Jerry Punch
Well-known member
Bienemann says he changed his statement after speaking with Defense counsel. I hope that you all will not jump on him as quickly as you did the alleged victim because of this inconsistency.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
JJ Trial
- Thread starter bluemarlin2
- Start date
tnt said:
grizchamp said:
And this shows why a jury will have difficulty in finding a quick verdict or it will be a hung trial.
I disagree with both statements, and both individuals above are on opposite fences. Personally I think Paoli made mincemeat of the "little girl detective", and had her back peddling, and admissions that were not in the prosecutions favor.
On the other hand, Alex has already been caught in a "alternate version". He changed his story, in regard to "talking game over girls".
Still a lot of reasonable doubt everywhere in this case. Lots of red flags. But IMO there will be a couple hanger ons that will believe him guilty no matter what.
edit: He is recovering nicely in cross.
Another difference I noted is that Johnson said he had 4-5 beers over a 4 hour period, Alex said that it was over a 45-minute period.
I would be more concerned about him changing his story after talking to Paoli. I can imagine the jurors wouldn't like that very much, but you would also hope they note that the accuser has been just as inaccurate with her facts.
I would be more concerned about him changing his story after talking to Paoli. I can imagine the jurors wouldn't like that very much, but you would also hope they note that the accuser has been just as inaccurate with her facts.
blackfoot griz
Well-known member
Austin Green tweeted that AB said 3-4 beers that night. The Missoulian tweeted 4-5 beers in a 45 minute period.
Who should you believe if they both are in the courtroom?
Who should you believe if they both are in the courtroom?
That is indeed the crux of the matter. If everyone changes their story and none of them agree one way or the other about what they said when they said it or that there were misinterpretations on what was said when, we have the very definition of "reasonable doubt".
To get beyond that standard of reasonable doubt you, in essence, as a juror have to believe that the evidence is so strong one way or the other that there is just no other conclusion that can be reached.
Game, Set, Match!
To get beyond that standard of reasonable doubt you, in essence, as a juror have to believe that the evidence is so strong one way or the other that there is just no other conclusion that can be reached.
Game, Set, Match!
Okay, so I'm not big on twiddling. What was the State's purposse in calling Alex?
Copper Griz
Well-known member
grizare#1 said:
The only part you forgot to add is that the accused life has been turned upside down for the past year and tax payers are taking it in the shorts for a case that can't possibly result in a conviction. WHAT A WASTE OF TIME. The real tragedy may be the unintended consequences for a female who really has been raped. A case like this makes women less likely to come forward when there is no conviction. This accuser is doing much greater damage than anyone realizes. Many of you may disagree - not my fault you can't deal with reality. Rape is a horrible crime and tough to prosecute. This case just makes it even more difficult.
tnt, are you...Pat Williams?tnt said:
Probably just to dwell on his inconsistency on critical issues like if the housemate college guys talked about chicks or not, or to nail JJ on whether he had 4, 5 or 6 beers in an evening. Critical stuff, like bringing out THE BLANKET WITH FLUID ON IT when as everyone knows there is no disagreement on whether they had sex on the bed. The state was very weak today.EverettGriz said:
Buttegrizzle said:
I found the detectives comment on the cross interesting where she basically stated no DNA was taken because there was no disagreement on if sex occurred. However, I have two issues with that still. 1) Why submit it then? 2) How do I know its there fluids?. That DNA needed to be run IF it was submitted.
Am I the only one irritated by this court practice of "coaching" witnesses? Seems to be the "in" thing. IF I'm on jury, anytime I heard anyone say either way they were coached....I'd have concerns. Coaching to me is simply a way to get around "to tell the whole truth" in a judicial sort of way. Should be outlawed for every court case imo.
PTGrizzly said:
Certainly damages Alex's credibility some to the jury, I suppose. But unless the story he changed would somehow be evidence that JJ sexually assaulted the accuser, then I'm still not sure what benefit it is. I mean, unless the story changed from something like, "JJ said, 'I think I took advantage of that girl', to 'we had sex', I guess I just don't see the point.
It looks bad, but remember he's hardly the first person in this trial that has changed stories.PTGrizzly said:
PTGrizzly said:
That was my point. His inconsistencies were not on significant facts. I can imagine Paoli asked questions in a different way or with a different emphasis. Alex was not a significant witness for the prosecution and then I thought his discussion on JJ's state of shock where he finds out he has been charged with the crime is petty good for the Defense if anything.
grizare#1 said:
that would be a lot easier to believe if she had not immediately said she was raped. i can certainly see why some have bought into the "she's a nutcase, not a victim" defense, but there are still too many question marks about how much of that is just a well-crafted fiction perpetrated by the defense. perhaps we will see if the forester's ball incident was the drama um75 imagined, or a much less theatric event.
Copper Griz
Well-known member
argh! said:
Honestly does not really matter. The water is so muddy right now that it would be close to impossible to get a jury to agree to acquit or convict. This thing is a total S**t show and should never have gone to trial. DOJ came to town and the state crapped their pants and had a knee jerk reaction. The detective is likely disgusted that she is spending her time on this trial instead of working cases. Why - because she knows the evidence is not clear and convincing.
argh! said:
FWIW, I've never put much stock into the jilted lover defense, and I don't think it will be a major piece of the defense argument. But to be fair, she didn't immediately "say" she was raped. After 15 minutes she texted that she thought she might have been raped.
yellowstone60
Well-known member
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
