Strange JJ Facebook page

[tampa_griz]

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.

As per the obit I linked to earlier, Rev. Kliber's funeral was held at the University of Montana Theater due to the large number of people that wanted to attend. The audience included local government officials, the board of directors of many Missoula charities and organizations, university administration officials and students, women's advocacy members, and many other who's who of Missoula. He and other pastors are, and continue to be, very popular in Missoula. It's interesting that you heard otherwise because that wasn't the impression I got at all when I lived there.

[[cat_bracket]]

We've certainly digressed, haven't we? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on our opinions about whether or not the prosecution should've refuted the defense's claim that JJ was a guy of high character. I haven't been swayed by your Missoula, Mississippi take on things, and based on the fact that that's your take, I doubt I'll be able to sway you into my way of thinking on this.

[bob]

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.

i was wondering the same thing. the prosecutor said the only way her text about being raped made any sense was if she was telling the truth. JJ said something to the effect everything seemed normal after sex she didn't seem upset if what jj said is true then there would be no reason to send a text like that if what she said is true then it would make perfect sense.

[Toucat]

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.

From what I've heard about the case I think the prosecution may have pushed the issue of Johnson's character as far as they could go.

In pretrial, the prosecution got the judge to exclude a lot of evidence, including all verbal and text statements made by the accuser to Johnson prior to them going to her home. When evidence is excluded, however, the prosecution cannot then present evidence to prove facts that cannot fairly be proven without consideration of all the evidence, including the excluded evidence. If the prosecution does so, the prosecution "opens the door" for the defense to bring in the excluded evidence for impeachment purposes. Technically, impeachment evidence cannot be used to prove a fact, it can only be used to discredit other evidence, and the jury will be instructed as to how the evidence can be used. For practical purposes, however, it's generally acknowledged that juries have a hard time making the distinction, so when trying the case the prosecution had to weigh what evidence they present without “opening the door” for the jury to hear evidence they didn’t want it to hear.

In this case the prosecution was able put Johnson’s character at issue without the jury hearing what the accuser may have said or done prior to that night that may have affected their deliberations. For example, the jury may have processed the statement of “"Get 'er done, buddy"
differently if the defense had been able to argue that the friend’s statement was given in the context of overhearing the accuser telling Johnson the night before she “would do him any time.” From the prosecution’s point of view they went into the case trying to bolster the accuser’s credibility, while at the same time undercutting Johnson’s. I think if the prosecution felt they could have pushed the issue of Johnson’s character any further they would have done so.

If you look at the case in this manner it may also help explain some of the “holes” in the case, that leave you scratching your head as to why one side did something at trial. The prosecution was trying its case while trying not to "open the door," while the defense was trying its case and arguing the "door had been opened." You can see this if you followed the twitter feeds where the defense would ask a question, the prosecution would object, the attorneys would huddle with the judge, and when they started again the defense would be asking a totally different question. Additionally, I think the defense pushed the “jilted lover” argument under the assumption that the jury would be hearing more evidence that would give it more credence. On the other hand, I think the prosecution introduced the blanket into evidence thinking it may have been important depending on whether some excluded evidence got introduced.