JJ Trial

[Silvertip]

:roll: What you got here is a Punch and Jordy thread with too little JJ and waaaaay too much Punchinello...

 

[westnodak93bison]

Ok. I've been watching this from afar. Let me ask a question. The gal supposedly gets raped with one or more roommates in the apartment but nobody heard anything?
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[grizfnz]

Ok. I've been watching this from afar. Let me ask a question. The gal supposedly gets raped with one or more roommates in the apartment but nobody heard anything?
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Yep. One roommate 10 feet away playing video games who said he wasn't intimidated by JJ, the other roommate (self proclaimed gun enthusiast, with several weapons at his disposal) sleeping in his room. Accuser testified that she wanted JJ out of the house, yet didnt ask either roommate to drive him home and got in the car herself and drove him home after also testifying she quit trying to resist during the "rape" because she was fearful JJ was going to hit her.

 

[PTGrizzly]

Okay, so I'm not big on twiddling. What was the State's purposse in calling Alex?

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.

IMO the most damning part was Alex admitting that he changed his story after meeting with Paoli.

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.

I guess what I was getting at was it might show that Paoli "convinced" him to say something different. At least that's how I thought somebody might take it. It's not a very big point by any means, I was just interested with it.

 

[westnodak93bison]

Ok. I've been watching this from afar. Let me ask a question. The gal supposedly gets raped with one or more roommates in the apartment but nobody heard anything?
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Yep. One roommate 10 feet away playing video games who said he wasn't intimidated by JJ, the other roommate (self proclaimed gun enthusiast, with several weapons at his disposal) sleeping in his room. Accuser testified that she wanted JJ out of the house, yet didnt ask either roommate to drive him home and got in the car herself and drove him home after also testifying she quit trying to resist during the "rape" because she was fearful JJ was going to hit her.

Ok. Been trying to follow this as much as I can. Seems like a very weak case.
On a more positive note. Should be a fun time when the Griz come to Fargo.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Gaeilge1]

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;

Thank you Yellowstone. This is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. The Prosecution in a criminal case has to meet a standard that is difficult in the best of circumstances. In a case with this many contradictions, changed positions or testimonies, she said-he said analyses and contrary expert opinions, how can anyone opine that this case will end in a conviction?

As the Prosecution's case winds down it's beginning to look less like a hung jury and more like a complete acquittal if the juror's uphold the above standard.

 

[mtgrizrule]

Not much posted here, or Twitter about Alex B's time today. Was it that irrelevant, and more wasted time?

 

[PlayerRep]

Why introduce the blanket if it hasn't even been tested? That was odd, and at least minor egg on the prosecution's face. The detective admitted that she didn't know what was on it, and didn't know who's it was. What if it had been tested and it was someone else's? The detective explained that the sex had been admitted, so testing wasn't needed, but then why introduce the blanket? I thought it was pretty funny how the defense pointed out the glitch.

 

[yellowstone60]

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;

Thank you Yellowstone. This is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. The Prosecution in a criminal case has to meet a standard that is difficult in the best of circumstances. In a case with this many contradictions, changed positions or testimonies, she said-he said analyses and contrary expert opinions, how can anyone opine that this case will end in a conviction?

As the Prosecution's case winds down it's beginning to look less like a hung jury and more like a complete acquittal if the juror's uphold the above standard.

you betcha !
Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty. "The shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangeably with reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered an impossible standard. The term "reasonable doubt" is therefore used.

If doubt does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond "reasonable doubt". The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[PlayerRep]

Some detective observations.

She's fairly likeable and not as evasive as many of the prosecution witnesses.

I think she said she didn't interview the accuser after the initial interview in mid-March, until after Johnson was charged. Maybe I didn't hear correctly. She definitely said that she didn't ask the accuser about the curious and troubling texts until the defense lawyers (with prosecution present) interviewed the accuser in Dec? 2012. The 29,000 texts were obtained by her in June? 2012. It sounded like she and the prosecutors decided to avoid asking the accuser about those texts (I assume so they didn't have to put in writing what she said). She tried to downplay the texts, but they seem critical to me.

She was interviewed by 3 DOJ investigators in June? 2012. Said that interview didn't impact how she investigated or pursued the case. That's not credible to me. The DOJ investigation had to have influenced the investigation and charging of Johnson. I don't expect this to be admitted, but it looks obvious to me.

She was the one who first informed the accuser of the firing of Pflu/O'Day. Seems quite inappropriate to me.

She said she was influenced by Johnson's actions after the incident. What actions? He got a ride home. He didn't contact the accuser. He lost his watch. By the way, Bienn said Johnson doesn't drink much and has never gone downtown with them. He also said Johnson is not disrespectful to women.

The case and some actions of UM and other (First Step nurse) are looking to me like they're part of or being influenced by anti-football sentiment in Missoula.

This case (and many other things) are becoming very divisive in Missoula, and it's only going to get worse, no matter the outcome of the case. This is all bigger and uglier than I had realized earlier.

 

[PlayerRep]

Okay, so I'm not big on twiddling. What was the State's purposse in calling Alex?

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.

IMO the most damning part was Alex admitting that he changed his story after meeting with Paoli.

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.

This is my view too. He didn't seem to have any important testimony that was "changed". He backed off of some things he had said in early May 2012 (which I assume was at the university proceeding). He merely admitted that he had overstated what he knew from Johnson, because Johnson hadn't told him the details. He said he had pieced together some things and overstated what and how he knew this. Mostly timelines in the accuser's house. His biggest point was how JJ reacted when he got the letter from the dean on the next Sunday. He said JJ was shocked and acted like he had been falsely accused (as opposed to caught).

 

[PlayerRep]

Ok. I've been watching this from afar. Let me ask a question. The gal supposedly gets raped with one or more roommates in the apartment but nobody heard anything?
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Yep. One roommate 10 feet away playing video games who said he wasn't intimidated by JJ, the other roommate (self proclaimed gun enthusiast, with several weapons at his disposal) sleeping in his room. Accuser testified that she wanted JJ out of the house, yet didnt ask either roommate to drive him home and got in the car herself and drove him home after also testifying she quit trying to resist during the "rape" because she was fearful JJ was going to hit her.

Contrast her actions to the Donaldson victim. She ran outside without her shoes, took off running, and called her mother.

 

[mtgrizrule]

Some detective observations.

She's fairly likeable and not as evasive as many of the prosecution witnesses.

I think she said she didn't interview the accuser after the initial interview in mid-March, until after Johnson was charged. Maybe I didn't hear correctly. She definitely said that she didn't ask the accuser about the curious and troubling texts until the defense lawyers (with prosecution present) interviewed the accuser in Dec? 2012. The 29,000 texts were obtained by her in June? 2012. It sounded like she and the prosecutors decided to avoid asking the accuser about those texts (I assume so they didn't have to put in writing what she said). She tried to downplay the texts, but they seem critical to me.

She was interviewed by 3 DOJ investigators in June? 2012. Said that interview didn't impact how she investigated or pursued the case. That's not credible to me. The DOJ investigation had to have influenced the investigation and charging of Johnson. I don't expect this to be admitted, but it looks obvious to me.

She was the one who first informed the accuser of the firing of Pflu/O'Day. Seems quite inappropriate to me.

She said she was influenced by Johnson's actions after the incident. What actions? He got a ride home. He didn't contact the accuser. He lost his watch. By the way, Bienn said Johnson doesn't drink much and has never gone downtown with them. He also said Johnson is not disrespectful to women.

The case and some actions of UM and other (First Step nurse) are looking to me like they're part of or being influenced by anti-football sentiment in Missoula.

This case (and many other things) are becoming very divisive in Missoula, and it's only going to get worse, no matter the outcome of the case. This is all bigger and uglier than I had realized earlier.

PR thanks for the post. I do not recall one twitter post about Alex saying JJ does not drink much, and is respectful to women. Disappointing nobody tweeted it. Does not surprise me from the Missoulian though.

 

[grizfnz]

Some detective observations.
She was the one who first informed the accuser of the firing of Pflu/O'Day. Seems quite inappropriate to me.

Specifically, using the term "canned" when informing the accuser about the terminations.

 

[wbtfg]

Some detective observations.

She's fairly likeable and not as evasive as many of the prosecution witnesses.

I think she said she didn't interview the accuser after the initial interview in mid-March, until after Johnson was charged. Maybe I didn't hear correctly. She definitely said that she didn't ask the accuser about the curious and troubling texts until the defense lawyers (with prosecution present) interviewed the accuser in Dec? 2012. The 29,000 texts were obtained by her in June? 2012. It sounded like she and the prosecutors decided to avoid asking the accuser about those texts (I assume so they didn't have to put in writing what she said). She tried to downplay the texts, but they seem critical to me.

She was interviewed by 3 DOJ investigators in June? 2012. Said that interview didn't impact how she investigated or pursued the case. That's not credible to me. The DOJ investigation had to have influenced the investigation and charging of Johnson. I don't expect this to be admitted, but it looks obvious to me.

She was the one who first informed the accuser of the firing of Pflu/O'Day. Seems quite inappropriate to me.

She said she was influenced by Johnson's actions after the incident. What actions? He got a ride home. He didn't contact the accuser. He lost his watch. By the way, Bienn said Johnson doesn't drink much and has never gone downtown with them. He also said Johnson is not disrespectful to women.

The case and some actions of UM and other (First Step nurse) are looking to me like they're part of or being influenced by anti-football sentiment in Missoula.

This case (and many other things) are becoming very divisive in Missoula, and it's only going to get worse, no matter the outcome of the case. This is all bigger and uglier than I had realized earlier.

PR thanks for the post. I do not recall one twitter post about Alex saying JJ does not drink much, and is respectful to women. Disappointing nobody tweeted it. Does not surprise me from the Missoulian though.

I saw those tweets. They were there.

 

[tampa_griz]

Some detective observations.

She's fairly likeable and not as evasive as many of the prosecution witnesses.

I think she said she didn't interview the accuser after the initial interview in mid-March, until after Johnson was charged. Maybe I didn't hear correctly. She definitely said that she didn't ask the accuser about the curious and troubling texts until the defense lawyers (with prosecution present) interviewed the accuser in Dec? 2012. The 29,000 texts were obtained by her in June? 2012. It sounded like she and the prosecutors decided to avoid asking the accuser about those texts (I assume so they didn't have to put in writing what she said). She tried to downplay the texts, but they seem critical to me.

She was interviewed by 3 DOJ investigators in June? 2012. Said that interview didn't impact how she investigated or pursued the case. That's not credible to me. The DOJ investigation had to have influenced the investigation and charging of Johnson. I don't expect this to be admitted, but it looks obvious to me.

She was the one who first informed the accuser of the firing of Pflu/O'Day. Seems quite inappropriate to me.

She said she was influenced by Johnson's actions after the incident. What actions? He got a ride home. He didn't contact the accuser. He lost his watch. By the way, Bienn said Johnson doesn't drink much and has never gone downtown with them. He also said Johnson is not disrespectful to women.

The case and some actions of UM and other (First Step nurse) are looking to me like they're part of or being influenced by anti-football sentiment in Missoula.

This case (and many other things) are becoming very divisive in Missoula, and it's only going to get worse, no matter the outcome of the case. This is all bigger and uglier than I had realized earlier.

PR thanks for the post. I do not recall one twitter post about Alex saying JJ does not drink much, and is respectful to women. Disappointing nobody tweeted it. Does not surprise me from the Missoulian though.

I saw those tweets. They were there.

They certainly were there. It was the only time I've actually followed the trial on Twitter.

 

[PlayerRep]

This Kaimin article is very good. Fair and complete. I haven't been looking at Kaimin articles, but will now start reading them. If you want the real story of what is happening in court, it looks like the Kaimin is the way to go. Much much better, more complete and less biased than the Missouian's.

This article is from yesterday's testimony.

http://m.montanakaimin.com/mobile/news/article_f9bd02be-7c63-11e2-bf92-0019bb30f31a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This article is from this morning's testimony.

http://www.montanakaimin.com/news/article_56b28334-7d38-11e2-b501-001a4bcf6878.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[mtgrizrule]

Some detective observations.

She's fairly likeable and not as evasive as many of the prosecution witnesses.

I think she said she didn't interview the accuser after the initial interview in mid-March, until after Johnson was charged. Maybe I didn't hear correctly. She definitely said that she didn't ask the accuser about the curious and troubling texts until the defense lawyers (with prosecution present) interviewed the accuser in Dec? 2012. The 29,000 texts were obtained by her in June? 2012. It sounded like she and the prosecutors decided to avoid asking the accuser about those texts (I assume so they didn't have to put in writing what she said). She tried to downplay the texts, but they seem critical to me.

She was interviewed by 3 DOJ investigators in June? 2012. Said that interview didn't impact how she investigated or pursued the case. That's not credible to me. The DOJ investigation had to have influenced the investigation and charging of Johnson. I don't expect this to be admitted, but it looks obvious to me.

She was the one who first informed the accuser of the firing of Pflu/O'Day. Seems quite inappropriate to me.

She said she was influenced by Johnson's actions after the incident. What actions? He got a ride home. He didn't contact the accuser. He lost his watch. By the way, Bienn said Johnson doesn't drink much and has never gone downtown with them. He also said Johnson is not disrespectful to women.

The case and some actions of UM and other (First Step nurse) are looking to me like they're part of or being influenced by anti-football sentiment in Missoula.

This case (and many other things) are becoming very divisive in Missoula, and it's only going to get worse, no matter the outcome of the case. This is all bigger and uglier than I had realized earlier.

PR thanks for the post. I do not recall one twitter post about Alex saying JJ does not drink much, and is respectful to women. Disappointing nobody tweeted it. Does not surprise me from the Missoulian though.

I saw those tweets. They were there.

They certainly were there. It was the only time I've actually followed the trial on Twitter.

Considering I was following while busy at work. I probably did not see them. Nonetheless the summary is appreciated PR.

 

[GrizPony]

Barnum and Baily never had a circus like like this!!
This case is so simple, two drunk horny college kids getting busy. She did not like it being a one night stand and got pissed. THE END

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.

Yeah but her good friend and roommate couldn't find the time to stand the fuck up and walk four steps to check it out after the "deadly text". He thought she was exaggerating. He knows her. You don't. STFU moron. Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrgggggggghhhhhh! I'm an inbred trailer whore! Aye. Aye.

 

[fencer24]

The main thing for me about the "I think I have been raped" text, is that if she isn't sure right then, how could Johnson be sure?