The Bobcat Nation

It has begun....................
You can follow along JJ's trial from the reporters tweets here

https://twitter.com/search/realtime?q=% ... l&src=hash" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Look out for Fwen Glorio ‏@FwenGlorio obvously some egrizzer that is out to muddy the waters

cats2506 wrote:It has begun....................
You can follow along JJ's trial from the reporters tweets here

https://twitter.com/search/realtime?q=% ... l&src=hash" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Look out for Fwen Glorio ‏@FwenGlorio obvously some egrizzer that is out to muddy the waters

I saw that. The Missoulian is a little butthurt by that.

Nonetheless, the opening statements don't look good for ol' JJ.

cats2506 wrote:It has begun....................
You can follow along JJ's trial from the reporters tweets here

https://twitter.com/search/realtime?q=% ... l&src=hash" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Look out for Fwen Glorio ‏@FwenGlorio obvously some egrizzer that is out to muddy the waters

I think its damn funny............wonder who thought of it..................................

AlphaGriz1 wrote:

cats2506 wrote:It has begun....................
You can follow along JJ's trial from the reporters tweets here

https://twitter.com/search/realtime?q=% ... l&src=hash" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Look out for Fwen Glorio ‏@FwenGlorio obvously some egrizzer that is out to muddy the waters

I think its damn funny............wonder who thought of it..................................

figuring out alias's is hard. AG1=? Screaming Eagle=? are they related?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

AlphaGriz1 wrote:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Whatever Fwen. LOL

AlphaGriz1 wrote:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Soooooo..... You plead the 5th?

Bobcat Sig wrote:Nonetheless, the opening statements don't look good for ol' JJ.

I haven't had a chance yet to hear them. Which part of the opening statements don't look good for JJ? The prosecution's?

tampa_griz wrote:

Bobcat Sig wrote:Nonetheless, the opening statements don't look good for ol' JJ.

I haven't had a chance yet to hear them. Which part of the opening statements don't look good for JJ? The prosecution's?

yep. can you beleive it?!

BN.com posters go 3 days, 7 hours and 37 minutes before posting on JJ trial. Still no offensive comments. Way to be classy, level-headed fans.

hopefully it stays that way. what a ****** deal. i would not want to be anywhere near the inside of that courtroom this next week. a LOT of crappy stuff is going to be brought up and people are going to be very angry/upset/embarrassed/sad/scared etc. nothing to joe about here that i can see....

I just hope he gets a fair trial!! Seems like there are equal groups who want him either guilty regardless of whether he did it or innocent regardless of whether he did it!

The thing is, it's totally he said/she said. Im sure the state will have paid experts to say that there are injuries consistent with rape and the defense will have paid experts to say these are normal after sex. There are only 2 people who know what really happened. Hard to know how the jury will decide, but i think its pretty difficult to convict the male in a alleged date rape case like this.

gtapp wrote:I just hope he gets a fair trial!! Seems like there are equal groups who want him either guilty regardless of whether he did it or innocent regardless of whether he did it!

Exactly! Best legal advice is to not take a side and accept the verdict or not gloat about it.

wbtfg wrote:The thing is, it's totally he said/she said. Im sure the state will have paid experts to say that there are injuries consistent with rape and the defense will have paid experts to say these are normal after sex. There are only 2 people who know what really happened. Hard to know how the jury will decide, but i think its pretty difficult to convict the male in a alleged date rape case like this.

That's kind of where I'm at with it. Before we throw away someone's life (and a rape conviction does exactly that) we usually make sure that there is absolutely no possible chance they aren't guilty. This is one of those things where (at least so far) I would be very uncomfortable doing that.

Speaking as someone who was a juror a few years ago on a sexual assault trial, I do not envy those who have to decide this case. Unless there is additional evidence out there, it really comes down to whether one believes his side of what happened or her side of what happened. The question of reasonable doubt is very difficult to address - even if you THINK he PROBABLY did it, is there enough factual evidence to say that he actually did beyond a reasonable doubt?

been following all moring. like a bad car crash. i know i shouldn't keep reading the tweets and i know they are going to upset me but i just keep hitting refresh.

posted on egriz that the whole concept of a trial like this is amazing to me. you listen to her testimony and you're positive she's telling the truth and was raped. but this is before we hear the defense! after they get going i won't be surprised if i start having doubts and maybe even believe this is a whole big elaborate lie. sure doesn't sound that way now...but as i said...defense hasn't started yet!

don't envy this jury AT ALL.

Im in the same boat.

Ya, same here... terrible deal all the way around. If she has just concocted this whole story and it's all a lie, and they can somehow prove it, I would go after her in a huge way. I cannot imagine being accused of something like this if there is zero truth to it, I'd be in a rage.

Despite the twitter testimony I'm having a hard time finding any suspense to this. He's simply not going to be found guilty. There isn't enough evidence for the jury to return a guilty beyond a reasonable doubt verdict.

catatac: Trials aren't about the truth, they're about a verdict. If he's found not guilty that doesn't mean it didn't happen and she's lying. In fact, he and the State would have a much harder time getting a guilty verdict for a charge that she made the whole thing up than she's having getting him found guilty of rape.

In fact Jane Doe may understand that a guilty verdict is very unlikely, but since she knows it happened she's dragging him through a trial anyway because it may be the only justice she gets; and/or she may be (not likely) going through the process to get to a civil trial.