-
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
goatcreekgriz
Well-known member
PlayerRep said:
Agreed.
Grisly Fan
Well-known member
And by that you mean that JJ was a "alcohol fueled sexual predator". Obviously, right? Trust me when I say that I will NEVER let you forget that you wrote -- and defended -- such an egriously false statement until you man up about it. Today's and everyday's winner of the "Gwen Florio of the Year (GFY)" award.tnt said:
fencer24
Well-known member
wbtfg said:
The State started going downhill when they first decided to charge JJ. I have tried a few rape cases in Missoula and can assure you that they will take a weak case to trial, and lose almost every time. It was probably all the political hoopla from the DOJ, NCAA and local women's groups that forced this one to trial. In fact, I kind of wonder if they didn't bring this case just to show how difficult a rape trial based on consent alone is difficult to prosecute. Throw in Donaldson's sentence to 30 years for an actual rape a month ago, and people were probably even more careful about convicting because of the severity of the sentence.
The State did the best they could assisted by the judge. But if you are trying to say that the victim decided that she had been raped, that is never going to fly unless you had some sort of admission by the accused. Because there was no blood or bruising (the 1 mm tear being the same as 1/254th of an inch) they had to rely on the accuser's credibility, which was a bad choice here.
I am still annoyed by Duerk coming in as "pro bono" to prosecute. Pro bono is supposed to be giving service to those who cannot get access otherwise. The State has plenty of resources, and the only pro bono is to get Duerk's name out as a candidate for County Attorney in 2014. He should not be rewarded for this.
I do not want people to think that I condone rape. I have daughters I don't want to see raped and a son that I don't want to see falsely accused. But the current political climate diminishes women as innocent victims of brutish men who should have known that the woman changed her mind. My advice to my daughters is to stay aware and not let things get out of hand. To my son, I tell him that any woman can, at any time accuse him of rape and he has to be prepared to prove it false, rather than have her prove it true.
Sad times all the way around.
fencer24 said:
Duerk is a nice guy, that being said the best thing coming out of this trial is that hopefully he couldn't be elected dog catcher. We have enough problems from ambitious guys wanting to be (un)professional politicians..... I suspect pat Williams is his role model
if i'm reading this right, embellishing events, and the grossly biased over-dramatizing of situations that one did not witness is what makes a person a good attorney?
interesting. i would have thought that would be a better description of a writer of cheap novels.
interesting. i would have thought that would be a better description of a writer of cheap novels.
UMGriz75
Well-known member
The prosecution could not win this case with the facts available to them. They knew it.wbtfg said:
Was it a frivolous case? That's a close call. The Missoula County Attorney's office ordinarily does not prosecute borderline frivolous cases. But, using a sport analogy, if you're playing the game, and you know you are going to lose, you can still acquit yourself honorably, and play a "good" game.
The State, in this case, did not.
The witnesses appeared, to this observer, to have been the most poorly prepared witnesses, as a consistent pattern, I have ever seen. I'm not referring to "coaching witnesses," I am referring to the part of the process whereby witnesses are prepared for testifying by being prepped with "likely" questions, so that they are not surprised; "surprise" being the standard condition under which witnesses say stupid stuff. That's human nature, we would all do it under similar circumstances, and the job of attorneys is to inoculate against surprise and unpreparedness.
That didn't happen with the State's witnesses. Every single one of them.
In each key testimony, I would characterize the State's witnesses as "blowing up," on cross, leaving the Jury -- almost always at the end of the day when they would remember it most keenly -- with contradictory, even explosive testimony, given by witnesses who clearly did not know key facts about the case themselves, and even about their own testimony.
I got the impression of a group of attorneys, with highly inflated opinions of themselves, talking endlessly among themselves about their case and their strategy, their impressive motions in limine, their careful briefing of legal issues, and spending little time with the part of the trial that the Jurors would see and hear: the actual witnesses and what they would say.
I cannot recall, on a prosecution case with so many attorneys, offices, and staff, assigned to it, such horrible, blatantly negligent witness preparation.
The State's case was bound to be lost; but the attorneys handling it could have at least left the impression that they gave it a good shot, and an honorable try.
They didn't.
Instead, they left a perception of sloppy incompetence, pointless vindictiveness, and a gross waste of public funds, all of which appeared to simply be the result of using the high profile of this case to feed their "high profile" egos.
What does that mean for legitimate victims of rape? It means they are political tools, that sincere expressions of support are subordinate to political posturing and headline-grabbing. With the exception of Suzy Boylan, this "team" left the distinct impression that it was not motivated by a concern for "victims" or potential "victims," of rape, it was a primary motivation that "rape" is an ideological and political tool:, a chance to "make a name," an impression firmly left by the stunning lack of litigation quality on the State's presentation of the case, combined with the bias of the media coverage by the local paper.
The message they offered isn't about rape, or confused young people. Rather, for real victims, the message is that they are political and public relations leverage for the goals of others. They are not there for you, they are there for themselves. The faux concern for "victims" is merely a pretext.
For the falsely accused, the message is the same: guilt or innocence is not question for these people, rather, what's in it for them? Your life, if you are falsely accused, is an inconvenient fact, easily discarded if you are an attorney on the prowl for a "name," or a journalist on the prowl for an "award."
Both victims of rape and victims of false accusation have some common ground here: the cynical manipulation of their plights to serve the ideology and greed of others, irrespective of any objective truth. It hurts both the real victims of rape, and the real victims of false accusations. For both, their lives and their tragedies are at the mercy of predators.
granitegriz
Well-known member
Joel Thompson should not have his contract renewed by the state. FV should not be re-elected if he tries. Deurk should stay with whatever small time stuff he deals with. The CA's office is in trouble if a complex homicide trial comes up as they are serious lacking attorney resources. I am guessing the Missoula CA's office wins a lot of cases just because of the lack of resources by defendants and just bad facts where defendant is obviously guilty and just doesn't want prison. Would any prosecutor, without undue pressure, actually have tried this case against JJ?
UMGriz75 said:
Thanks to you and other attorneys who have posted on these matters. Interesting stuff.
One thing I've wondered about is just how involved the county attorney was in overseeing the prosecution. Did he simply gather the team and then give them a lot of leeway in deciding how to pursue the prosecution? Or was he closely calling the shots, day to day?
This discussion also makes me think of the remarks of the head of the Missoula YWCA, who was quoted as saying: “No matter the verdict, this process has a chilling effect on women who have been victimized and are considering coming forward. This had to be grueling for the woman involved and for all women who watched her being scrutinized as the trial unfolded.”
I tend to agree with her, though not necessarily for the same reasons she was using. I suspect she wasn't happy with the acquittal, and probably would attribute much of it to JJ's attorneys.
I'm sure she won't, but she probably should be asking why such a weak case was pursued, and with such fanfare. Because it now looks as though the bungled prosecution could dissuade some women who have legitimate claims of rape not to come forward.
Perhaps it is time for some introspection on the part of those who work in this field, as well. I thought the prosecution was hurt by the testimony about the counselor who was assisting the accuser and who was at a conference where they cheered when news was announced about JJ's arrest (or whatever the development was) Was the accuser pushed to go farther than she wanted to, as she became part of a cause?
Yep. I am still scratching my head on this one too. He might be a nice guy, but to volunteer "pro bono" for this? Shouldn't he be providing services to those who truly cannot afford an attorney????
And while Paoli did a very good job, I think A LOT of credit has to to to Kirsten Pabst. It has to be nice to have the former lead prosecutor for sex crimes on your team. I think that is how the Defense was able to anticipate virtually every step the prosecution made.
grizpack said:
I'll second that thought! Paoli is the guy who will be remembered for the trial, but Pabst was the rudder that steered the ship.
I can't think of any other reason for Duerk to assist pro bono besides political motivation and publicity. The whole concept of pro bono representation is to assist those who otherwise can't afford an attorney.
