The Book

[PlayerRep]

...Krakauer's best-seller loudly rings alarm bells....

Is it really? Already?

"Grisly Fan wrote:

PR, I am sorry that I changed one of your posts and completely made up the above post. That was dishonest, and I know I shouldn't be doing that. I'm fine with you reporting me to the mods."

 

[mtgrizrule]

How many threads do we need about Krackauer and/or his damn tabloid? It would have made too much sense to just bump the original thread when we all 1st heard about the book. The only way I will read his tabloid work is if someone gives me something of his to read. I promise this, I will never spend a cent on his work to pad his pockets!!!

 

[getgrizzy]

Actually, she did lie or shade the truth multiple times, and a number of those lies/shades were proven in court. For example, she told the rape nurse that the accused put his whole hand in the vaginal cavity, and then admitted at trial that the accused had not done that. How is that not a lie, and a pretty big and bad one?

As most trial lawyers will advise their clients, tell the truth. You can't get "caught" in much by that method. Lies, on the other hand, are notorious tar pits for changing stories, making contradictory statements, and being "caught." It's easy to tell the truth. It's much harder to tell a lie. Jane Doe was simply caught in too many lies that she did not need to tell, if her overall story had been true.

How was anyone able to find out she was lying? For instance the fisting lie. Was there physical evidence or did she just confess to lying about that?

 

[mlbowl]

Actually, she did lie or shade the truth multiple times, and a number of those lies/shades were proven in court. For example, she told the rape nurse that the accused put his whole hand in the vaginal cavity, and then admitted at trial that the accused had not done that. How is that not a lie, and a pretty big and bad one?

As most trial lawyers will advise their clients, tell the truth. You can't get "caught" in much by that method. Lies, on the other hand, are notorious tar pits for changing stories, making contradictory statements, and being "caught." It's easy to tell the truth. It's much harder to tell a lie. Jane Doe was simply caught in too many lies that she did not need to tell, if her overall story had been true.

How was anyone able to find out she was lying? For instance the fisting lie. Was there physical evidence or did she just confess to lying about that?

For example, she told the rape nurse that the accused put his whole hand in the vaginal cavity, and then admitted at trial that the accused had not done that.

 

[GrizPony]

That isn't clear enough for ol shitdizzy....

 

[horribilisfan8184]

Actually, she did lie or shade the truth multiple times, and a number of those lies/shades were proven in court. For example, she told the rape nurse that the accused put his whole hand in the vaginal cavity, and then admitted at trial that the accused had not done that. How is that not a lie, and a pretty big and bad one?

As most trial lawyers will advise their clients, tell the truth. You can't get "caught" in much by that method. Lies, on the other hand, are notorious tar pits for changing stories, making contradictory statements, and being "caught." It's easy to tell the truth. It's much harder to tell a lie. Jane Doe was simply caught in too many lies that she did not need to tell, if her overall story had been true.

How was anyone able to find out she was lying? For instance the fisting lie. Was there physical evidence or did she just confess to lying about that?

It was a mid-trial OJ moment: if the fist don't fit .....

 

[grizpack]

Actually, she did lie or shade the truth multiple times, and a number of those lies/shades were proven in court. For example, she told the rape nurse that the accused put his whole hand in the vaginal cavity, and then admitted at trial that the accused had not done that. How is that not a lie, and a pretty big and bad one?

As most trial lawyers will advise their clients, tell the truth. You can't get "caught" in much by that method. Lies, on the other hand, are notorious tar pits for changing stories, making contradictory statements, and being "caught." It's easy to tell the truth. It's much harder to tell a lie. Jane Doe was simply caught in too many lies that she did not need to tell, if her overall story had been true.

How was anyone able to find out she was lying? For instance the fisting lie. Was there physical evidence or did she just confess to lying about that?

Not sure about you, but the way I was raised, if you said something happened, and then later admitted it didn't, that was considered lying. Then butt met hand...... And that was about NOTHING as serious as this. I'm not sure how you come to any other conclusion about this specific allegation. She declared to other people that an event happened. Later admitted in court that it didn't. I get that you defend her at every turn, but......

 

[snap]

Actually, she did lie or shade the truth multiple times, and a number of those lies/shades were proven in court. For example, she told the rape nurse that the accused put his whole hand in the vaginal cavity, and then admitted at trial that the accused had not done that. How is that not a lie, and a pretty big and bad one?

As most trial lawyers will advise their clients, tell the truth. You can't get "caught" in much by that method. Lies, on the other hand, are notorious tar pits for changing stories, making contradictory statements, and being "caught." It's easy to tell the truth. It's much harder to tell a lie. Jane Doe was simply caught in too many lies that she did not need to tell, if her overall story had been true.

How was anyone able to find out she was lying? For instance the fisting lie. Was there physical evidence or did she just confess to lying about that?

It was a mid-trial OJ moment: if the fist don't fit .....

:shock:

 

[UMGriz75]

It was a mid-trial OJ moment: if the fist don't fit .....

:shock: :shock: :shock:

 

[horribilisfan8184]

It was a mid-trial OJ moment: if the fist don't fit .....

:shock: :shock: :shock:

Sorry, my bad, it was just teed up so nice.

 

[MrTitleist]

How many threads do we need about Krackauer and/or his damn tabloid? It would have made too much sense to just bump the original thread when we all 1st heard about the book. The only way I will read his tabloid work is if someone gives me something of his to read. I promise this, I will never spend a cent on his work to pad his pockets!!!

You could just not read the threads.

 

[PlayerRep]

Actually, she did lie or shade the truth multiple times, and a number of those lies/shades were proven in court. For example, she told the rape nurse that the accused put his whole hand in the vaginal cavity, and then admitted at trial that the accused had not done that. How is that not a lie, and a pretty big and bad one?

As most trial lawyers will advise their clients, tell the truth. You can't get "caught" in much by that method. Lies, on the other hand, are notorious tar pits for changing stories, making contradictory statements, and being "caught." It's easy to tell the truth. It's much harder to tell a lie. Jane Doe was simply caught in too many lies that she did not need to tell, if her overall story had been true.

How was anyone able to find out she was lying? For instance the fisting lie. Was there physical evidence or did she just confess to lying about that?

My recollection is that, on cross with Paoli, it went something like this. Paoli: when you were talking to the nurse doing the rape exam the next day, you told her that JJ had put his fist in your V. That wasn't true, was it? Accuser: No. Maybe Paoli also said that the nurse was alarmed by that, wasn't she?

 

[PlayerRep]

I was looking forward to reading the book, but it's fairly boring. Don't know if I'll be able to get through it. Can't imagine this is going to be a big seller, but then what do I know about book publishing.

Some takes so far. Universities aren't equipped or qualified to conduct sexual assault investigations and proceedings like this. The Dean just believed every accuser, and didn't believe the accused. The Dean wouldn't take advice from Aronosky, the university counsel, about fairness and how to conduct the proceedings. Acquaintance/date rape allegations are tough on everyone involved and it's hard to figure out what really happened. One side or the other is very disappointed, and even disgruntled, when prosecutors make their decision whether or not to prosecute. Krakauer likes to omit or bury important information that doesn't fit his agenda. I will never read another book he writes. He's a snake, in my view.

 

[getgrizzy]

Oh har-har. OK comedians. Why did she confess? It's a serious question. Did they have some physical evidence or did she tell someone (a testifier) or did she just confess out of nowhere?

 

[getgrizzy]

I was looking forward to reading the book, but it's fairly boring. Don't know if I'll be able to get through it. Can't imagine this is going to be a big seller, but then what do I know about book publishing.

Some takes so far. Universities aren't equipped or qualified to conduct sexual assault investigations and proceedings like this. The Dean just believed every accuser, and didn't believe the accused. The Dean wouldn't take advice from Aronosky, the university counsel, about fairness and how to conduct the proceedings. Acquaintance/date rape allegations are tough on everyone involved and it's hard to figure out what really happened. One side or the other is very disappointed, and even disgruntled, when prosecutors make their decision whether or not to prosecute. Krakauer likes to omit or bury important information that doesn't fit his agenda. I will never read another book he writes. He's a snake, in my view.

So you don't read something written by a snake? You're a snake in a lot of people's view and you bury/omit info on here constantly. Do you read what you write?

 

[UMGriz75]

Oh har-har. OK comedians. Why did she confess? It's a serious question. Did they have some physical evidence or did she tell someone (a testifier) or did she just confess out of nowhere?

Guilt?

Under oath?

Not "sure" what the Defense may have had on her?

 

[getgrizzy]

Oh har-har. OK comedians. Why did she confess? It's a serious question. Did they have some physical evidence or did she tell someone (a testifier) or did she just confess out of nowhere?

Guilt?

Under oath?

Not "sure" what the Defense may have had on her?

They must've had something, because if she gave up on that lie for those reasons she probably would've gave up the entire "lie" also.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

Oh har-har. OK comedians. Why did she confess? It's a serious question. Did they have some physical evidence or did she tell someone (a testifier) or did she just confess out of nowhere?

Guilt?

Under oath?

Not "sure" what the Defense may have had on her?

They must've had something, because if she gave up on that lie for those reasons she probably would've gave up the entire "lie" also.

Help me out, is he really this thick, or is this just the act of a troll?

 

[Glendivegriz]

Oh har-har. OK comedians. Why did she confess? It's a serious question. Did they have some physical evidence or did she tell someone (a testifier) or did she just confess out of nowhere?

Guilt?

Under oath?

Not "sure" what the Defense may have had on her?

They must've had something, because if she gave up on that lie for those reasons she probably would've gave up the entire "lie" also.

Likely the physical examination would not have been consistent with the statement. Thus she backed off that statement. Which yes, would have been a reason to question her credibility in the jurors minds.

 

[PlayerRep]

Oh har-har. OK comedians. Why did she confess? It's a serious question. Did they have some physical evidence or did she tell someone (a testifier) or did she just confess out of nowhere?

My impression is that she had previously told people, like the prosecutors and Paoli, that what she had said wasn't true.