No Way JJ Can Be Convicted

[goatcreekgriz]

The zen master is the best poster, just not as prolific.

 

[tgreseth]

Is there any doubt that Alpha is the best poster on this board?

You know, he should really have his own website...wonder why he doesn't?

 

[PlayerRep]

After looking at the motion to dismiss, there would seem to be no way JJ could be convicted (beyond a reasonable doubt), in my view. The significant additional facts are very helpful to JJ and put the statements in the charging affidavit in context. The motion makes a strong argument for dismissal of the case. The motion is very well done and persuasive.

As others have said, the motion is a must read, especially the factual portion. It details what occurred, starting in 2011 or earlier. As others have said, the defense has used the affidavit, but supplemented it with additional facts and information. Very cleverly done by the defense.

I can see why some, including of course his attorney, have said that JJ was unfairly and wrongly charged. I am starting to wonder if the poster who once said JJ was eventually going to own the university and the city/county may be have been onto something.

While I feel sorry for the parties, it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

do you still feel there's 'no way...'? looks like the defense doesn't have enough evidence to clear j.j.

based on fred's response do you also think the motion is all that well done?

Yes, I still feel the same. The county's response had zero impact on my prior view. I think the defense has plenty of evidence to clear JJ, and my guess is that more will be forthcoming when they get additional information from the county. Yes, I believe the motion to dismiss was very well done.

The county attorney's brief doesn't really address the main issue brought up in the motion, i.e. that failure to provide information in the charging affidavit calls into question whether there was sufficient evidence to meet the standard of probable. The county's position is essentially that the standard for probable cause is low, cherry-picking is okay in a charging affidavit, and they said in their affidavit that JJ had said the acts were consensual (so that's all of the exculpatory stuff they had to provide). The county kept saying that all of the things pointed out by the defense should be decided by a court. Some of that is correct, but the issue of whether there is probably cause doesn't get decided by a jury.

Also, it looked to me like the motion had stung the prosecution, and that the insinuation that the county may have charged him due to the DOJ investigation particularly dismayed them.

The county said some of the information in the motion would not be admissible in court. My reaction was so what? I'm not sure everything in the charging affidavit will be admissible in court either.

The county said the motion is an attempt to "present his version of the facts to the court of public opinion, influence the public's opinion of the county attorney's office, and invite this Court to decide this case prior to the State presenting its case to a jury." Yes, I suppose that's true. They could have also said that it was also done to give the judge a more balanced view of the case, as she makes other decisions regarding the case as it moves forward; and it sends a clear message to the prosecution and the accuser that the defense is going to vigorously and aggressively defend JJ.

As I said, a terrific motion to dismiss. That doesn't mean that it necessarily has a high chance of being granted.

 

[Umista]

Has the trial started yet?

######## After we hit a record 30 pages I forgot what the topic was????

 

[tnt]

Has the trial started yet?

######## After we hit a record 30 pages I forgot what the topic was????

\

Hell, even I don't care anymore. Once one of the "attorneys" started bragging about getting a child molester off with a $50.00 fine and meeting with fred daily to get briefed on his strategy, it ceased to be a fun exercise in what if's and maybes. Worse I realized more than a few wackos actually believed anything they read.

 

[bigforkgriz]

Has the trial started yet?

######## After we hit a record 30 pages I forgot what the topic was????

\

Hell, even I don't care anymore. Once one of the "attorneys" started bragging about getting a child molester off with a $50.00 fine and meeting with fred daily to get briefed on his strategy, it ceased to be a fun exercise in what if's and maybes. Worse I realized more than a few wackos actually believed anything they read.

If you don't care, why did you prolong the thread? I believe some of what I read, but very rarely understand what you have written. They say the brain has two hemispheres. Do you have a third operating in a world of it's own?

 

[tnt]

If there wasn't anyone to play with, then I wouldn't play. But even I was embarrased aat my numbet of posts. But there certsinly are other places to play if one doesn't want to play here......

 

[EverettGriz]

OFFS.

Mods, PLLLEEEEEEAAASSSSSEEEE kill this thread. I mean, now they're arguring about the fact that they wouldn't be arguing if there wasn't anyone to argue with. Seriously. I think we're done here.

 

[mtgrizrule]

Merge the JJ rape threads, then we would have a very long thread. Personally, I like reading both sides of this case. Granted, a few too many things have been repeated too often.

 

[Hammer]

OFFS.

Mods, PLLLEEEEEEAAASSSSSEEEE kill this thread. I mean, now they're arguring about the fact that they wouldn't be arguing if there wasn't anyone to argue with. Seriously. I think we're done here.

Yes!!

 

[GrizMusician]

:dead:

 

[Umista]

I am happy. I love breaking records on the griz football boards. My computer is heating up, sick that I am still reading the conviction (I thought he got off) thread. Many posts were and are excellent reading. Then we have dog posts like mine and it all slips and slivers away.

31 posts and going. Drinking and driving while reading this puts it all in my ......,Hung jury.

 

[AZGrizFan]

OFFS.

Mods, PLLLEEEEEEAAASSSSSEEEE kill this thread. I mean, now they're arguring about the fact that they wouldn't be arguing if there wasn't anyone to argue with. Seriously. I think we're done here.

I don't know, man. I'd like tnt to explain one more time the difference between an "alcohol fueled predator" and a "predator when fueled with alcohol". We ought to be able to squeeze 3 more pages and another week out of that alone.

 

[UMGriz75]

OFFS.

Mods, PLLLEEEEEEAAASSSSSEEEE kill this thread. I mean, now they're arguring about the fact that they wouldn't be arguing if there wasn't anyone to argue with. Seriously. I think we're done here.

I don't know, man. I'd like tnt to explain one more time the difference between an "alcohol fueled predator" and a "predator when fueled with alcohol". We ought to be able to squeeze 3 more pages and another week out of that alone.

And I was looking forward to tnt making up even newer, bigger and more slanderous fabrications about JJ while ignoring the current available evidentiary record about both JJ and Jane Doe, pretending as he did throughout this thread that fabricating insults about people had something to do with how juries "convict" or acquit.

 

[NorthwestFresh]

here's an article written by a lawyer who was raped. in it she says that in her law school introduction to rape cases, the professor read/stated that in these cases, it is the victim who is on trial, not the rapist.

go figure.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/opinion/prewitt-rapist-visitation-rights/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

That is why, if you truly care about the victim, you don't bring charges unless you have reviewed all available evidence and can prevail beyond a reasonable doubt: two things not done in this case.

Short of eyewitness testimony along with lock-solid videotape, is there ever a slam-dunk rape case? The most disgusting part of this thread is that one poster is taking everything that the defense claims as the truth, while dismissing anything claimed by the accuser.

By your standard, rape would almost never be prosecuted. The DA has already proven the most difficult part, which is actual intercourse, which the defendant does not deny.

 

[NorthwestFresh]

OFFS.

Mods, PLLLEEEEEEAAASSSSSEEEE kill this thread. I mean, now they're arguring about the fact that they wouldn't be arguing if there wasn't anyone to argue with. Seriously. I think we're done here.

I don't know, man. I'd like tnt to explain one more time the difference between an "alcohol fueled predator" and a "predator when fueled with alcohol". We ought to be able to squeeze 3 more pages and another week out of that alone.

And I was looking forward to tnt making up even newer, bigger and more slanderous fabrications about JJ while ignoring the current available evidentiary record about both JJ and Jane Doe, pretending as he did throughout this thread that fabricating insults about people had something to do with how juries "convict" or acquit.

It's libelous, not slanderous, you legal weapon, you. :thumb:

 

[bigkid]

The accuser in this case is in way over her head. Honestly I think this case was cold before the motion to charge was made and is a lose-lose for Jane Doe. I really don't think she wants or needs her name floating around if this goes to trial. I believe she has a bright future and just got caught up in a big damn mess. In my opinion if this does go to trial JJ will not be convicted and Jane Does reputation as well as Jordy's will be forever tarnished.(JJ's already is). Seriously this has gone way to far already. The County Attorney's office knows whats in those texts and knows that it will cause Jane Doe grief. This whole thing is a tradegy of epic porportion and whomever counciled Jane Doe to proceed with this was wrong. Wait and see I know I'm right. What a mess!!

 

[mtgrizrule]

The accuser in this case is in way over her head. Honestly I think this case was cold before the motion to charge was made and is a lose-lose for Jane Doe. I really don't think she wants or needs her name floating around if this goes to trial. I believe she has a bright future and just got caught up in a big damn mess. In my opinion if this does go to trial JJ will not be convicted and Jane Does reputation as well as Jordy's will be forever tarnished.(JJ's already is). Seriously this has gone way to far already. The County Attorney's office knows whats in those texts and knows that it will cause Jane Doe grief. This whole thing is a tradegy of epic porportion and whomever counciled Jane Doe to proceed with this was wrong. Wait and see I know I'm right. What a mess!!

From what I hear, you will likely be right. :thumb:

 

[UMGriz75]

It's libelous, not slanderous, you legal weapon, you. :thumb:

Oh my gosh, you panderer of false information, you.

"Slander" has a common and a legal definition; they are not the same. In most jurisdictions, slander is reserved for "transitory" communications; which generally includes speech and forum comments. "Libel is the communication of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a newspaper or publication. Slander is a form of defamation by non-fixed or transitory representation." Emails and message boards are an indeterminate form, transitory, but you can argue it either way.

But what the heck, you have by now established yourself as one who makes blatantly false accusations, with a notable unwillingness to apologize ... you "real man" you.

 

[NorthwestFresh]

It's libelous, not slanderous, you legal weapon, you. :thumb:

Oh my gosh, you panderer of false information, you.

"Slander" has a common and a legal definition; they are not the same. In most jurisdictions, slander is reserved for "transitory" communications; which generally includes speech and emails. "Libel is the communication of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a newspaper or publication. Slander is a form of defamation by non-fixed or transitory representation." Emails and message boards are an indeterminate form, transitory, but you can argue it either way.

But what the heck, you have by now established yourself as one who makes blatantly false accusations, with a notable unwillingness to apologize ... you "real man" you.

No, it's libel on a written forum like this one, Clarence Darrow. You would file a civil case for libel, if you knew what you were doing. File it under slander off of a message board, and you're already giving a reason to dismiss on a silver platter.

Why the "new" name, by the way? What appears to be talking to yourself, and giving yourself kudos under another name, seems like it could possibly be psychotic to me. At the very least, it's creepy, and seems unstable on many fronts.