No Way JJ Can Be Convicted

[snap]

So the quick and easy take away from UM75's posts is that it is completely alright to rape a woman who has flirted with you or one who has mental problems.




Oh, and playerrep likes wears women's underpants and look at pictures of J Edgar Hoover. I want to be sued for defamation too.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

 

[Sportin' Life]

So the quick and easy take away from UM75's posts is that it is completely alright to rape a woman who has flirted with you or one who has mental problems.

No where is it suggested that any justification exists for rape, ever, at any time. Your suggestion is disgusting. The argument is directed toward false allegations of rape. However, if you think it is possible to come away from my remarks with that classic straw man distortion as an honest or reasonable representation of them, I think you are an idiot. Sue me.

I agree about the disgusting part.

The point is that most of your posts do not speak to what actually happened the night of the rape, but rather opine about her mental state, her dress, her reputation, etc. So the logical deduction from that is that it doesn't actually matter what happened that night, but what her mental state is, and therefore it doesn't matter whether JJ raped her or not. By that logic no person could ever be convicted for raping a crazy woman.

 

[UMGriz75]

The point is that most of your posts do not speak to what actually happened the night of the rape, but rather opine about her mental state, her dress, her reputation, etc. So the logical deduction from that is that it doesn't actually matter what happened that night, but what her mental state is, and therefore it doesn't matter whether JJ raped her or not. By that logic no person could ever be convicted for raping a crazy woman.

That is false.

"Most" of my posts go to what she specifically says happened that night, the events of the prior evening, and the specific actions she took following that night, who she talked to and what she said. About 90% of that is in her own words or her own texts, taken from the charging documents, affidavits, and her recorded interviews with attorneys.

It matters a great deal what happened "that night," and the problematic nature of this case is that she says, at almost every key factual allegation, something different at different points. Was this a young women obsessed with Jordan Johnson? In her words, there is a great deal to believe there was and the events of the previous evening, as well as her claims about "their future," which she pretty much already had planned out, including specifically claiming that "she expected" to have consensual sex, in the context of the previous evening where she showed up alone at the Forester's Ball, drunk, and intervened between JJ and his current romantic interest. Is THAT consistent with a young lady who admitted she had broken up with a boyfriend because of "her relationship with JJ," even though it didn't exist at that point?

Now, what's the context of all that behavior? A young woman who ALSO admits to being abused as girl, so severe that she developed PTSD, depression, and thought about suicide. Are there clinical studies that show that people abused a children tend to become abusers as adults? Yes. Can that be a significant factor in this case?

Read about the letter that she wrote to JJ four weeks later, where her primary accusation was in being "humiliated" by him. Now: no boyfriend/because of a non-existent relationship with JJ. Literally stalking him at the Forester's Ball. Asking that he "marry" her at the marriage Booth. Getting publicly left by him when he had to get back to the DATE HE HAD TAKEN TO THE BALL. Now, go back to that letter again. What's she mad about? Rape? No. "HUMILIATION."

So, based on her versions and history, is a vindictive, retributive mens rea an appropriate and reasonable suspicion? Not only appropriate, it is the classic case. This one hits on all of the reasonable checklists.

Now, several posters have argued that this is based on JJ's statements. None of it is.

But take a look, for the first time, at the idea of motive and opportunity.

JJ's a nice kid. Everybody says so. She says so. Coach Pflugrad lost his job he felt so strongly about it.

He maintains an assortment of casual friendships, and has gone out with her before. He no doubt had no idea of her perceptions of their "relationship" -- the fantasies, the inability to date others, the ideation that she was going to be in a relationship with JJ at some point.

He's beginning to date Kelly. Jane Doe reacts precisely in the "classic case," manner. She goes to the Ball. She's filled with liquid courage. She's alone. She's pretty. She could have had a date to go with. She didn't want one. She goes right over to JJ and Kelly. Offers that "she'd do him any time." Well, then, welcome to the Forester's Ball. JJ's a nice guy. He dances with her. His date is a little perturbed. Jane wants to go to the marriage booth.

Now, why do you suppose that?

Now, when talking about the "classic case" stalking scenario of a controlling, manipulative, sociopathic personality, we are pretty much scoring all the points here. She's going to prove something to Kelly, and to the whole University community, as publicly as possible. JJ is ... in line, not comfortable at all, Kelly is starting to walk out, and he goes chasing after her.

Which part of this is implausible, or not based on any fact so far disclosed in Jane's own words?

She's humiliated. There's that post-"rape" letter again! In her words.

JJ feels terrible. I am making that part up. But he calls Jane the next day. To apologize? No, I am making that up too. Speculate yourself. But, she wants to hang out at her house. Not his. Hers. Am I making that up? No. She said she wanted to. JJ says he's had a couple of beers and will not drive. That's his excuse for not coming over. She later testified she didn't think he'd been drinking at all. She is willing to pick him up. To go to her house.

Now, let's get back to that "classic case" scenario. Do rapists, because it is generally identified as a control crime, generally do whatever the victim wants to do? Or do nice guys feeling bad about the previous evening? Do rapists want to control the environment; make the victim feel helpless, exert control over the environment the circumstances and the victim? Or do they go to their house, with all their roommates home?

She wants to watch a movie in her bedroom, a movie oddly enough about a college girl engaging in multiple sexual fantasies about guys having sex with her. She wanted him to watch that.

Now, back to the "classic case." Do rapists generally yield control to the victim? That is in fact implausible. Has there ever, in the history of authentic, proven rapes, been a situation where a college quarterback has voluntarily yielded to watch a "B" movie about a college girl having sexual fantasies with multiple guys and getting paid for them with gift cards (part of the movie plot]?

No. That has never happened.

And when has any college age woman forced a college quarterback to watch such a movie except purely as an act of punishment and cruelty?

Go down that "classic case" checklist again. How do rapists generally set up their patterns of behavior and abuse? JJ doesn't fit any of them. How do sociopathic, vindictive people set up their patters of behavior and abuse? Jane Doe fits most of them.

The deed is done. She says she sent "mixed messages." She also says she originally said "no," but in later interviews said only that she "never specifically said yes," but that she can "understand" how JJ might have gotten "the wrong idea." Well, what in the h**** is THAT supposed to mean?

Well, she' still angling, that's why, and that is also part of the "classic case."

She got the deed done; got her rape kit done the next day on the way to her Super Bowl party, texted a friend a couple of days later that "all is good," and that JJ was going to be surprised! "Let's have lunch!!" Go back again to that "classic case." Jane is using the language of a "victory dance." She seems happy! That's consistent with a sociopathic personality.

Also, note, she's letting the "word out" about "rape." To people that know Jordan. And she seems positively happy to be letting it "get around," to the O'Day boy, for instance. She's enjoying this. "It's all good!" "Let's go to lunch!" This is the ultimate punishment for the Forester's Ball humiliation. This is "control."

Well, by this time, JJ's pretty much figured out he's got a problem. He avoids her. Three weeks pass and he isn't doing for her whatever it is that people seeking control demand. She is getting frustrated. She wants ACKNOWLEDGMENT. That's part of "control." Here comes that "letter." "Humiliation" is what she is going to punish him for. He still doesn't respond. She lies on an affidavit and gets a TRO served on him. More of that "control."

She is now complaining to friends that he isn't acting "punished" enough. Now, she's unhappy. No more, "all is good" text messages to friends. He's still "enjoying" life. She's angry about that. That's a loss of "control." I would bet the facts will show he's dating Kelly now. She finally pulls out all stops and goes to the police. "I was raped." It is the classic response in the "classic case."

Too many facts, in her own versions of the story, line up. It is practically speaking a DSM IV checklist. JJ doesn't fit the profiles at all. She does.

And that's your closing argument to a jury of relatively normal people who have relatively normal sons and daughters whom they love very much.

 

[spsyk]

So, what would be the consequences for the plaintiff or victim, if Jordan Johnson is found not guilty, of the allege crime, is there jail time involved or fine as there is for the defendant, for the plaintiff or accuser.

The only reason why I ask is, because, when the plaintiff, " is not sure if she was raped or not " "while enduring the alleged rape, with two individuals within vocal reached, never reached," " and then providing a ride home after being assaulted".

Unfortunately, this identifies the key contradictions in rape cases.

1) Victims get anonymity. The purpose? Obviously to encourage reporting of rapes. The downside? False rapes get reported.

2) False rapes are not punished. The purpose? So as to not discourage the reporting of real rapes. Is that a viable social and legal policy? Well, that surely can be argued. Does it encourage the reporting of false rapes for vindictive, punitive or manipulative purposes? Undoubtedly that occurs. Brian Banks. The Duke LaCrosse boys.

In this case, you have what appears to be something of a classic abused person with acknowledged psychological problems and who may have a history of similar claims, and possibly similar false claims. As often happens with abused persons, they grow up to be abusers.

With men, that tends to show as direct physical aggression, but also as sociopathic behaviors, manipulation, control, exploitation. In rape counseling, these symptoms are strongly emphasized to women (and men), because they are key indicators of an abusive personality.

With women, statistically, they resort to violence as much or more as men in such circumstances, although much more frequently with weapons such as knives or guns. However, direct physical violence is thought to be significantly underreported in these cases because men are less likely to be damaged in a direct physical assault and are far less likely to report it if they are. However, the other key elements seen in sociopathic and abused men -- manipulation, control, exploitation -- are seen in sociopathic and abused women, but with women, manipulation, control and exploitation can utilize the legal system directly to enable those means of abuse because of social policy to encourage them to do so by a general refusal to punish false rape claims.

The key difference is otherwise identical characteristics of abused and psychologically damaged personalities between men and women is that men will be physically abusive and rape, women will be psychologically abusive and report false rapes.

The legal system creates, then, this huge gender discrimination wherein male abusers are punished, and female abusers are in many ways encouraged and enabled because the system protects, "encourages" and supports them in the name of protecting other women from genuine abuse. So genuine victims are a sort of hostage to those abusive and sociopathic women who literally use that system to perpetuate their own cycle of violence and abuse. Sociopathic men, in contrast, have no such presumptions operating in their favor.

This case has significant factual elements acknowledged in Jane Doe's admitted history to suggest that these issues may be present in this case.

Thanks, great narrative to answer my questions, I kinda of guess that was the way that the plaintiff was handle.

Seem a little unfair, however so is life.

I guess that is women's equality, the same as Title9.

 

[Sportin' Life]

The point is that most of your posts do not speak to what actually happened the night of the rape, but rather opine about her mental state, her dress, her reputation, etc. So the logical deduction from that is that it doesn't actually matter what happened that night, but what her mental state is, and therefore it doesn't matter whether JJ raped her or not. By that logic no person could ever be convicted for raping a crazy woman.

That is false.

"Most" of my posts go to what she specifically says happened that night, the events of the prior evening, and the specific actions she took following that night, who she talked to and what she said. About 90% of that is in her own words or her own texts, taken from the charging documents, affidavits, and her recorded interviews with attorneys.

It matters a great deal what happened "that night," and the problematic nature of this case is that she says, at almost every key factual allegation, something different at different points. Was this a young women obsessed with Jordan Johnson? In her words, there is a great deal to believe there was and the events of the previous evening, as well as her claims about "their future," which she pretty much already had planned out, including specifically claiming that "she expected" to have consensual sex, in the context of the previous evening where she showed up alone at the Forester's Ball, drunk, and intervened between JJ and his current romantic interest. Is THAT consistent with a young lady who admitted she had broken up with a boyfriend because of "her relationship with JJ," even though it didn't exist at that point?

Now, what's the context of all that behavior? A young woman who ALSO admits to being abused as girl, so severe that she developed PTSD, depression, and thought about suicide. Are there clinical studies that show that people abused a children tend to become abusers as adults? Yes. Can that be a significant factor in this case?

Read about the letter that she wrote to JJ four weeks later, where her primary accusation was in being "humiliated" by him. Now: no boyfriend/because of a non-existent relationship with JJ. Literally stalking him at the Forester's Ball. Asking that he "marry" her at the marriage Booth. Getting publicly left by him when he had to get back to the DATE HE HAD TAKEN TO THE BALL. Now, go back to that letter again. What's she mad about? Rape? No. "HUMILIATION."

So, based on her versions and history, is a vindictive, retributive mens rea an appropriate and reasonable suspicion? Not only appropriate, it is the classic case. This one hits on all of the reasonable checklists.

Now, several posters have argued that this is based on JJ's statements. None of it is.

But take a look, for the first time, at the idea of motive and opportunity.

JJ's a nice kid. Everybody says so. She says so. Coach Pflugrad lost his job he felt so strongly about it.

He maintains an assortment of casual friendships, and has gone out with her before. He no doubt had no idea of her perceptions of their "relationship" -- the fantasies, the inability to date others, the ideation that she was going to be in a relationship with JJ at some point.

He's beginning to date Kelly. Jane Doe reacts precisely in the "classic case," manner. She goes to the Ball. She's filled with liquid courage. She's alone. She's pretty. She could have had a date to go with. She didn't want one. She goes right over to JJ and Kelly. Offers that "she'd do him any time." Well, then, welcome to the Forester's Ball. JJ's a nice guy. He dances with her. His date is a little perturbed. Jane wants to go to the marriage booth.

Now, why do you suppose that?

Now, when talking about the "classic case" stalking scenario of a controlling, manipulative, sociopathic personality, we are pretty much scoring all the points here. She's going to prove something to Kelly, and to the whole University community, as publicly as possible. JJ is ... in line, not comfortable at all, Kelly is starting to walk out, and he goes chasing after her.

Which part of this is implausible, or not based on any fact so far disclosed in Jane's own words?

She's humiliated. There's that post-"rape" letter again! In her words.

JJ feels terrible. I am making that part up. But he calls Jane the next day. To apologize? No, I am making that up too. Speculate yourself. But, she wants to hang out at her house. Not his. Hers. Am I making that up? No. She said she wanted to. JJ says he's had a couple of beers and will not drive. That's his excuse for not coming over. She later testified she didn't think he'd been drinking at all. She is willing to pick him up. To go to her house.

Now, let's get back to that "classic case" scenario. Do rapists, because it is generally identified as a control crime, generally do whatever the victim wants to do? Or do nice guys feeling bad about the previous evening? Do rapists want to control the environment; make the victim feel helpless, exert control over the environment the circumstances and the victim? Or do they go to their house, with all their roommates home?

She wants to watch a movie in her bedroom, a movie oddly enough about a college girl engaging in multiple sexual fantasies about guys having sex with her. She wanted him to watch that.

Now, back to the "classic case." Do rapists generally yield control to the victim? That is in fact implausible. Has there ever, in the history of authentic, proven rapes, been a situation where a college quarterback has voluntarily yielded to watch a "B" movie about a college girl having sexual fantasies with multiple guys and getting paid for them with gift cards (part of the movie plot]?

No. That has never happened.

And when has any college age woman forced a college quarterback to watch such a movie except purely as an act of punishment and cruelty?

Go down that "classic case" checklist again. How do rapists generally set up their patterns of behavior and abuse? JJ doesn't fit any of them. How do sociopathic, vindictive people set up their patters of behavior and abuse? Jane Doe fits most of them.

The deed is done. She says she sent "mixed messages." She also says she originally said "no," but in later interviews said only that she "never specifically said yes," but that she can "understand" how JJ might have gotten "the wrong idea." Well, what in the h**** is THAT supposed to mean?

Well, she' still angling, that's why, and that is also part of the "classic case."

She got the deed done; got her rape kit done the next day on the way to her Super Bowl party, texted a friend a couple of days later that "all is good," and that JJ was going to be surprised! "Let's have lunch!!" Go back again to that "classic case." Jane is using the language of a "victory dance." She seems happy! That's consistent with a sociopathic personality.

Also, note, she's letting the "word out" about "rape." To people that know Jordan. And she seems positively happy to be letting it "get around," to the O'Day boy, for instance. She's enjoying this. "It's all good!" "Let's go to lunch!" This is the ultimate punishment for the Forester's Ball humiliation. This is "control."

Well, by this time, JJ's pretty much figured out he's got a problem. He avoids her. Three weeks pass and he isn't doing for her whatever it is that people seeking control demand. She is getting frustrated. She wants ACKNOWLEDGMENT. That's part of "control." Here comes that "letter." "Humiliation" is what she is going to punish him for. He still doesn't respond. She lies on an affidavit and gets a TRO served on him. More of that "control."

She is now complaining to friends that he isn't acting "punished" enough. Now, she's unhappy. No more, "all is good" text messages to friends. He's still "enjoying" life. She's angry about that. That's a loss of "control." I would bet the facts will show he's dating Kelly now. She finally pulls out all stops and goes to the police. "I was raped." It is the classic response in the "classic case."

Too many facts, in her own versions of the story, line up. It is practically speaking a DSM IV checklist. JJ doesn't fit the profiles at all. She does.

And that's your closing argument to a jury of relatively normal people who have relatively normal sons and daughters whom they love very much.

Are you an interested fan with a slightly creepy obsession or are you on the defense team charged with the job of putting forth Johnson's narrative before the trial?

 

[argh!]

So the quick and easy take away from UM75's posts is that it is completely alright to rape a woman who has flirted with you or one who has mental problems.

No where is it suggested that any justification exists for rape, ever, at any time. Your suggestion is disgusting. The argument is directed toward false allegations of rape. However, if you think it is possible to come away from my remarks with that classic straw man distortion as an honest or reasonable representation of them, I think you are an idiot. Sue me.

I agree about the disgusting part.

The point is that most of your posts do not speak to what actually happened the night of the rape, but rather opine about her mental state, her dress, her reputation, etc. So the logical deduction from that is that it doesn't actually matter what happened that night, but what her mental state is, and therefore it doesn't matter whether JJ raped her or not. By that logic no person could ever be convicted for raping a crazy woman.

there's no arguing with the deluded (see posts directly below yours). the guy is going to preen and act like he knows "the whole story" no matter how much logic you throw at him. it makes for a sad commentary on sports hero worship.

 

[snap]

arghs just mad that griz75 has been throwing him around like a ragdoll in this thread.

 

[UMGriz75]

Are you an interested fan with a slightly creepy obsession or are you on the defense team charged with the job of putting forth Johnson's narrative before the trial?

No, it's my way of antagonizing creeps.

 

[UMGriz75]

And it obviously works!

 

[PTGrizzly]

And it obviously works!

I might have read your post wrong, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems like you're saying JJ hung out with her cause he's a nice guy, danced with her cause he's a nice guy and felt bad for her, went over to her house cause he's a nice guy...even though he really didn't want to. Therefore, did he just have sex with her cause he's a nice guy?

 

[UMGriz75]

And it obviously works!

I might have read your post wrong, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems like you're saying JJ hung out with her cause he's a nice guy, danced with her cause he's a nice guy and felt bad for her, went over to her house cause he's a nice guy...even though he really didn't want to. Therefore, did he just have sex with her cause he's a nice guy?

Well you DO want to read things into JJ's behavior, don't you?

The answer is no. Nice guys NEVER want to sex. Of course not. Even when it is the alternative to watching an awful movie. Even when she has taken off her shirt and is sitting on you taking off your shirt. And said she'd "do you any time!"

I do believe the thought of actual sex would never cross certain minds on this board. No wonder they hate JJ.

What do you think? Is this just all too complicated ...

 

[tnt]

One thing nearly ALL rape victims report in common is a feeling of humiliation. Don't think I'd use that one.........

 

[UMGriz75]

One thing nearly ALL rape victims report in common is a feeling of humiliation. Don't think I'd use that one.........

Pure trauma. Depression.

After all, she must have been HAPPY after the Forester's Ball,right? It took "something else" to make her feel humiliated, right?

But, after the "rape?" Of course "rape victims" -- oops, there's that predetermined judgement again -- all text their friends "all is good!" "Hey, wanna have lunch?"

Are you guys for real, or just out to make a mockery of genuine rape victims?

 

[HighLineGRIZ]

One thing nearly ALL rape victims report in common is a feeling of humiliation. Don't think I'd use that one.........

Pure trauma. Depression.

After all, she must have been HAPPY after the Forester's Ball,right? It took "something else" to make her feel humiliated, right?

But, after the "rape?" Of course "rape victims" -- oops, there's that predetermined judgement again -- all text their friends "all is good!" "Hey, wanna have lunch?"

Are you guys for real, or just out to make a mockery of genuine rape victims?

Do you know this woman? You sure seem to know a lot about her and how she thinks...

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

So the quick and easy take away from UM75's posts is that it is completely alright to rape a woman who has flirted with you or one who has mental problems.

All of them have mental problems, its what you get for a rib.

 

[UMGriz75]

Do you know this woman? You sure seem to know a lot about her and how she thinks...

It's what she says.

You certainly seem to want her to act and think one way, and she seems to keep saying, in her own words, something different. And you keep objecting.

Some of you ought to get together with Jane Doe and stop pretending you know what she's going through and just tell her what she's been going through. You seem to know.

Then you can tell JJ what he's done to her. You seem to have that figured out as well.

 

[Grizzoola]

UMGriz75: What you say is quite persuasive. I'm trying to read all these posts as if I were a juror. Some posts are nonsense, while others make some good points, both ways. What I would like to know is should what you have said be presented by the defense? This idea of sociopathic behavior by J. Doe, who claims she was raped, is new to me, and I find myself agreeing with the idea that JJ's behaviour thruout this pathetic episode is not that of a classic rapist.

It raises the question: Who was raped, here, if indeed there was a rape, at all? No one has used the term, "seduction." Women can seduce as well as men, and that could be an additional issue, here.

 

[HighLineGRIZ]

Do you know this woman? You sure seem to know a lot about her and how she thinks...

It's what she says.

You certainly seem to want her to act and think one way, and she seems to keep saying, in her own words, something different. And you keep objecting.

You two ought to get together and stop pretending you know what she's going through and just tell her what she's been going through.

Have no idea what she's going through. I'm certainly not rooting for any other outcome in this case than for the court to come up with the appropriate ruling based on all the evidence, facts and testimomy.

I'm not on her side. I'm not on JJ's side. I don't know her history. I don't know if she was raped. I don't know how she acts. I don't know any of these things becase I don't know her. You don't know either, but you're putting a lot of effort into painting her in a certain unflattering light. That's what bothers me about your posts. I'd react the sameway to someone who was doing the same to JJ.

You're speculating on who she is and what happened. Your speculations are logical, but they are still speculations. They aren't fact. I'm not the person putting forth a bias analysis in trying to sway support to one side or the other.

 

[UMGriz75]

You're speculating on who she is and what happened. Your speculations are logical, but they are still speculations. They aren't fact. I'm not the person putting forth a bias analysis in trying to sway support to one side or the other.

Most of it is not speculation. The comments are based directly on her comments, written and spoken, as well as her acknowledged psychological history. I am not guessing about that, and the diagnostic metrics are straight out of the DSM IV. If she were male, that would carry great weight.

That's why the comments are directed to the thread topic: "No Way JJ Can Be Convicted."

 

[Ossie Ardiles]

The Holiday Inn Express must've been packed last night.