilty in any shape or form. Just pointing out symantics.

 

[wbtfg]

Your post is unclear. Are you talking about James Jones of the Packers? Please be more specific.



:twisted:

 

[Raider]

Thurman,

Your intel cred took a slight hit on the Roderick deal, and you’ll have to work regain stature.

This is a good step…..

 

[Copper Griz]

Tell you one guy hoping JJ is not acquitted. Hint -parked over at Main Hall

 

[EverettGriz]

it would be a poor decision to leave town and hinder your ability to work with your attorneys on a case that might put you in prison for years? that alone would keep him in missoula.

This. Also, his attorneys may have told him it would "look bad" to a jury if he left town and transfered.

My one thought here, is aquitted and not guilty are not the same thing. At this point none of us will ever know if JJ did it or not. If he is found not guilty and aquitted, it means that he was not proven guilty "beyond a resonable doubt". Not that his attorneys proved he didn't do it. I suppose they may possibly prove he did not do it, but I would think if that were possible, he wouldn't be going to trial.

That all said, the university has to consider the court of public opinion in this case, and what already happened with whatever went down with him getting expelled. After this case, if he if aquitted, we will see what transpires there. Unless there is a court injuction seeing him back to school, I see him transfering after the spring semester and starting over new somewhere. Just my opinion.

I don't know what you mean by "did it." Did what? Have sex w/ her? No question. Consensual? THAT'S the question, not your ambiguous "did it." At least this is my understanding of the case. If he is acquitted OF THE CHARGES, it means he did nothing more than have consensual sex, or believed it was consensual at the time. That's the issue, here: Was the sex consensual, in the sense that he knew it was or was not?

Again, if he is acquitted, it means that he did no different than any other male UM student with a girl. How can UM expel him for doing nothing more than what goes on all the time between male & female students? If he is expelled after all this, it has to be for reasons the UM thinks valid, despite his doing nothing more than any other male student.

This case has been sliced and diced to death on this board, already, & I'm not into that. I also stand to be corrected, respectfully, but this is how I see the situation.

Really? I need to spell it out for you? By "did it" I meant "left the toilet seat down". Sorry that wasn't clear enough.

Again, if he(JJ) is aquitted, it does not mean that he(JJ) is not guilty of raping this woman. It(the verdict) means he(JJ) is either not guilty of raping this woman or the jury did not think it(rape) was proven beyond a resonable doubt. They(the jury) may have felt that he(JJ) is guitly, but that he was not proven guilty or it(rape). No smack here(this post), it(the situation) just becomes tricky with the court of public opinion. I could see the um using that(my reasoning in the last line) as a means of expelling JJ. The honor court has a lesser burden than the court system.

If by "he" you mean JJ, then we are talking about the same person, but I'm not sure you are talking about JJ. :lol:

I want to say that I am not saying JJ is or is not guilty in any shape or form. Just pointing out symantics.

This is an interesting -- and dare I say DAMN FRIGHTENING -- take on the US Justice System.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nzone]

In my humble opinion if JJ is not convicted AND Engstrom moves to expel he just as well watch enrollment drop another 6% as well as prepare the BOR and legal council for a pretty ugly law suit(hell the lawsuit may come even if they don't expel). The University of Montana can not have a reputation of inequity and thats exactly what would happen. The media blitz would be disasterous. Jordy Johnson Found Not Guilty Of Rape- University of Montana President Engstrom Moves To Expel. The fallout would be huge and even all those $113.00-$1000.00 donations for a recruiting budget wouldn't help.

I commend Engstrom for extending his hand to the friends of UM(recruiting donations) but somewhere he needs to show accountablity for some very questionable lack in judgements.

New question................would it be appropriate for Haslam to have a "behind the door meeting with Engstrom" and simply ask what Engstrom's position will be in the event that Jordy is not convicted? Being proactive is a very good quality you know.