No Way JJ Can Be Convicted

[granitegriz]

Right on nzone!

 

[PTGrizzly]

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:

Agreed. Both documents are biased for each side, none of know which one is actually true. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[NorthwestFresh]

The Chief Jocksniffer of Egriz, and one of the primary reasons UM finds themselves in situations like these, has declared that based on a Motion to Dismiss, that there is no way JJ can be convicted.

Did you even at all study criminal law at law school, PR? Of course the MtD is going to be slanted for the defense. Every fricking defense lawyer in the world files a motion to dismiss, and packs the motion with as much loaded content favoring their client as they have.

Unfortunately for you, you're never, EVER, going to get your access back to the program, and you've been flagged by UM as a complete drag on the program. If you at least donated substantial money and time, I might actually care about your nonsense. Instead, I have to think that you've been a closet Bobcat fan all these years, with the crap you've pulled, and are continuing to try and pull. Hurts, huh?

 

[nzone]

The bottom line is until women report rape immediately he said she said won't get prosecuted.

 

[argh!]

There should have never been any charges filed. This is a classic he said she said without any evidence to the contrary. I would bet that under "normal" circumstance a district prosecuting attorney would have never pursued this. Wow what a mess!!

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.

It sounded like the red marks were overshadowed considerably by a pimple...

with you inside.

 

[NorthwestFresh]

The bottom line is until women report rape immediately he said she said won't get prosecuted.

This is being prosecuted. Not sure what your point is in this post. A Motion to Dismiss by the defense doesn't mean that charges are going to be dropped. Odds are that if it took this long for the DA to file charges, that they are confident in their case at least going to trial.

No way this gets dismissed next week unless the psychos on this board actually find out who the victim is and intimidate her into refusing to testify. Even then, the DA can continue to prosecute.

 

[dupuyer griz]

There should have never been any charges filed. This is a classic he said she said without any evidence to the contrary. I would bet that under "normal" circumstance a district prosecuting attorney would have never pursued this. Wow what a mess!!

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.

It sounded like the red marks were overshadowed considerably by a pimple...

with you inside.

burrrrrrnnnnn read it twat

 

[MTGriz87]

...

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.

Yes!! I said it about the initial affidavit with the witnesses' names at the back, and now this motion to dismiss giving context to who some of those people are in relation to the victim. It is NOT hard to find out those involved, especially in this digital culture with details of people being searchable via social networking, and with us living in a relatively small state/community. IMO, including that kind of information is EXTREMELY negligent, but maybe it is standard for that sort of thing to be included?

 

[argh!]

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.

can you please stop the histrionics? you had a female friend pass judgement while she read "the documents" and you were all agitated and huffed and puffed, and i am supposed to mindlessly agree with your and (just by 'chance') her opinion? as she read, did she know you posted the following about a girl you have never encountered in any way shape or form in real life, aka... real life?

"I have heard other things from people around Missoula, which I am keeping off the message boards. Your defense will have a lot of Aces, and wildcards up their sleeves, to use. If, they have to use those cards, that girl, and her family better be preparing for some very harsh things to come out, in this case."

 

[NorthwestFresh]

...

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.

Yes!! I said it about the initial affidavit with the witnesses' names at the back, and now this motion to dismiss giving context to who some of those people are in relation to the victim. It is NOT hard to find out those involved, especially in this digital culture with details of people being searchable via social networking, and with us living in a relatively small state/community. IMO, including that kind of information is EXTREMELY negligent, but maybe it is standard for that sort of thing to be included?

An initial witness list is always included in a charging indictment/affidavit to prosecute, in Montana. There is no grand jury process in Montana, so the defense gets access to prosecution witnesses the moment the charges are released.

:roll:

 

[mtgrizrule]

Argh, it was not intended for you, or anyone, to agree with, or even debate.

Do you know this girl, or family? I do not expect a comment. Speaking of agitation, it seems you are agitated when someone mentions a possibility, that does not look good for her side.

Sorry, did not mean to "agitate" you.

 

[NorthwestFresh]

Argh, it was not intended for you, or anyone, to agree with, or even debate.

Do you know this girl, or family? I do not expect a comment. Speaking of agitation, it seems you are agitated when someone mentions a possibility, that does not look good for her side.

Sorry, did not mean to "agitate" you.

So ... are you on the defense witness list? Or are you just trying to intimidate the alleged victim via this very odd website?

 

[MTGriz87]

...

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.

Yes!! I said it about the initial affidavit with the witnesses' names at the back, and now this motion to dismiss giving context to who some of those people are in relation to the victim. It is NOT hard to find out those involved, especially in this digital culture with details of people being searchable via social networking, and with us living in a relatively small state/community. IMO, including that kind of information is EXTREMELY negligent, but maybe it is standard for that sort of thing to be included?

An initial witness list is always included in a charging indictment/affidavit to prosecute, in Montana. There is no grand jury process in Montana, so the defense gets access to prosecution witnesses the moment the charges are released.

:roll:

Ok, obviously I am no lawyer so I wasn't sure if that was standard for witnesses to be included in the affidavit. It's understandable the defense would have access to prosecution witnesses, is it also standard for that to be made public without censoring of those names? Just seems negligent, especially in a case like this where a lot is on the line and it could be possible for witnesses to be located and 'pursuaded' by threats or what not.

 

[NorthwestFresh]

...

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.

Yes!! I said it about the initial affidavit with the witnesses' names at the back, and now this motion to dismiss giving context to who some of those people are in relation to the victim. It is NOT hard to find out those involved, especially in this digital culture with details of people being searchable via social networking, and with us living in a relatively small state/community. IMO, including that kind of information is EXTREMELY negligent, but maybe it is standard for that sort of thing to be included?

An initial witness list is always included in a charging indictment/affidavit to prosecute, in Montana. There is no grand jury process in Montana, so the defense gets access to prosecution witnesses the moment the charges are released.

:roll:

Ok, obviously I am no lawyer so I wasn't sure if that was standard for witnesses to be included in the affidavit. It's understandable the defense would have access to prosecution witnesses, is it also standard for that to be made public without censoring of those names? Just seems negligent, especially in a case like this where a lot is on the line and it could be possible for witnesses to be located and 'pursuaded' by threats or what not.

It's public record. Most people assume that potential witnesses won't be harassed. Given the insanity on this board and the complete denial, perhaps the case should have been sealed. That's the way to protect potential witnesses, but I'm going to assume that the judge didn't take into account a few of the crazies on egriz who may actually try to contact witnesses they know to "persuade" them.

It's sick.

 

[mtgrizrule]

Argh, it was not intended for you, or anyone, to agree with, or even debate.

Do you know this girl, or family? I do not expect a comment. Speaking of agitation, it seems you are agitated when someone mentions a possibility, that does not look good for her side.

Sorry, did not mean to "agitate" you.

So ... are you on the defense witness list? Or are you just trying to intimidate the alleged victim via this very odd website?

How is anyone intimidating someone? That would be quite a feat, to be in Denver, not knowing either party, personally, and being on a witness list. :thumb:

 

[PlayerRep]

There should have never been any charges filed. This is a classic he said she said without any evidence to the contrary. I would bet that under "normal" circumstance a district prosecuting attorney would have never pursued this. Wow what a mess!!

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.

Nope, according to motion to dismiss, the supposed red mark on the chest doesn't show up in the photo (and that was the main reason cited by the rape examiner that rape may have occurred). The other things cited are consistent with sex. The motion says some of the minor things were consistent with recent activity, and not something that occurred a day earlier.

 

[NorthwestFresh]

Argh, it was not intended for you, or anyone, to agree with, or even debate.

Do you know this girl, or family? I do not expect a comment. Speaking of agitation, it seems you are agitated when someone mentions a possibility, that does not look good for her side.

Sorry, did not mean to "agitate" you.

So ... are you on the defense witness list? Or are you just trying to intimidate the alleged victim via this very odd website?

How is anyone intimidating someone? That would be quite a feat, to be in Denver, not knowing either party, personally, and being on a witness list. :thumb:

I was just reading a quote that apparently was posted on this board about somebody making the alleged victim's life miserable if she follows through on this. Sorry if that wasn't you who was quoted.

 

[go96griz]

After reading the motion to dismiss, several things just don't add up for me assuming the information is true. Why would the accuser take the time to have a snack after the alleged incident and before getting rid of JJ? Also, if she was afraid of being hit by JJ and just let him finish, then why would she give him a ride home? Why wouldn't she ask her male roommate to come with her. These actions aren't consistent with the story. I would think you would get rid of your attacker asap without taking the time to prepare and eat a snack in front of them. Further, if you were afraid would you really drive your attacker home alone? It definitely smells fishy.

 

[PlayerRep]

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:

Nope, you're not right. People are now looking at what both sides have said. In addition, much of what the defense added in the motion is what the accuser as well as third parties have said. This looks like it is likely pretty close to the full story.

 

[PlayerRep]

Almost every single case has a motion to dismiss. You'd be stupid not to try.

With that said, it does look shaky for the prosecutor, however I still believe this will go to trial and that this will be a messy case. Not going to be fun for anybody.

Nope, motions to dismiss are not common in criminal cases (excluding white collar crimes). I suppose you think onside kicks are common in football.