Strange JJ Facebook page

[[cat_bracket]]

Even if he didn't create this it's very weird. Why would someone create the page and then pretend to be JJ? https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jordan-J ... group_id=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the posts on the page reads: You have no idea what it means to me that this support page has gone viral. Thanks for the Likes, Shares, and Reposts! I feel the love Griz Nation and am glad to put this crazy nightmare behind me. (followed by three hearts)

Maybe its his mom? Who knows? The bizarre world that is grizz nation rages on.

[codecat]

As the page says and I quote:

"Three days after coach Robin Pflugrad welcomed Johnson back, and touted the "character and tremendous moral fiber" of the player he had known since Johnson was a boy, Engstrom announced he was not renewing the contracts of the coach or athletic director Jim O'Day. Both were immediately relieved of their duties, with no explanation from Engstrom.

The move came after a season when Montana advanced to the Football Championship Subdivision semifinal game. The Grizzlies have advanced to the national title game seven times since 1995, winning twice."

Do you believe this was wrongful termination? Did Mr. Engstrom make the wrong decision and "pass the buck"?

I have never believed that JJ's incident was the totality behind Engstrom's decision to terminate both O'Day and Pflugrad, but he rather he knew he needed to change the culture of the Griz football program and he started with its leaders.

[catatac]

Even if he didn't create this it's very weird. Why would someone create the page and then pretend to be JJ? https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jordan-J ... group_id=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the posts on the page reads: You have no idea what it means to me that this support page has gone viral. Thanks for the Likes, Shares, and Reposts! I feel the love Griz Nation and am glad to put this crazy nightmare behind me. (followed by three hearts)

Maybe its his mom? Who knows? The bizarre world that is grizz nation rages on.

That is a bit strange... and is it just me or does anyone else find it a bit odd that there are so many Griz fans, male and female alike coming out of the woodwork to comment about how "we love you Jordy!" and "Welcome back JJ!", or worse yet, "Time to kick ass!" I've talked to several folks that are downright giddy about his return. Don't get me wrong, I think the kid had been through a lot and I'm not at all suggesting that people should shun him, but obviously the kid is not perfect, and probably is not made up of "tremendous moral fiber" (For the record, I'm not either!). At a minimum, he was pretty rude in terms of how he treated this girl, and immediately thought about how he was going to hide the encounter from his girlfriend. It really does smell like a case where some people are willing to ignore his behavior because the star Griz QB is coming back to lead the Griz.

[[cat_bracket]]

It was kind of weird on a couple levels when the defense played the religious card in the trial. Parading the team pastor (McGowan didn't he play for UM?) and his youth pastor form Oregon to the stand as character witnesses. As you said he didn't exactly treat her well and having pastors give testimony in a rape trial doesn't exactly conjure up a nice image.

[Rich K]

Could one of our scholarly lawyer types please explain the difference between being found "not guilty" and "innocent".

[[cat_bracket]]

Could one of our scholarly lawyer types please explain the difference between being found "not guilty" and "innocent".

I'm no lawyer or scholar, but since no one has answered I'll give it a shot.

I don't think there is a difference in legal terms.

[LTown Cat]

In USA law people aren't found "innocent". Therefore, not guilty is as close as we can get.

[WeedKillinCat]

It says it is a community support page for JJ. I think it is very strange to do this...If I were JJ I would have FB take it down. THose folks in missoula are weird....

[tampa_griz]

In USA law people aren't found "innocent". Therefore, not guilty is as close as we can get.

We all start with a status of "innocent". If it can be proven that you are guilty of a crime only then does your status change.

[[cat_bracket]]

In USA law people aren't found "innocent". Therefore, not guilty is as close as we can get.

We all start with a status of "innocent". If it can be proven that you are guilty of a crime only then does your status change.

Almost. We all start with the status of "presumed innocent" not "innocent." Big difference. Juries are told to have a "presumption of innocence." Presume means that you take for granted without proof. No one has to prove they're innocent, so it's rare that someone is proven innocent in a court of law. JJ was found not guilty and is therefore presume to be innocent.

Missoula DA Fred VanValkenburg said something like "JJ was not guilty but that doesn't mean he's innocent". Legally, he's innocent, because he was found not guilty. However know one knows that he didn't actually rape Jane Doe, which I "presume" Fred was talking about.

[tampa_griz]

In USA law people aren't found "innocent". Therefore, not guilty is as close as we can get.

We all start with a status of "innocent". If it can be proven that you are guilty of a crime only then does your status change.

Almost. We all start with the status of "presumed innocent" not "innocent." Big difference. Juries are told to have a "presumption of innocence." Presume means that you take for granted without proof. No one has to prove they're innocent, so it's rare that someone is proven innocent in a court of law. JJ was found not guilty and is therefore presume to be innocent.

Missoula DA Fred VanValkenburg said something like "JJ was not guilty but that doesn't mean he's innocent". Legally, he's innocent, because he was found not guilty. However know one knows that he didn't actually rape Jane Doe, which I "presume" Fred was talking about.

Well using that logic you can't be sure I'm truly innocent of raping Jane Doe either. You really don't know for sure.

[SonomaCat]

Could one of our scholarly lawyer types please explain the difference between being found "not guilty" and "innocent".

I'm no lawyer or scholar, but since no one has answered I'll give it a shot.

I don't think there is a difference in legal terms.

OJ was "not guilty." A baby is "innocent."

[[cat_bracket]]

In USA law people aren't found "innocent". Therefore, not guilty is as close as we can get.

We all start with a status of "innocent". If it can be proven that you are guilty of a crime only then does your status change.

Almost. We all start with the status of "presumed innocent" not "innocent." Big difference. Juries are told to have a "presumption of innocence." Presume means that you take for granted without proof. No one has to prove they're innocent, so it's rare that someone is proven innocent in a court of law. JJ was found not guilty and is therefore presume to be innocent.

Missoula DA Fred VanValkenburg said something like "JJ was not guilty but that doesn't mean he's innocent". Legally, he's innocent, because he was found not guilty. However know one knows that he didn't actually rape Jane Doe, which I "presume" Fred was talking about.

Well using that logic you can't be sure I'm truly innocent of raping Jane Doe either. You really don't know for sure.

Are you trying to turn yourself in again, Mr. Karr, or is it Ms. Reich? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Reich" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tampa_griz]

In USA law people aren't found "innocent". Therefore, not guilty is as close as we can get.

We all start with a status of "innocent". If it can be proven that you are guilty of a crime only then does your status change.

Almost. We all start with the status of "presumed innocent" not "innocent." Big difference. Juries are told to have a "presumption of innocence." Presume means that you take for granted without proof. No one has to prove they're innocent, so it's rare that someone is proven innocent in a court of law. JJ was found not guilty and is therefore presume to be innocent.

Missoula DA Fred VanValkenburg said something like "JJ was not guilty but that doesn't mean he's innocent". Legally, he's innocent, because he was found not guilty. However know one knows that he didn't actually rape Jane Doe, which I "presume" Fred was talking about.

Well using that logic you can't be sure I'm truly innocent of raping Jane Doe either. You really don't know for sure.

Are you trying to turn yourself in again, Mr. Karr, or is it Ms. Reich? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Reich" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good one. But I think you see my point. If I left my client's office today with a co-worker and I said, "Do you think the project manager is a pedophile?" and my co-worker replied, "Well, he's never been convicted of it". If I then said, "Well yeah but you don't really know for sure. I mean, he could've just got away with it". Everything I said is factually true I suppose. But that isn't how we really go about it.

[[cat_bracket]]

In USA law people aren't found "innocent". Therefore, not guilty is as close as we can get.

We all start with a status of "innocent". If it can be proven that you are guilty of a crime only then does your status change.

Almost. We all start with the status of "presumed innocent" not "innocent." Big difference. Juries are told to have a "presumption of innocence." Presume means that you take for granted without proof. No one has to prove they're innocent, so it's rare that someone is proven innocent in a court of law. JJ was found not guilty and is therefore presume to be innocent.

Missoula DA Fred VanValkenburg said something like "JJ was not guilty but that doesn't mean he's innocent". Legally, he's innocent, because he was found not guilty. However know one knows that he didn't actually rape Jane Doe, which I "presume" Fred was talking about.

Well using that logic you can't be sure I'm truly innocent of raping Jane Doe either. You really don't know for sure.

Are you trying to turn yourself in again, Mr. Karr, or is it Ms. Reich? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Reich" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good one. But I think you see my point. If I left my client's office today with a co-worker and I said, "Do you think the project manager is a pedophile?" and my co-worker replied, "Well, he's never been convicted of it". If I then said, "Well yeah but you don't really know for sure. I mean, he could've just got away with it". Everything I said is factually true I suppose. But that isn't how we really go about it.

Yes, I get what you're driving at. I agree, though, that you never know much of anything for sure. Explain to me how your example (two people talking at the office) is similar to the JJ case (where evidence existed).

[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.

[Rich K]

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.

[tampa_griz]

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 don't think a grand jury was used in JJ's case as it wasn't a federal prosecution. I believe FVV could have used one if he wanted to though. As I understand it, FVV could have used a grand jury if he wanted to to gauge "the public's" opinion of whether or not to charge him.

As far as a "false accusation" is concerned I believe that's generally a legal term used to punish someone for lying about someone or something. If it was proven that JJ was in another state on the night in question I suppose she could've been charged with that. As it stands, because it was a he-said she-said scenario you'd have just as much difficulty proving the false accusation as you did the actual offense. And even then law enforcement doesn't usually do that in sexual assault cases for a variety of reasons (politics, insensitivity, etc.). When I was in school one girl caused a campus scare when she said she stopped her bike on campus late one evening to fix her bicycle chain. She said a man dragged her into the bushes at the point of a box-cutter and tried to sexually assault her. Eventually she had to confess that she made the whole thing up. Her identity was never revealed and law enforcement did not charge her with a crime although it certainly qualified for a false accusation charge.

[Rich K]

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 don't think a grand jury was used in JJ's case as it wasn't a federal prosecution. I believe FVV could have used one if he wanted to though. As I understand it, FVV could have used a grand jury if he wanted to to gauge "the public's" opinion of whether or not to charge him.

Believe it or not, I did not follow the trial closely. You're right about not using a grand jury (after a quick google search):

Missoula County Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney Suzy Boylan filed documents in state court late Tuesday afternoon asking a judge to determine whether there is probable cause to proceed with a charge of sexual intercourse without consent against Johnson. A judge then determined it appeared there was probable cause.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/07/3 ... z2MtT9HY9i" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[[cat_bracket]]

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.