No Way JJ Can Be Convicted

[tnt]

Consensual sex can be rather rough also. There is nothing in her physical examination that cannot be explained by that (e.g.'s black eye, cuts, etc.).

Really the only thing thing this comes down to is whether JJ was aware that she REALLY didn't want to have sex. There is evidence to suggest that this is the case ("she said") and there is evidence to say that it is not the case ("he said"). The swaying factor in my opinion is her behavior. Yes she went for a rape exam but almost everything else she did and texted suggests otherwise. If the prosecution doesn't have damning evidence against JJ that we are not aware of then they face a significant hurdle in proving to a jury of the accused's peers that it was rape "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Sure, the prosecution will have their experts; the defense with have theirs. Each side will make their points which will mostly be negated by the other and it will still come back to this one question. Given that a guilty verdict will have a life-time impact on the convicted, a jury will want to be sure -- and if all of the significant evidence is on the table at this moment then I feel confident that JJ will walk.

But then again I thought OJ would be convicted so clearly the legal system can be a bit of a crap shoot -- that or I am simply an idiot.

This post explains Pabst argument as to why the case should be dismissed.

It also sums up just about every rape case involving acquaintances which sadly is the majority of them. It well could be with this and the great explanation from UMGriz75 of what has probably gone on in the County attorneys office why the DOJ is poking around. Some cases that should have been prosecuted may not have been.

 

[getgrizzy]

haha, i only seem like i have an agenda to you because i'm being objective and you're (like many others) too emotionally attached to this situation.

this isn't a slam dunk case, but it favors j.j. and he'll probably win an acquittal. he may end up getting expelled anyway or beat out for the q.b. job if he isn't expelled. she seems to just want him out of town and there was talk of j.j. looking at transferring prior to the charges. if both parties are o.k. with that, then doesn't it seem like it would be in their best interests to work out a deal and not drag themselves through what appears to be a lengthy trial, which in the end isn't going to have convincing evidence for either of them.

You add a bunch of conjecture to physical findings and you are objective? Brother you have a problem with objectivity. Look the word up and get back to me.

she told the examiner he held her down and showed here where and the examiner made a note that she had a red mark in that location. where's the conjecture in that? you and brother p.r. are on some kind of roll today. wow.

That is HER story. What about HIS story that contradicts that? Try to synthesize both perspectives and you might understand "objectivity". Taking one sides position is NOT objective. The conjecture is that you assume her version to be the only truth in this matter. You are on a roll today sport.

no kidding. as i've been saying (and in fact my response was prompted by most people taking the defense's story) this is going to be the prosectution's story. the defense will have it's own story for why she has a red mark, obviously. the examiner, as a witness, will give her testimony and the prosecution will explain how and why it is consistent with their story. the examiner, if it's in her realm to comment on it, might even be asked if the red mark is consistent with other injuries she's seen in other rape cases. the defense will explain how the red mark could've been from numerous other sources (a pimple or being embarrassed, those are good ones) and the jury will decide who makes the more compelling argument.

in other words. lighten up francis.

 

[UMGriz75]

And this is how the evidence would be presented:

She wants to show some red marks, and that's pretty easy to do. Indeed, it's easier than showing such red marks that might have been made 16 or more hours earlier. Indeed, her visit to the rape trauma center the next day was remarkably casual, like a routine part of her day's activity. Visit rape trauma center, go to Superbowl Party, then to the McDonald house for her work.

The Defense will then ask the jury, "would she make something like that up?"

Well, when it came to preserving "other evidence," -- the blanket -- she wasn't interested. She refused specific advice to do so. That blanket had somehow become "special" to her and she wanted to keep it. Cue: Twilight Zone music.

When it came to the TRO, she was willing to file a false affidavit.

 

[UMGriz75]

Small, but important, point. She asked JJ to go to the marriage booth, not vice versa, according to the motion.

Very important point.

 

[PlayerRep]

"Other than those slight red marks, which appear more recent than the sexual event, Doe had no other visible injuries." Is the motion suggesting that the slight red marks were created by the accuser before she went to First Step?

"... two independent medical providers have concluded that the findings of tiny vaginal abrasions and mild genital swelling are similarly consistent with consensual sex."

Here's an article describing a recent study by a physician in Denmark, which concludes that voluntary sex causes are many injuries as rape.

"New research surprises by showing that vaginal injuries are just as common after regular intercourse as after a rape. The findings could have great implications for forensic investigations into rape cases."

"Studies about rape are important for police work
The findings have been published in the journal Forensic Science International, and they have already had an effect on the way Danish police conducts its investigative work.

“Before I came up with some of these figures, the investigators were inclined to be take the case seriously when there were injuries and less seriously when there were no injuries,” she says.

Now, through meetings, lectures and her daily collaboration with the police, Astrup says she has got the message through that this is not an essential aspect in the investigations.

The local police department confirms that Astrup’s findings have had an effect on cases concerning rape."

http://sciencenordic.com/voluntary-sex-causes-many-injuries-rape" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[UMGriz75]

Consensual sex can be rather rough also. There is nothing in her physical examination that cannot be explained by that (e.g.'s black eye, cuts, etc.).

One of my boys was home and had his shirt off and my startled reaction to the "red marks" was "holy sh**, did you get in a wrestling match with a mountain lion?" No, just a regular "date." They went out again the next weekend. With similar results.

 

[nzone]

It also sums up just about every rape case involving acquaintances which sadly is the majority of them

That is why young women who in fact have been assaulted need to go directly to the authorities and not wait. Evidence is destroyed and emotions are lost. That is why I have been saying this charge should have never been brought up. Unless there is a smoking gun this case is over.

 

[Zootown Rox]

It's pretty clear that if this case was taken in isolation charges would have never been filed. There is no way the prosecutors can reach the "without a reasonable doubt" threshold. But the case will go to trial. Unfortunately, even after he is acquitted JJ will have this follow him the rest of his life, not to mention the disruption of his academic/football career. When he is acquitted I wonder if the kangaroo court at the UM will have their ruling overturned and they will let him back into school or not.

Seems like all this media hoopla over football players getting away with rape is going to end up being one case of off campus rape who didn't get away with anything and a bunch of false victims using real on campus victims' (non athlete related incidences) pain to further their own selfish agendas. The focus should never have been on athletic department, but the school and community at large.

 

[UMGriz75]

Jane Doe's favorite movie:

"Easy A."

"Without even thinking through the consequences, Olive Penderghast (Emma Stone) tells a white lie about going on a date with a college boy, which quickly morphs into a traction-gaining rumor that she's lost her virginity, and how. The campus crusaders don't like it, and neither does Olive, actually, until she realizes that she's no longer the bookish, invisible high achiever everyone has known her to be. Pretty soon, she's helping other boys who want to change their reputations through gossip (and accepting gift cards as payment for her services...). But when the situation snowballs, her lie looks poised to undo a marriage, a career, and an important friendship. It may even nix the possibility of finally kissing the boy (Penn Badgley) she's liked for years."

http://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/easy-a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If I was writing a movie script about life emulating art ...

Why did she want JJ to watch this particular movie with her?

 

[grizindabox]

 

[PTGrizzly]

gawd, you are insufferable. we get it - you are all seeing, all knowing, and have this whole thing figured out due to your incredible ability to 'read between the lines', and conjure up meanings that support your bias. way to go!

Let me be just a little more insufferable.

The problem here, and it is very likely the reason that the Defense put up a Motion to Dismiss in a criminal case where it is ordinarily unusual. And, it was necessary in this case.

Firstly, Fred Van Valkenburg has a time bomb. Her name is Jane Doe. By her admissions, she is a psychologically damaged young women unable and unwilling to engage in normal boyfriend/girlfriend relationships in college "because of her relationship with JJ."

A relationship that she also acknowledges didn't actually exist.

But she's got some fantasies. She "knew" that someday they would have a relationship and would "have consensual sex." JJ, she notes, was a really nice guy. He would go out with her once in a while, but he was developing a relationship with Kelly. For some reason, she goes alone to the Forester's Ball, and is pretty well three sheets to the wind already. She sees JJ and Kelly dancing. She goes over to them, and separates JJ from Kelly, saying in front of witnesses that she'd "do him any time," and convinces him to dance with her. He's a nice guy, he does so. Kelly's likely standing over there wondering "what this is all about."

Jane Doe is really enjoying herself. Everyone is seeing her in her fantasy, as JJ's girlfriend in a very public place; the most public social event on the UM campus. She asks him to go the "Marriage booth," and they are standing in line. Jane knows that JJ was at the Ball with Kelly. She seems to want to make a public statement. JJ sees Kelly across the gym floor, and realizes he's got a social problem brewing. He leaves Jane Doe standing there. Kelly likely has some words to say.

Everyone sees what happened. Jane is humiliated.

JJ feels terrible about the whole thing, but you know, this is all pretty normal college-age behavior. Relationships are being sorted out. So the next day, BECAUSE HE IS A NICE GUY, he texts her, hey let's do something.

Her admissions on what happens during that afternoon are positively bizarre, and not just because she offers different versions of it at different points ("he took off my shirt," "I took off my shirt"). She wants to watch a movie. Her favorite movie. About a college age girl who invents sexual fantasies involving herself.

Now, we are at the weird part. You strip your male companion after taking off your own clothes, and straddle him. You have what appears to be a fairly weird soft porn movie playing. Her favorite movie.

Now, at that point, it's her house, it's her bed, it's her idea, and it's her weird movie.

And, she's mad about last night.

She discloses during the investigation that she was abused at a younger age. She was diagnosed with PTSD. She suffers from depression and she has ideated suicide. Now, she is in the middle of a bizarre and public case in which she has demonstrated a pattern of behavior that suggests an obsession with Jordan Johnson. After a very public humiliation by Jordan, she gets him over to her house, sets up the soft porn movie and takes off her clothes, straddling JJ.

The next morning, she goes to get the rape kit, isn't really interested in fully cooperating, just wants to make sure she's got a "report" on file. Goes to a Superbowl party. Texts a friend a couple of days later sounding almost giddy. "It's all good." She's seems fully aware that a rape charge will hit JJ "like a ton of bricks."

Hmmm. Wonder why she thinks that?

Four weeks later, just so we are on the same page here, she writes JJ a letter that doesn't mention rape, it accuses him of "humiliating" her. That's the emotional driver here.

He doesn't respond. "Dammit, then I'm going to file for a TRO, that I am in fear of bodily harm," a claim completely inconsistent with everything she ever said about JJ, and for which in fact, there was no basis for the claim. It was clearly retaliatory for NOT contacting her or responding to her letter. She would "teach" him.

Now, Fred has this file on his desk. And I can hear Fred as he is reading it. "Oh sh....".

Jane Doe has pretty much fabricated a case, out of an unsuccessful fantasy relationship that she had been pursuing. The clue is found in her changing stories. It always is.

Fred knows there's a huge problem with the case. He's got DOJ sniffing around. He's under some public pressure. And that's not his main concern. His main concern is that the public tailwind around this case is driving to a very public conclusion that will likely not be favorable to a very fragile young woman with a history of problems.

And I will tell you as a fact just from knowing Fred for 40 years, he is concerned about where this is going, and it has less to do with JJ than it does with a young woman for whom her fantasies got out of control and she has precipitated a very public spectacle of what can still be an unfolding tragedy.

She has already complained about a public humiliation, and that it was JJ's "fault." The "humiliation," in her own words, has very much driven her escalating behavior. And it may drive it farther. Fred knows that. He knows this case cannot go to trial.

And that conclusion has very little to do with Jordan Johnson.

I'm too lazy to dissect this whole statement and the thing wrong with it, but you do realize that you're calling a PG-13 movie a "soft porn"...right? C''mon man.

 

[Ursa Major]

gawd, you are insufferable. we get it - you are all seeing, all knowing, and have this whole thing figured out due to your incredible ability to 'read between the lines', and conjure up meanings that support your bias. way to go!

Let me be just a little more insufferable.

The problem here, and it is very likely the reason that the Defense put up a Motion to Dismiss in a criminal case where it is ordinarily unusual. And, it was necessary in this case.

Firstly, Fred Van Valkenburg has a time bomb. Her name is Jane Doe. By her admissions, she is a psychologically damaged young women unable and unwilling to engage in normal boyfriend/girlfriend relationships in college "because of her relationship with JJ."

A relationship that she also acknowledges didn't actually exist.

But she's got some fantasies. She "knew" that someday they would have a relationship and would "have consensual sex." JJ, she notes, was a really nice guy. He would go out with her once in a while, but he was developing a relationship with Kelly. For some reason, she goes alone to the Forester's Ball, and is pretty well three sheets to the wind already. She sees JJ and Kelly dancing. She goes over to them, and separates JJ from Kelly, saying in front of witnesses that she'd "do him any time," and convinces him to dance with her. He's a nice guy, he does so. Kelly's likely standing over there wondering "what this is all about."

Jane Doe is really enjoying herself. Everyone is seeing her in her fantasy, as JJ's girlfriend in a very public place; the most public social event on the UM campus. She asks him to go the "Marriage booth," and they are standing in line. Jane knows that JJ was at the Ball with Kelly. She seems to want to make a public statement. JJ sees Kelly across the gym floor, and realizes he's got a social problem brewing. He leaves Jane Doe standing there. Kelly likely has some words to say.

Everyone sees what happened. Jane is humiliated.

JJ feels terrible about the whole thing, but you know, this is all pretty normal college-age behavior. Relationships are being sorted out. So the next day, BECAUSE HE IS A NICE GUY, he texts her, hey let's do something.

Her admissions on what happens during that afternoon are positively bizarre, and not just because she offers different versions of it at different points ("he took off my shirt," "I took off my shirt"). She wants to watch a movie. Her favorite movie. About a college age girl who invents sexual fantasies involving herself.

Now, we are at the weird part. You strip your male companion after taking off your own clothes, and straddle him. You have what appears to be a fairly weird soft porn movie playing. Her favorite movie.

Now, at that point, it's her house, it's her bed, it's her idea, and it's her weird movie.

And, she's mad about last night.

She discloses during the investigation that she was abused at a younger age. She was diagnosed with PTSD. She suffers from depression and she has ideated suicide. Now, she is in the middle of a bizarre and public case in which she has demonstrated a pattern of behavior that suggests an obsession with Jordan Johnson. After a very public humiliation by Jordan, she gets him over to her house, sets up the soft porn movie and takes off her clothes, straddling JJ.

The next morning, she goes to get the rape kit, isn't really interested in fully cooperating, just wants to make sure she's got a "report" on file. Goes to a Superbowl party. Texts a friend a couple of days later sounding almost giddy. "It's all good." She's seems fully aware that a rape charge will hit JJ "like a ton of bricks."

Hmmm. Wonder why she thinks that?

Four weeks later, just so we are on the same page here, she writes JJ a letter that doesn't mention rape, it accuses him of "humiliating" her. That's the emotional driver here.

He doesn't respond. "Dammit, then I'm going to file for a TRO, that I am in fear of bodily harm," a claim completely inconsistent with everything she ever said about JJ, and for which in fact, there was no basis for the claim. It was clearly retaliatory for NOT contacting her or responding to her letter. She would "teach" him.

Now, Fred has this file on his desk. And I can hear Fred as he is reading it. "Oh sh....".

Jane Doe has pretty much fabricated a case, out of an unsuccessful fantasy relationship that she had been pursuing. The clue is found in her changing stories. It always is.

Fred knows there's a huge problem with the case. He's got DOJ sniffing around. He's under some public pressure. And that's not his main concern. His main concern is that the public tailwind around this case is driving to a very public conclusion that will likely not be favorable to a very fragile young woman with a history of problems.

And I will tell you as a fact just from knowing Fred for 40 years, he is concerned about where this is going, and it has less to do with JJ than it does with a young woman for whom her fantasies got out of control and she has precipitated a very public spectacle of what can still be an unfolding tragedy.

She has already complained about a public humiliation, and that it was JJ's "fault." The "humiliation," in her own words, has very much driven her escalating behavior. And it may drive it farther. Fred knows that. He knows this case cannot go to trial.

And that conclusion has very little to do with Jordan Johnson.

You forgot the part where JJ fed all of the students attending the Forester's Ball with a single fish and a loaf of bread.

 

[PlayerRep]

gawd, you are insufferable. we get it - you are all seeing, all knowing, and have this whole thing figured out due to your incredible ability to 'read between the lines', and conjure up meanings that support your bias. way to go!

Let me be just a little more insufferable.

The problem here, and it is very likely the reason that the Defense put up a Motion to Dismiss in a criminal case where it is ordinarily unusual. And, it was necessary in this case.

Firstly, Fred Van Valkenburg has a time bomb. Her name is Jane Doe. By her admissions, she is a psychologically damaged young women unable and unwilling to engage in normal boyfriend/girlfriend relationships in college "because of her relationship with JJ."

A relationship that she also acknowledges didn't actually exist.

But she's got some fantasies. She "knew" that someday they would have a relationship and would "have consensual sex." JJ, she notes, was a really nice guy. He would go out with her once in a while, but he was developing a relationship with Kelly. For some reason, she goes alone to the Forester's Ball, and is pretty well three sheets to the wind already. She sees JJ and Kelly dancing. She goes over to them, and separates JJ from Kelly, saying in front of witnesses that she'd "do him any time," and convinces him to dance with her. He's a nice guy, he does so. Kelly's likely standing over there wondering "what this is all about."

Jane Doe is really enjoying herself. Everyone is seeing her in her fantasy, as JJ's girlfriend in a very public place; the most public social event on the UM campus. She asks him to go the "Marriage booth," and they are standing in line. Jane knows that JJ was at the Ball with Kelly. She seems to want to make a public statement. JJ sees Kelly across the gym floor, and realizes he's got a social problem brewing. He leaves Jane Doe standing there. Kelly likely has some words to say.

Everyone sees what happened. Jane is humiliated.

JJ feels terrible about the whole thing, but you know, this is all pretty normal college-age behavior. Relationships are being sorted out. So the next day, BECAUSE HE IS A NICE GUY, he texts her, hey let's do something.

Her admissions on what happens during that afternoon are positively bizarre, and not just because she offers different versions of it at different points ("he took off my shirt," "I took off my shirt"). She wants to watch a movie. Her favorite movie. About a college age girl who invents sexual fantasies involving herself.

Now, we are at the weird part. You strip your male companion after taking off your own clothes, and straddle him. You have what appears to be a fairly weird soft porn movie playing. Her favorite movie.

Now, at that point, it's her house, it's her bed, it's her idea, and it's her weird movie.

And, she's mad about last night.

She discloses during the investigation that she was abused at a younger age. She was diagnosed with PTSD. She suffers from depression and she has ideated suicide. Now, she is in the middle of a bizarre and public case in which she has demonstrated a pattern of behavior that suggests an obsession with Jordan Johnson. After a very public humiliation by Jordan, she gets him over to her house, sets up the soft porn movie and takes off her clothes, straddling JJ.

The next morning, she goes to get the rape kit, isn't really interested in fully cooperating, just wants to make sure she's got a "report" on file. Goes to a Superbowl party. Texts a friend a couple of days later sounding almost giddy. "It's all good." She's seems fully aware that a rape charge will hit JJ "like a ton of bricks."

Hmmm. Wonder why she thinks that?

Four weeks later, just so we are on the same page here, she writes JJ a letter that doesn't mention rape, it accuses him of "humiliating" her. That's the emotional driver here.

He doesn't respond. "Dammit, then I'm going to file for a TRO, that I am in fear of bodily harm," a claim completely inconsistent with everything she ever said about JJ, and for which in fact, there was no basis for the claim. It was clearly retaliatory for NOT contacting her or responding to her letter. She would "teach" him.

Now, Fred has this file on his desk. And I can hear Fred as he is reading it. "Oh sh....".

Jane Doe has pretty much fabricated a case, out of an unsuccessful fantasy relationship that she had been pursuing. The clue is found in her changing stories. It always is.

Fred knows there's a huge problem with the case. He's got DOJ sniffing around. He's under some public pressure. And that's not his main concern. His main concern is that the public tailwind around this case is driving to a very public conclusion that will likely not be favorable to a very fragile young woman with a history of problems.

And I will tell you as a fact just from knowing Fred for 40 years, he is concerned about where this is going, and it has less to do with JJ than it does with a young woman for whom her fantasies got out of control and she has precipitated a very public spectacle of what can still be an unfolding tragedy.

She has already complained about a public humiliation, and that it was JJ's "fault." The "humiliation," in her own words, has very much driven her escalating behavior. And it may drive it farther. Fred knows that. He knows this case cannot go to trial.

And that conclusion has very little to do with Jordan Johnson.

I'm too lazy to dissect this whole statement and the thing wrong with it, but you do realize that you're calling a PG-13 movie a "soft porn"...right? C''mon man.

75 has been trying to have a discussion with TNT, who as you know has very old-fashioned and out-of-date views on life, so I assume 75 was just trying to communicate on TNT's level because TNT would likely view PG-13 as soft porn.

 

[argh!]

Indeed, her visit to the rape trauma center the next day was remarkably casual, like a routine part of her day's activity.

another 'awesome' statement. so you were there at the trauma center, were you? well, obviously you were, since your examination of her vagina found abrasions that were consistent with your son's 'date' story. wow, what overwhelming evidence.

hey - wait a minute - aren't you violating all kinds of hippa regulations, dr. makeshitup?

 

[tnt]

75 has been trying to have a discussion with TNT, who as you know has very old-fashioned and out-of-date views on life, so I assume 75 was just trying to communicate on TNT's level because TNT would likely view PG-13 as soft porn.

Hey! Don't get me into this. Last movie I saw was Silverado. When they quit charging a buck, I quit going. Who needs porn with egriz???

 

[Sooo Bad]

red mark on her chest consistent with someone pinning her down. abrasions around and inside the vaginal area consistent with someone missing the mark and penetrating an unstimulated vagina. can all that be explained? probably, but that is yet to be seen.

Red mark was explained by a pimple. And if he hit it from behind why would there be a mark on her chest? Abrasions can also be explained by regular sex. Especially if he was a little tipsy. So yes that can all easily be explained to add doubt to the jurors which equals acquittal.

c'mon, lets get real. you realize of course that there's an attorney for each side of the argument. the prosecution, the examiner and its experts aren't go to describe the red mark as a pimple.

I agree that the prosecution will say it was because of forced sex. I also believe the defense will bring their own examiner and expert that will say it could very easily be caused by a pimple. And there you go...doubt in the jurors.

Or maybe, just maybe...something as simple as a whisker burn. :? :?

 

[UMGriz75]

Indeed, her visit to the rape trauma center the next day was remarkably casual, like a routine part of her day's activity.

another 'awesome' statement. so you were there at the trauma center, were you? well, obviously you were, since your examination of her vagina found abrasions that were consistent with your son's 'date' story. wow, what overwhelming evidence.

hey - wait a minute - aren't you violating all kinds of hippa regulations, dr. makeshitup?

I know, this is tough for you when I use the phrase "and this is how evidence is presented" on a thread entitled "No Way JJ Can Be Convicted."

Of course, "makeshitup" is Jane Doe's problem, not mine. You have your diagnosis confused Dr. FreudLite. As I did take the time to point out in detail, there are manifest inconsistencies that have arisen from the young lady's various versions of events. And inconsistencies are consistent with false statements.

You don't think the Defense is going to present the case in the way that the evidence has so far presented itself? That the "visit" to the trauma center was remarkably casual? Abrasions and welts quickly disappear. The whole point is to go a rape trauma clinic as soon as you can. THEY CAN'T PRESERVE KEY EVIDENCE if the alleged victim decides to go when she "gets around to it" on her way to a party the next day. Indeed, real evidence often disappears.

On the other hand, treating it as a mere formality, simply just for the purpose of the creation of a "record," not bothering to follow instructions regarding preserving key evidence, is a casual treatment for a supposed "traumatic rape."

As noted previously:

Let's see, if I wasn't sure I had been raped, I ... go to a rape trauma center? They need to tell me ... what? Oh yeah, it's to "make that record" that I might want "use" later. And of course, if I am serious about the "rape" part, I give them all the evidence, right?

"At First Step, Doe was instructed to collect her blanket for evidentiary purposes but she declined to do so because she didn't want to give up her blanket."

You'd think with all the trauma and sandwiches flying around, it would be the "object of horror" and she would gladly follow their professional advice. But, she wanted to keep it. SHE WANTED TO KEEP IT! That's what trauma victims do!

"After her First Step exam. Doe attended a Super Bowl party and then later that evening went to work at the Ronald McDonald House. Doe mentioned attending the party in her first written statement but, in later ve~ions, including the one she later used to get an order of protection, Doe asserts that after the First Step exam, she remained home for the rest of the day, with the exception of the Ronald McDonald House. The reference to the Super Bowl party had been deleted In her "official" statement to University officials."

As TNT wrote:

The "social worker" who BTW is a practicing clinician figured what happened, is that the girl was as suggested pissed after the ball,but so was JJ , he was home "alone" drinking as you recall. She decided to bring him home lead him on, get him good and hot, and then cut him off at the pass to humiliate him. Problem is it didn't work out that way, he finished (as any good quarter back should) what he started. Thus her "confusion," although most victims go back and forth between blaming the guy and blaming themselves as the pretend no big thing really happened and try to blow it off.

I mean really? You get raped. You go out and make a sandwich. Take the guy home. Do something else for the evening. Next morning, on your way to your Super Bowl Party you get a rape kit done, show some red marks that look more recent than the alleged incident, refuse to preserve key evidence because you want to keep your special blanket because you are so fond of a thing upon which an allegedly traumatic rape occurred, you go off to your Super Bowl Party, text a friend a couple of days later that JJ probably didn't have any reason to think he did anything wrong, that "everything is good" and that JJ won't see this any of this coming and ... this is the normal response to genuine rape trauma? Oh, and "hey, wanna go to lunch?"

Well, that's one side that a jury is going to hear. And most of that is in her own words.

And that's the problem here: this all is presented without JJ uttering a word in his defense.

This all comes from her.

 

[ranco]

explains why Argh! is so ARGH!. she was so happy to see a football player charged but she can't come to grips with the fact the charge is bogus.

 

[tnt]

Actually it comes through JJ's eyes, and third parties reading parts of 3 supposed 1000 pages of emails. probably NOT how a Jury will here it/see it. I don't think I'd be judging "evidence" here. There are lots of explanations, lots of interpretations, and lots of evidence not here.....

Even in the event of a feminist conspiracy, they would be better prepared than you are letting on. I can assure you the only people with intelligence and "ability" are not the Paoli and Pabst team. The jury pool will not be limited to eGriz either. With Fred VV going nose to nose with the DOJ, its dobtful he was "forced" into anything.

 

[ranco]

Actually it comes through JJ's eyes, and third parties reading parts of a supposed 1000 pages of emails. probably NOT how a Jury will here it/see it. I don't think I'd be judging "evidence" here. There are lots of explanations, lots of interpretations, and lots of evidence not here.....

Even in the event of a feminist conspiracy, they would be better prepared than you are letting on. I can assure you the only people with intelligence and "ability" are not the Paoli and Pabst team. The jury pool will not be limited to eGriz either. With Fred VV going nose to nose with the DOJ, its dobtful he was "forced" into anything.

You are right, lots of explanations, lots of interpretations. That all adds up to an acquitable - never adds up to "beyond a reasonble doubt."