-
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!
No Way JJ Can Be Convicted
- Thread starter PlayerRep
- Start date
getgrizzy said:
Funny, you are the only one that is continually mentioning football in every post. It seems to me that most posters are not.
Holy santa claus siht The original affidavit was damning. Admittedly, I have read few, but I was surprised it want' more middle of the road. I just assumed that was how they did it and the rest was worked out in court. The motion to dismiss is a complete game changer. If you have not read it you don't have an opinion on this whole thing yet. I thought it was kind of hokey before. Now, I am certain that this is a crock of stool. Everyone needs to read the motion to dismiss it is unbeflorioinglievable.
harrydoyle1989 said:
According to the affidavit, much of what was added by the the defense lawyer, Pabst, was information in the possession of the county attorney's office but not included in the affidavit. Some of the information came from the accuser and third parties. Judges frequently analyze information, discern facts, and dismiss cases, without juries even being selected.
grizindabox said:
Nope, what you said is not true. People sure can base alot on the motion to dismiss. It has alot of additional information. Much of it came from the accuser and third parties. Many of the reactions in this thread are the same reactions that jurors would have.
there is physical evidence to the contrary. she had a red mark across her chest, she had abrasions around and inside her vagina. yes, these abrasions could happen during consensual sex, but they are consistent with rape in that internal vagina is prone to abrasions if it isn't lubricated (as is often the case during a rape/non-arousal) and the area around the vagina can be affected when the woman is resisting sex and moving around as to not allow the penis to be inserted and it strikes and rubs against the skin in that area.nzone said:
It sounded like the red marks were overshadowed considerably by a pimple...getgrizzy said:
getgrizzy no way in hell this should go to trial or charges should have been brought. No way will 12 people convict this defendent and any prosecutor knows it. This case will not be good for the feminists agenda it will only costs the taxpayers and the Johnson family a bunch of money. Period!!
ALPHAGRIZ1
Well-known member
PTGrizzly said:
Pflus offense was geared around quick scores.......why does this surprise you?
No way is OJ going to walk!
Screamin_Eagle174
Well-known member
JFC, some of you are looking through Maroon colored glasses.
Just as it's completely unfair to assume the information in the charging documents is the unadulterated truth, it's also completely unfair to assume the information in the motion to dismiss is the unadulterated truth. Both of them are simply the accounts of each party, presented to best support their case. It's unfortunate for all parties involved, and hopefully the courts will be able to discover the truth of the matter. Until then it's all just biased, speculative BS. :twocents:
Just as it's completely unfair to assume the information in the charging documents is the unadulterated truth, it's also completely unfair to assume the information in the motion to dismiss is the unadulterated truth. Both of them are simply the accounts of each party, presented to best support their case. It's unfortunate for all parties involved, and hopefully the courts will be able to discover the truth of the matter. Until then it's all just biased, speculative BS. :twocents:
mtgrizrule
Well-known member
Sorry, and no offense intended to the defense, or the accuser, after reading the documents from each side, I honestly do not see how a jury would convict on this. I had some doubts before reading the dismissal documents. After reading those, I don't see this going to trial, let alone, JJ being convicted.
A female friend of mine, read the documents, and she even said, he will walk. She is not from Montana, and knows nothing of JJ, or anyone involved. She did ask a good question, that I have not seen presented here, or mentioned anywhere. Granted, it may be an exaggeration, but did make me curious. She mentioned, from her own sexual experience, and a few friends, who is to say the abrasions were not caused by her pleasing herself with her own toys? I laughed when she asked that. She told me, she was serious, she knows of females taking on a little too big of challenge to please themselves, and it caused irritation, and pain in the vagina area.
She honestly believes, if there is not any sign of DNA from JJ, in that area, and the defense wants to play hardball, it could be something they could use. She also thinks it is very possible for a scorned woman to resort to causing herself some pain to make a guy look guilty. Then again, like everyone here, she does not know what happened. She is pretty sold on JJ's defense, and the prosecution not having enough to risk taking this to trial.
In addition, she questions, why her male roommates would not have done anything, if they suspected anything? They are likely trusting, caring friends, that are likely close, and protective of her. She feels most women, with male house mates, would likely tell her male roommates in advance, such and such is coming over, no need to worry, and she wants "alone" time with a guy.
On the other hand, if it were a guy she was not so sure of, she likely would have told them, to keep an eye out for her, and made sure to have kept the setting social with her roommates. Even a clue statement, like offering JJ to play some video games with them. She just does not understand how a male roommate would not be protective of her, if the girl was not comfortable with any guy. In a nutshell, she thinks this girl had regrets, after the fact, got emotionally hurt, and then decided to pursue it the way she did.
That aside, the text messages does not look good for the accuser/defense either.
Speaking of defense, I am a little surprised this much is made public before court proceedings. Based on the dismissal documents, how difficult would it be to find out who Jane Doe is? We know who her friends, and acquaintances are. We know where she works, or volunteers, where she is from. It would not take much to know who she is. I thought her identity was to be protected in the process. If, I were her, family, friends, or lawyer, I would be very upset about what was made public knowledge.
Sorry, but the names mentioned, the details of where she grew up, where she works/volunteers, should not be pubic knowledge at this stage! Those kind of things, need to be blacked out, for the sake of the accuser. As for the details, and the defenses side of the case, I feel all that is free game, and should be public knowledge.
Would anyone of legal background mind adding to the confidentiality, of what was just released? In my opinion, this information has put the accuser at risk.
A female friend of mine, read the documents, and she even said, he will walk. She is not from Montana, and knows nothing of JJ, or anyone involved. She did ask a good question, that I have not seen presented here, or mentioned anywhere. Granted, it may be an exaggeration, but did make me curious. She mentioned, from her own sexual experience, and a few friends, who is to say the abrasions were not caused by her pleasing herself with her own toys? I laughed when she asked that. She told me, she was serious, she knows of females taking on a little too big of challenge to please themselves, and it caused irritation, and pain in the vagina area.
She honestly believes, if there is not any sign of DNA from JJ, in that area, and the defense wants to play hardball, it could be something they could use. She also thinks it is very possible for a scorned woman to resort to causing herself some pain to make a guy look guilty. Then again, like everyone here, she does not know what happened. She is pretty sold on JJ's defense, and the prosecution not having enough to risk taking this to trial.
In addition, she questions, why her male roommates would not have done anything, if they suspected anything? They are likely trusting, caring friends, that are likely close, and protective of her. She feels most women, with male house mates, would likely tell her male roommates in advance, such and such is coming over, no need to worry, and she wants "alone" time with a guy.
On the other hand, if it were a guy she was not so sure of, she likely would have told them, to keep an eye out for her, and made sure to have kept the setting social with her roommates. Even a clue statement, like offering JJ to play some video games with them. She just does not understand how a male roommate would not be protective of her, if the girl was not comfortable with any guy. In a nutshell, she thinks this girl had regrets, after the fact, got emotionally hurt, and then decided to pursue it the way she did.
That aside, the text messages does not look good for the accuser/defense either.
Speaking of defense, I am a little surprised this much is made public before court proceedings. Based on the dismissal documents, how difficult would it be to find out who Jane Doe is? We know who her friends, and acquaintances are. We know where she works, or volunteers, where she is from. It would not take much to know who she is. I thought her identity was to be protected in the process. If, I were her, family, friends, or lawyer, I would be very upset about what was made public knowledge.
Sorry, but the names mentioned, the details of where she grew up, where she works/volunteers, should not be pubic knowledge at this stage! Those kind of things, need to be blacked out, for the sake of the accuser. As for the details, and the defenses side of the case, I feel all that is free game, and should be public knowledge.
Would anyone of legal background mind adding to the confidentiality, of what was just released? In my opinion, this information has put the accuser at risk.
