Strange JJ Facebook page

[tampa_griz]

Explain to me how your example (two people talking at the office) is similar to the JJ case (where evidence existed).

Using the two co-workers talking analogy, if I went so far as to accuse someone of committing a crime and it was determined that my accusation (evidence) alone was enough to reverse a person's "innocence" (legal-wise or in the realm of public opinion) then I could just accuse my co-worker of anything and then consider the matter settled. Remember, the only real evidence against JJ was his accuser's words. That evidence was challenged successfully. I suppose you could say the same thing in the hypothetical example above.

So you're going strictly off verbal accusation in your office example, while actually some of the evidence against JJ involved his own words.
He agreed with the prosectution that he pinned her arms to the bed and the prosecution pointed out that where he grabbed her arms had left bruises. The defense objected when the prosecution pointed out the bruise marks to the jury from the photos, but was overruled.
He also told investigators that he rolled her over, which matched her testimony. Then he tried to correct himself saying she rolled over.

I had a feeling that would come up in this discussion. I guess I'll say that for whatever reason, not much was made of that dialog. It wasn't even mentioned (as far as I remember but I could be wrong) in the news summaries in the media (both print and national TV). The word "pinned" weren't JJ's words and that's a big difference. They were the prosecution's words in a long description of an event and he just sort of said "yeah" or "sure". I can't remember if it even came up during closing arguments from either side.

[[cat_bracket]]

Thanks everybody for the responses.

Now what about the idea of "falsely accused"? Because Mr. Johnson was found not guilty, does that imply a false accusation occured? I think not, as the State through the grand jury is the actual accuser. The grand jury and the trial jury have different standards of proof. Meeting the grand jury's standard to move a case to trial is different, by design, then the trial jury's standard.

I'm not sure what merits a false accusation to be recorded in legal terms. I would think that the person making the accusation would have to either admit the crime didn't occur or that some strong evidence surfaced that caused the charges to be dropped. Just like we don't know for certain that the accused commits a crime, we also don't know for certain that the accuser isn't lying.

In JJ's case she could be making all kinds of things up. According to the detective investigating the crime, what makes her story believable is that she admitted to quite a few things that she didn't have to admit to that actually hindered her case. For example, she didn't have to say that she was making out with him or that she was removing her own clothes and talking to him in a provocative voice.

[Toucat]

Thanks everybody for the responses.

Now what about the idea of "falsely accused"? Because Mr. Johnson was found not guilty, does that imply a false accusation occured? I think not, as the State through the grand jury is the actual accuser. The grand jury and the trial jury have different standards of proof. Meeting the grand jury's standard to move a case to trial is different, by design, then the trial jury's standard.

I'm not sure what merits a false accusation to be recorded in legal terms. I would think that the person making the accusation would have to either admit the crime didn't occur or that some strong evidence surfaced that caused the charges to be dropped. Just like we don't know for certain that the accused commits a crime, we also don't know for certain that the accuser isn't lying.

In JJ's case she could be making all kinds of things up. According to the detective investigating the crime, what makes her story believable is that she admitted to quite a few things that she didn't have to admit to that actually hindered her case. For example, she didn't have to say that she was making out with him or that she was removing her own clothes and talking to him in a provocative voice.

It depends on who is claiming she falsely accused. If it's the State claiming she perjured herself (a criminal matter), the state would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she lied. If it's Johnson in a civil matter, he would need to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she slandered him and he suffered damages.

[TomCat88]

Getting more awkward by the minute. The site creator has now said he isn't JJ and saying it was never his intention for anyone to think he was. Which begs the question, why were you saying "I" and "me?" Then Dave Paoli (supposedly, because who knows at this point) gets on there and tells everyone thanks for the support, but the person running the site isn't JJ, because it would be contrary to his character or something to that affect. As I've said before Missoula/UM just needs to let some time go by quietly. Time heals all wounds.

[kcatz]

Here is my question. From "twitter" testimony neither Johnson or the accueser testified to any conversation after the "act."

The prosecution and accuser testified (said) that she was raped, Johnson left bedroom to go to bathroom, she texted roommate that she "thought" she was raped and then she drove Johnson home. She also "testified" (again via twitter) that they didn't not speak on the ride home.

Johnson testified that it was consensual that he went to bathroom and then she said I have to pick someone up do you want a ride or to wait until I get back. He said I'll go now (basically) but again no conversation on the ride home.

The defense painted this as a he said/she said but that the accuser was vengeful because she realized that she would not get to be the QB's girlfriend.

Ok so here is my question: How did she know within 3, 5, 10 minutes of the act that she was not getting any relationship out of this? Neither one testified as to any conversation after "the act" that would sway the accuser or defendant.

If I am to believe that the accuser "made" this all up to "get back" at Johnson I have to believe that she KNEW there was no relationshiop going forward and nothing in eithers testimony tell me that.

In the end I believe that the jury could not find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that she said "no." Which is statute in Montana.

[[cat_bracket]]

Here is my question. From "twitter" testimony neither Johnson or the accueser testified to any conversation after the "act."

The prosecution and accuser testified (said) that she was raped, Johnson left bedroom to go to bathroom, she texted roommate that she "thought" she was raped and then she drove Johnson home. She also "testified" (again via twitter) that they didn't not speak on the ride home.

Johnson testified that it was consensual that he went to bathroom and then she said I have to pick someone up do you want a ride or to wait until I get back. He said I'll go now (basically) but again no conversation on the ride home.

The defense painted this as a he said/she said but that the accuser was vengeful because she realized that she would not get to be the QB's girlfriend.

Ok so here is my question: How did she know within 3, 5, 10 minutes of the act that she was not getting any relationship out of this? Neither one testified as to any conversation after "the act" that would sway the accuser or defendant.

If I am to believe that the accuser "made" this all up to "get back" at Johnson I have to believe that she KNEW there was no relationshiop going forward and nothing in eithers testimony tell me that.

In the end I believe that the jury could not find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that she said "no." Which is statute in Montana.

Hmm? That's an interesting take. The prosectuion in summation did well to hammer home that this isn't a he said/she said case, but from there I didn't think they hit all the points they could've hit and what you're saying would've been a plus for them.

Another thing I wondered about is why the prosecution didn't bring JJ's (ex?)girlfriend to the stand. She could've single-handedly wiped out all the character witnesses the defense brought. The prosecution should've made a point of JJ's character anyway, because his own words and actions, and the words of his friends (one of them told him to "Get 'er done, buddy" when Jane Doe picked him up) don't reflect someone with high character.

Speaking of character I'm amazed that JJ's attorney David Paoli has cited JJ's good character as a reason why he wouldn't be posting on the Jordan Johnson Facebook page. I would think he realizes by now that very few people still think JJ is a high character guy. Not guilty? Yes. High character guy? No.

Has anyone confirmed that JJ didn't create this page? Obviously Paoli is going to say he didn't, because the page has comments about O'Day and Pflugrad being wrongly terminated and that would be embarrassing to the University. It would really be something if it was JJ that created the page or that he had a hand in it. Then he ends up back in front of the honor board and gets dismissed from the school or the team.

[tampa_griz]

Tearing after college kids for having sex probably wouldn't have worked for the prosecution. They would have looked a little silly. Missoula's kind of been at Montana's forefront of staying out of people's sexual affairs.

[91catAlum]

Tearing after college kids for having sex probably wouldn't have worked for the prosecution. They would have looked a little silly. Missoula's kind of been at Montana's forefront of staying out of people's sexual affairs.

Its not about sex, its about cheating on a girlfriend. I think his point was that if you get her on the stand to state that she was dating JJ at the time of the incident, and that he told her they were an exclusive couple (if true), and how bad she was hurt when she found out JJ cheated on her, that would have wiped out the testimony of all the defense's character witnesses.

[tampa_griz]

Tearing after college kids for having sex probably wouldn't have worked for the prosecution. They would have looked a little silly. Missoula's kind of been at Montana's forefront of staying out of people's sexual affairs.

Its not about sex, its about cheating on a girlfriend. I think his point was that if you get her on the stand to state that she was dating JJ at the time of the incident, and that he told her they were an exclusive couple (if true), and how bad she was hurt when she found out JJ cheated on her, that would have wiped out the testimony of all the defense's character witnesses.

It would have been a terrible idea for the prosecution to do that. MoveOn.org's biggest chapter in Montana was in Missoula and President Clinton remains very popular well thought of there. And he was cheating on his wife while he was the President. Missoula residents aren't likely to hold an unmarried 20-year-old college student to a higher fidelity standard than the President of the United States.

To be sure, there are some sexual purists in Missoula that demand no sex before marriage and thus, you can't have sex outside of marriage. But it's a very small number and not reflective of the reality of today's world.

[[cat_bracket]]

Tearing after college kids for having sex probably wouldn't have worked for the prosecution. They would have looked a little silly. Missoula's kind of been at Montana's forefront of staying out of people's sexual affairs.

That's true, tearing after college kids for having sex would look silly. Some people hook up in the bar for the first time and go home and have sex. This isn't the case here, but maybe the prosecution thought so...anything's possible.

Indulge me if you will.
JJ said under oath, "I admit I'm not a good person." That was the prosecutions opening to expand on that a little bit. The prosectuion could've scored some points by reminding the jury that JJ and Jane Doe were more than just acquaintances. They had known each other for over a year and they had numerous mutual friends. Jane Doe was interested in a relationship with JJ and he knew that, but JJ wasn't interested in a relationship with her and she didn't know that, but he still (despite telling the jury that he had strong feelings for another girl) took advantage of the fact that she wanted a relationship with him and used that to have sex with her. It paints him in a bad light and diminishes any effect of the pastors that were brought in to testify that he was a person of high character. A lot of the defense's angle on this was that JJ was this high character guy, who just wouldn't do something like this. Obviously, by his own admission and actions, he's not entirely the person that they're depicting him to be. He may do some good things and have good manners in certain situaions, but he's also manipulative and cold and he admits it, which the prosecution should've driven home.

[[cat_bracket]]

Tearing after college kids for having sex probably wouldn't have worked for the prosecution. They would have looked a little silly. Missoula's kind of been at Montana's forefront of staying out of people's sexual affairs.

Its not about sex, its about cheating on a girlfriend. I think his point was that if you get her on the stand to state that she was dating JJ at the time of the incident, and that he told her they were an exclusive couple (if true), and how bad she was hurt when she found out JJ cheated on her, that would have wiped out the testimony of all the defense's character witnesses.

It would have been a terrible idea for the prosecution to do that. MoveOn.org's biggest chapter in Montana was in Missoula and President Clinton remains very popular well thought of there. And he was cheating on his wife while he was the President. Missoula residents aren't likely to hold an unmarried 20-year-old college student to a higher fidelity standard than the President of the United States.

To be sure, there are some sexual purists in Missoula that demand no sex before marriage and thus, you can't have sex outside of marriage. But it's a very small number and not reflective of the reality of today's world.

I think if anyone said Bill Clinton has high character a lot of people would quickly point out his affair with Monica Lewinsky to negate that notion. Same comcept here.

[tampa_griz]

Tearing after college kids for having sex probably wouldn't have worked for the prosecution. They would have looked a little silly. Missoula's kind of been at Montana's forefront of staying out of people's sexual affairs.

That's true, tearing after college kids for having sex would look silly. Some people hook up in the bar for the first time and go home and have sex. This isn't the case here, but maybe the prosecution thought so...anything's possible.

Indulge me if you will.
JJ said under oath, "I admit I'm not a good person." That was the prosecutions opening to expand on that a little bit. The prosectuion could've scored some points by reminding the jury that JJ and Jane Doe were more than just acquaintances. They had known each other for over a year and they had numerous mutual friends. Jane Doe was interested in a relationship with JJ and he knew that, but JJ wasn't interested in a relationship with her and she didn't know that, but he still (despite telling the jury that he had strong feelings for another girl) took advantage of the fact that she wanted a relationship with him and used that to have sex with her. It paints him in a bad light and diminishes any effect of the pastors that were brought in to testify that he was a person of high character. A lot of the defense's angle on this was that JJ was this high character guy, who just wouldn't do something like this. Obviously, by his own admission and actions, he's not entirely the person that they're depicting him to be. He may do some good things and have good manners in certain situaions, but he's also manipulative and cold and he admits it, which the prosecution should've driven home.

As I mentioned before, if the prosecution decided to lecture JJ about staying true and pure to a girl that he liked romantically as an unmarried 20-year-old it would have blown up in their faces. Missoula's just not the town to do that. Certain places in Mississippi? Sure. But not Missoula.

[tampa_griz]

Tearing after college kids for having sex probably wouldn't have worked for the prosecution. They would have looked a little silly. Missoula's kind of been at Montana's forefront of staying out of people's sexual affairs.

Its not about sex, its about cheating on a girlfriend. I think his point was that if you get her on the stand to state that she was dating JJ at the time of the incident, and that he told her they were an exclusive couple (if true), and how bad she was hurt when she found out JJ cheated on her, that would have wiped out the testimony of all the defense's character witnesses.

It would have been a terrible idea for the prosecution to do that. MoveOn.org's biggest chapter in Montana was in Missoula and President Clinton remains very popular well thought of there. And he was cheating on his wife while he was the President. Missoula residents aren't likely to hold an unmarried 20-year-old college student to a higher fidelity standard than the President of the United States.

To be sure, there are some sexual purists in Missoula that demand no sex before marriage and thus, you can't have sex outside of marriage. But it's a very small number and not reflective of the reality of today's world.

I think if anyone said Bill Clinton has high character a lot of people would quickly point out his affair with Monica Lewinsky to negate that notion. Same comcept here.

They do think Bill Clinton has high character. That's why he was invited to the DNC and was treated like a rock star.

[[cat_bracket]]

Tearing after college kids for having sex probably wouldn't have worked for the prosecution. They would have looked a little silly. Missoula's kind of been at Montana's forefront of staying out of people's sexual affairs.

That's true, tearing after college kids for having sex would look silly. Some people hook up in the bar for the first time and go home and have sex. This isn't the case here, but maybe the prosecution thought so...anything's possible.

Indulge me if you will.
JJ said under oath, "I admit I'm not a good person." That was the prosecutions opening to expand on that a little bit. The prosectuion could've scored some points by reminding the jury that JJ and Jane Doe were more than just acquaintances. They had known each other for over a year and they had numerous mutual friends. Jane Doe was interested in a relationship with JJ and he knew that, but JJ wasn't interested in a relationship with her and she didn't know that, but he still (despite telling the jury that he had strong feelings for another girl) took advantage of the fact that she wanted a relationship with him and used that to have sex with her. It paints him in a bad light and diminishes any effect of the pastors that were brought in to testify that he was a person of high character. A lot of the defense's angle on this was that JJ was this high character guy, who just wouldn't do something like this. Obviously, by his own admission and actions, he's not entirely the person that they're depicting him to be. He may do some good things and have good manners in certain situaions, but he's also manipulative and cold and he admits it, which the prosecution should've driven home.

As I mentioned before, if the prosecution decided to lecture JJ about staying true and pure to a girl that he liked romantically as an unmarried 20-year-old it would have blown up in their faces. Missoula's just not the town to do that. Certain places in Mississippi? Sure. But not Missoula.

Yet the defense is parading a couple pastors up there? It doesn't get much more Mississippi than that. Or are you saying the pastors hurt the defense?

[[cat_bracket]]

Tearing after college kids for having sex probably wouldn't have worked for the prosecution. They would have looked a little silly. Missoula's kind of been at Montana's forefront of staying out of people's sexual affairs.

Its not about sex, its about cheating on a girlfriend. I think his point was that if you get her on the stand to state that she was dating JJ at the time of the incident, and that he told her they were an exclusive couple (if true), and how bad she was hurt when she found out JJ cheated on her, that would have wiped out the testimony of all the defense's character witnesses.

It would have been a terrible idea for the prosecution to do that. MoveOn.org's biggest chapter in Montana was in Missoula and President Clinton remains very popular well thought of there. And he was cheating on his wife while he was the President. Missoula residents aren't likely to hold an unmarried 20-year-old college student to a higher fidelity standard than the President of the United States.

To be sure, there are some sexual purists in Missoula that demand no sex before marriage and thus, you can't have sex outside of marriage. But it's a very small number and not reflective of the reality of today's world.

I think if anyone said Bill Clinton has high character a lot of people would quickly point out his affair with Monica Lewinsky to negate that notion. Same comcept here.

They do think Bill Clinton has high character. That's why he was invited to the DNC and was treated like a rock star.

The DNC isn't the JJ trial jury though. They were hand picked by the defense and prosecution.

[tampa_griz]

Tearing after college kids for having sex probably wouldn't have worked for the prosecution. They would have looked a little silly. Missoula's kind of been at Montana's forefront of staying out of people's sexual affairs.

That's true, tearing after college kids for having sex would look silly. Some people hook up in the bar for the first time and go home and have sex. This isn't the case here, but maybe the prosecution thought so...anything's possible.

Indulge me if you will.
JJ said under oath, "I admit I'm not a good person." That was the prosecutions opening to expand on that a little bit. The prosectuion could've scored some points by reminding the jury that JJ and Jane Doe were more than just acquaintances. They had known each other for over a year and they had numerous mutual friends. Jane Doe was interested in a relationship with JJ and he knew that, but JJ wasn't interested in a relationship with her and she didn't know that, but he still (despite telling the jury that he had strong feelings for another girl) took advantage of the fact that she wanted a relationship with him and used that to have sex with her. It paints him in a bad light and diminishes any effect of the pastors that were brought in to testify that he was a person of high character. A lot of the defense's angle on this was that JJ was this high character guy, who just wouldn't do something like this. Obviously, by his own admission and actions, he's not entirely the person that they're depicting him to be. He may do some good things and have good manners in certain situaions, but he's also manipulative and cold and he admits it, which the prosecution should've driven home.

As I mentioned before, if the prosecution decided to lecture JJ about staying true and pure to a girl that he liked romantically as an unmarried 20-year-old it would have blown up in their faces. Missoula's just not the town to do that. Certain places in Mississippi? Sure. But not Missoula.

Yet the defense is parading a couple pastors up there? It doesn't get much more Mississippi than that. Or are you saying the pastors hurt the defense?

Pastors are very popular in Missoula. Although they tend to be more liberal than your run-of-mill Southern Baptist I suppose. You should've met Rev. William Kliber. He as absolutely adored in Missoula. I'll include a link to his obituary. He lived quite a life and Missoulians were in love with him.

http://missoulian.com/wednesday-septemb ... f4814.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tampa_griz]

The DNC isn't the JJ trial jury though. They were hand picked by the defense and prosecution.

Do you really think the DNC would have had him as a keynote speaker if he didn't come across to America as possessing high character? They put people there that they feel represent their values and ideas. It wouldn't make sense to do otherwise.

[[cat_bracket]]

The DNC isn't the JJ trial jury though. They were hand picked by the defense and prosecution.

Do you really think the DNC would have had him as a keynote speaker if he didn't come across to America as possessing high character? They put people there that they feel represent their values and ideas. It wouldn't make sense to do otherwise.

I think the DNC isn't the JJ jury, JJ isn't Bill Clinton and apples aren't oranges. Clinton's pull obviously outweighs his character flaws in the GNC's eyes. I think the DNC probably says, Yep, his character took a hit over Monica, but everyone still loves him because he provided America with one of its most prosperous times. The jury however, isn't the equivalent of the DNC (as in it's not the GBS...Griz Booster Club).

[[cat_bracket]]

Tearing after college kids for having sex probably wouldn't have worked for the prosecution. They would have looked a little silly. Missoula's kind of been at Montana's forefront of staying out of people's sexual affairs.

That's true, tearing after college kids for having sex would look silly. Some people hook up in the bar for the first time and go home and have sex. This isn't the case here, but maybe the prosecution thought so...anything's possible.

Indulge me if you will.
JJ said under oath, "I admit I'm not a good person." That was the prosecutions opening to expand on that a little bit. The prosectuion could've scored some points by reminding the jury that JJ and Jane Doe were more than just acquaintances. They had known each other for over a year and they had numerous mutual friends. Jane Doe was interested in a relationship with JJ and he knew that, but JJ wasn't interested in a relationship with her and she didn't know that, but he still (despite telling the jury that he had strong feelings for another girl) took advantage of the fact that she wanted a relationship with him and used that to have sex with her. It paints him in a bad light and diminishes any effect of the pastors that were brought in to testify that he was a person of high character. A lot of the defense's angle on this was that JJ was this high character guy, who just wouldn't do something like this. Obviously, by his own admission and actions, he's not entirely the person that they're depicting him to be. He may do some good things and have good manners in certain situaions, but he's also manipulative and cold and he admits it, which the prosecution should've driven home.

As I mentioned before, if the prosecution decided to lecture JJ about staying true and pure to a girl that he liked romantically as an unmarried 20-year-old it would have blown up in their faces. Missoula's just not the town to do that. Certain places in Mississippi? Sure. But not Missoula.

Yet the defense is parading a couple pastors up there? It doesn't get much more Mississippi than that. Or are you saying the pastors hurt the defense?

Pastors are very popular in Missoula. Although they tend to be more liberal than your run-of-mill Southern Baptist I suppose. You should've met Rev. William Kliber. He as absolutely adored in Missoula. I'll include a link to his obituary. He lived quite a life and Missoulians were in love with him.

http://missoulian.com/wednesday-septemb ... f4814.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've heard all kinds of things are popular in Missoula, but I've never heard pastors are popular there. I don't think I've heard of a town in Montana where someone has said the pastors are popular. Amazing how this is working itself out. Can't act like Mississippi, but pastors in Missoula aren't like pastors in Mississippi, so don't go saying someone has bad character cuz they took advantage of some starstruck girl and if a pastor (a Missoula pastor, that is) says someone has good character take it the bank.

[tampa_griz]

The DNC isn't the JJ trial jury though. They were hand picked by the defense and prosecution.

Do you really think the DNC would have had him as a keynote speaker if he didn't come across to America as possessing high character? They put people there that they feel represent their values and ideas. It wouldn't make sense to do otherwise.

I think the DNC isn't the JJ jury, JJ isn't Bill Clinton and apples aren't oranges. Clinton's pull obviously outweighs his character flaws in the GNC's eyes. I think the DNC probably says, Yep, his character took a hit over Monica, but everyone still loves him because he provided America with one of its most prosperous times. The jury however, isn't the equivalent of the DNC (as in it's not the GBS...Griz Booster Club).

Missoula residents would whole-heartedly agree that the DNC is reflective of their ideas and values. Election results in Missoula County are an indication of this. It just isn't likely that they'd be OK with the President conducting his own sexual behavior while presiding over the rules of going steady as they relate to college students. It just wouldn't make sense.