Griz Fans and The Trial

[catatac]

I sense from JJ's words that he honestly does not care about football anymore - he's fighting to simply be a free man in that courtroom. For Brint or others, do people still honestly think that he would come back and play for the Griz again if he goes free? I would say no way in hell. I bet he wouldn't even play football anymore. If he is truly innocent, I bet he feels that being a football star got him into this mess.

[catamaran]

I've got a feeling if he's found innocent, he won't be able to get out of Missoula fast enough. There will always be a group of people who think he did it and will make him relive it every chance they get.

[GRIZFNZ]

There will always be a group of people who think he did it and will make him relive it every chance they get.

Like at the upcoming 2013 game in Bozeman?? Can't wait to see the classy signs your fans come up with if he plays, after all they set the bar pretty high with the T shirts this year.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

[allcat]

There will always be a group of people who think he did it and will make him relive it every chance they get.

Like at the upcoming 2013 game in Bozeman?? Can't wait to see the classy signs your fans come up with if he plays, after all they set the bar pretty high with the T shirts this year.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Yes, always blame others for the actions of people that they are not affiliated with. I'm really proud of the way the gritz never use those types of signs or shirts.

[tampa_griz]

I've got a feeling if he's found innocent, he won't be able to get out of Missoula fast enough. There will always be a group of people who think he did it and will make him relive it every chance they get.

True, but haven't his parents to re-mortgage their home for his defense? His dad is a high school teacher and probably not wealthy. An athletic scholarship may be needed to continue his education.

[allcat]

guilty or not guilty, a lot of people will feel that justice was not served. This has to have been devastating for both families.

[TomCat88]

Anyways, that aside - as someone who has not been following this trial very closely, has anyone been able to get a sense of the way the jury has been reacting to all that has been unfolding? Any impression as to where they may be leaning, or even a guess? Or is that something that's very hard to decipher without being directly involved in the trial (working the trial in some way)?

So here's my read:

- If you follow it on twitter alone or as your major source it's pretty clear the text that has been shown proves a ton of reasonable doubt. My guess is maybe acquittal or maybe a hung jury. You see lots of holes in the accusers statements, lots of questions of professional conduct following the incident, and a strong/solid argument put forth by the defense. The accuser's timeline has lots of holes in it and changes to it, there are defense professionals debunking the prosecution professionals, and witnesses that are putting forth a lot of questions about where the truth really lies.

- If you follow it mostly in the printed paper it's pretty clear that Johnson committed the assault. There's a marginal to low chance of a hung jury however it's clear that the accuser's timeline is solid and the emotional toll on her and her actions around her peers verify that. It would suggest the prosecution witnesses have brought forth clear and convincing accounts of emotional distress and the defense's witnesses have been largely skewered by the prosecution on cross.

- If you have been sitting in the courtroom (I haven't but I've talked frequently to two people who have been). It's a total rodeo. Up and down, up and down. Can't get a read on the jury, the ongoing and never-ending amount of objections keep flowing, and there's really sense as to which way this may go.


So.......... there you have it.

So, complete and total circus regarding the potential outcome. Lovely.

Danke schon.

I don't think that's what he meant. I'm fairly certain it'll either be a hung jury or acquittal. I've yet to hear anyone say it will be a guilty verdict. Johnson hurt himself on the stand today, but it won't cost him his freedom.

TomCat, I would be curious as to what you think hurt Johnson on the stand today? (Not saying you are wrong at all, honestly just want to discuss it a bit). I am following along on Twitter, as most people on here seem to be, and I wonder if, yet again, the context of the questions and who actually said what was lost in the 140 characters of twitter. When I was reading a long at the time, it seemed like the pinning conversation was a huge thing, but it was hard to determine if the word pinning was just used repetitively in a cadence to drive home the point by Duerk the prosecutor, or if it was Johnson making the statement over and over - and there would be a difference to the jury.

Anyway, as I was following along on twitter at that point, I thought the same thing: that was bad for Johnson. It was one of those moments where nased on what I was reading, I thought he might have done it. However, when Pabst got up and re directed him, the tweets kind of seemed to explain it away. At that point I began to think that this line of questioning may have had much more of an impact on twitter than in the courtroom, because on twitter we don't get the context of who said the word pinning and how it was presented.

After I read the Missoulian article and watched the Good Morning America segment this morning, I am convinced the pinning line of questioning was not nearly as impact full in the courtroom as it was on twitter.

If it had been as big as I initially thought, you can bet that the Missoulian would have mentioned it in their article, and they didn't. http://missoulian.com/news/local/jordan ... 963f4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And the same for GMA " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Abrahms said he didn't hurt himself on the stand and it may have been a net positive for the defense that he took the stand.

Sorry for the long post, I was just curious about your thoughts because I had the same ones initially just through twitter.

GRZZ: I dont have much time as I'm on my break and using my iphone. I'm in lock step with your take on this. Florio not mentioning it in her story tells me the pinning and bruised arms talk must not have had any effect. I had to read it twice as that seemed like a big moment for the prosecution via twitter and I was sure she would be all over it and possibly make it her lede. I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one that initially thought it was a big moment. I appreciate your question and Thanks for not bashing me. it's very refreshing.

[catamaran]

There will always be a group of people who think he did it and will make him relive it every chance they get.

Like at the upcoming 2013 game in Bozeman?? Can't wait to see the classy signs your fans come up with if he plays, after all they set the bar pretty high with the T shirts this year.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Yeah, this board is full of people proclaiming his guilt and making derogatory statements about him. Just be glad Griz fans have never done anything that other fan bases can consider classless

[grizatwork]

I sense from JJ's words that he honestly does not care about football anymore - he's fighting to simply be a free man in that courtroom. For Brint or others, do people still honestly think that he would come back and play for the Griz again if he goes free? I would say no way in hell. I bet he wouldn't even play football anymore. If he is truly innocent, I bet he feels that being a football star got him into this mess.

It is interesting you say that. My fiance and I watched the segment on Nightline last night about it and I made the statement that I bet he just wants to get out of town and never play football again. She stated to me that if she knew I loved football and was innocent, that she would not let me quit football. I don't know. I feel bad for all involved. What a mess. If he even did return, I would think he would be a changed man and maybe did not have the fire to compete like he did before. I am sure he has a totally different perspective on life now.

[GRZZ]

GRZZ: I dont have much time as I'm on my break and using my iphone. I'm in lock step with your take on this. Florio not mentioning it in her story tells me the pinning and bruised arms talk must not have had any effect. I had to read it twice as that seemed like a big moment for the prosecution via twitter and I was sure she would be all over it and possibly make it her lede. I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one that initially thought it was a big moment. I appreciate your question and Thanks for not bashing me. it's very refreshing.

No problem, I just wanted to get a perspective from a non Griz fans just in case I was looking at it with my bias glasses on (Which I have tried very hard to not do this whole case). Thanks for your response.

[GRIZFNZ]

There will always be a group of people who think he did it and will make him relive it every chance they get.

Like at the upcoming 2013 game in Bozeman?? Can't wait to see the classy signs your fans come up with if he plays, after all they set the bar pretty high with the T shirts this year.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Yeah, this board is full of people proclaiming his guilt and making derogatory statements about him.

QFT!

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

[catamaran]

There will always be a group of people who think he did it and will make him relive it every chance they get.

Like at the upcoming 2013 game in Bozeman?? Can't wait to see the classy signs your fans come up with if he plays, after all they set the bar pretty high with the T shirts this year.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Yeah, this board is full of people proclaiming his guilt and making derogatory statements about him.

QFT!

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

edited to prove idiocy?

[CPrice91]

There will always be a group of people who think he did it and will make him relive it every chance they get.

Like at the upcoming 2013 game in Bozeman?? Can't wait to see the classy signs your fans come up with if he plays, after all they set the bar pretty high with the T shirts this year.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Yeah, this board is full of people proclaiming his guilt and making derogatory statements about him.

QFT!

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

I take it you spend most of your time online imagining perceived slights?


Seriously dude,

viewforum.php?f=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[cats2506]

Anyways, that aside - as someone who has not been following this trial very closely, has anyone been able to get a sense of the way the jury has been reacting to all that has been unfolding? Any impression as to where they may be leaning, or even a guess? Or is that something that's very hard to decipher without being directly involved in the trial (working the trial in some way)?

So here's my read:

- If you follow it on twitter alone or as your major source it's pretty clear the text that has been shown proves a ton of reasonable doubt. My guess is maybe acquittal or maybe a hung jury. You see lots of holes in the accusers statements, lots of questions of professional conduct following the incident, and a strong/solid argument put forth by the defense. The accuser's timeline has lots of holes in it and changes to it, there are defense professionals debunking the prosecution professionals, and witnesses that are putting forth a lot of questions about where the truth really lies.

- If you follow it mostly in the printed paper it's pretty clear that Johnson committed the assault. There's a marginal to low chance of a hung jury however it's clear that the accuser's timeline is solid and the emotional toll on her and her actions around her peers verify that. It would suggest the prosecution witnesses have brought forth clear and convincing accounts of emotional distress and the defense's witnesses have been largely skewered by the prosecution on cross.

- If you have been sitting in the courtroom (I haven't but I've talked frequently to two people who have been). It's a total rodeo. Up and down, up and down. Can't get a read on the jury, the ongoing and never-ending amount of objections keep flowing, and there's really sense as to which way this may go.


So.......... there you have it.

So, complete and total circus regarding the potential outcome. Lovely.

Danke schon.

I don't think that's what he meant. I'm fairly certain it'll either be a hung jury or acquittal. I've yet to hear anyone say it will be a guilty verdict. Johnson hurt himself on the stand today, but it won't cost him his freedom.

TomCat, I would be curious as to what you think hurt Johnson on the stand today? (Not saying you are wrong at all, honestly just want to discuss it a bit). I am following along on Twitter, as most people on here seem to be, and I wonder if, yet again, the context of the questions and who actually said what was lost in the 140 characters of twitter. When I was reading a long at the time, it seemed like the pinning conversation was a huge thing, but it was hard to determine if the word pinning was just used repetitively in a cadence to drive home the point by Duerk the prosecutor, or if it was Johnson making the statement over and over - and there would be a difference to the jury.

Anyway, as I was following along on twitter at that point, I thought the same thing: that was bad for Johnson. It was one of those moments where nased on what I was reading, I thought he might have done it. However, when Pabst got up and re directed him, the tweets kind of seemed to explain it away. At that point I began to think that this line of questioning may have had much more of an impact on twitter than in the courtroom, because on twitter we don't get the context of who said the word pinning and how it was presented.

After I read the Missoulian article and watched the Good Morning America segment this morning, I am convinced the pinning line of questioning was not nearly as impact full in the courtroom as it was on twitter.

If it had been as big as I initially thought, you can bet that the Missoulian would have mentioned it in their article, and they didn't. http://missoulian.com/news/local/jordan ... 963f4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And the same for GMA " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Abrahms said he didn't hurt himself on the stand and it may have been a net positive for the defense that he took the stand.

Sorry for the long post, I was just curious about your thoughts because I had the same ones initially just through twitter.

there is the Pinning the arms down and bruise statements, the descrepency over how much he drank in what time frame between him an his roommate, he said they didn't talk on the ride home, he was thinking of his other girlfriend and how to hide this from her. He was "just there to watch a movie"..... "didnt care what movie it was"..... "didnt want to stay and watch the end of the movie"...."it was just sex".....

those are just problems with his own statements that question his credibility, then there is the descrepency of weather she ever said "no" even in a playful or baby voice, and that others noticed that she was upset while he noticed nothing at all.

I am not saying that this means he should spend time behind bars, but my impression was that he was being deceitful in his testimony, and is certainly guilty of being a dirtbag if nothing else.

[GRIZFNZ]

There will always be a group of people who think he did it and will make him relive it every chance they get.

Like at the upcoming 2013 game in Bozeman?? Can't wait to see the classy signs your fans come up with if he plays, after all they set the bar pretty high with the T shirts this year.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Yeah, this board is full of people proclaiming his guilt and making derogatory statements about him.

QFT!

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

I take it you spend most of your time online imagining perceived slights?


Seriously dude,

viewforum.php?f=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quoting his post for truth is perceived as slight?

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

[CPrice91]

There will always be a group of people who think he did it and will make him relive it every chance they get.

Like at the upcoming 2013 game in Bozeman?? Can't wait to see the classy signs your fans come up with if he plays, after all they set the bar pretty high with the T shirts this year.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Yeah, this board is full of people proclaiming his guilt and making derogatory statements about him.

QFT!

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

I take it you spend most of your time online imagining perceived slights?


Seriously dude,

viewforum.php?f=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quoting his post for truth is perceived as slight?

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

You're either perceiving invisible slights from TomCat (in the locked thread), catamaran, or any given person on "this board [that] is full of people proclaiming his guilt and making derogatory statements about him [JJ]," or (more likely) you're deliberately trying to get a rise out of anyone that will bite (in which case it's obviously working on me).

In any case, take it to the "Smack" forum; doesn't belong here.

[GRIZFNZ]

There will always be a group of people who think he did it and will make him relive it every chance they get.

Like at the upcoming 2013 game in Bozeman?? Can't wait to see the classy signs your fans come up with if he plays, after all they set the bar pretty high with the T shirts this year.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Yeah, this board is full of people proclaiming his guilt and making derogatory statements about him.

QFT!

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

I take it you spend most of your time online imagining perceived slights?


Seriously dude,

viewforum.php?f=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quoting his post for truth is perceived as slight?

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

You're either perceiving invisible slights from TomCat (in the locked thread), catamaran, or any given person on "this board [that] is full of people proclaiming his guilt and making derogatory statements about him [JJ]," or (more likely) you're deliberately trying to get a rise out of anyone that will bite (in which case it's obviously working on me).

In any case, take it to the "Smack" forum; doesn't belong here.

Looks like its you who has the perception problem.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

[CPrice91]

*Sigh* http://www.write-technical.com/126581/s ... ndex.4.gif

[GRZZ]

Anyways, that aside - as someone who has not been following this trial very closely, has anyone been able to get a sense of the way the jury has been reacting to all that has been unfolding? Any impression as to where they may be leaning, or even a guess? Or is that something that's very hard to decipher without being directly involved in the trial (working the trial in some way)?

So here's my read:

- If you follow it on twitter alone or as your major source it's pretty clear the text that has been shown proves a ton of reasonable doubt. My guess is maybe acquittal or maybe a hung jury. You see lots of holes in the accusers statements, lots of questions of professional conduct following the incident, and a strong/solid argument put forth by the defense. The accuser's timeline has lots of holes in it and changes to it, there are defense professionals debunking the prosecution professionals, and witnesses that are putting forth a lot of questions about where the truth really lies.

- If you follow it mostly in the printed paper it's pretty clear that Johnson committed the assault. There's a marginal to low chance of a hung jury however it's clear that the accuser's timeline is solid and the emotional toll on her and her actions around her peers verify that. It would suggest the prosecution witnesses have brought forth clear and convincing accounts of emotional distress and the defense's witnesses have been largely skewered by the prosecution on cross.

- If you have been sitting in the courtroom (I haven't but I've talked frequently to two people who have been). It's a total rodeo. Up and down, up and down. Can't get a read on the jury, the ongoing and never-ending amount of objections keep flowing, and there's really sense as to which way this may go.


So.......... there you have it.

So, complete and total circus regarding the potential outcome. Lovely.

Danke schon.

I don't think that's what he meant. I'm fairly certain it'll either be a hung jury or acquittal. I've yet to hear anyone say it will be a guilty verdict. Johnson hurt himself on the stand today, but it won't cost him his freedom.

TomCat, I would be curious as to what you think hurt Johnson on the stand today? (Not saying you are wrong at all, honestly just want to discuss it a bit). I am following along on Twitter, as most people on here seem to be, and I wonder if, yet again, the context of the questions and who actually said what was lost in the 140 characters of twitter. When I was reading a long at the time, it seemed like the pinning conversation was a huge thing, but it was hard to determine if the word pinning was just used repetitively in a cadence to drive home the point by Duerk the prosecutor, or if it was Johnson making the statement over and over - and there would be a difference to the jury.

Anyway, as I was following along on twitter at that point, I thought the same thing: that was bad for Johnson. It was one of those moments where nased on what I was reading, I thought he might have done it. However, when Pabst got up and re directed him, the tweets kind of seemed to explain it away. At that point I began to think that this line of questioning may have had much more of an impact on twitter than in the courtroom, because on twitter we don't get the context of who said the word pinning and how it was presented.

After I read the Missoulian article and watched the Good Morning America segment this morning, I am convinced the pinning line of questioning was not nearly as impact full in the courtroom as it was on twitter.

If it had been as big as I initially thought, you can bet that the Missoulian would have mentioned it in their article, and they didn't. http://missoulian.com/news/local/jordan ... 963f4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And the same for GMA " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Abrahms said he didn't hurt himself on the stand and it may have been a net positive for the defense that he took the stand.

Sorry for the long post, I was just curious about your thoughts because I had the same ones initially just through twitter.

there is the Pinning the arms down and bruise statements, the descrepency over how much he drank in what time frame between him an his roommate, he said they didn't talk on the ride home, he was thinking of his other girlfriend and how to hide this from her. He was "just there to watch a movie"..... "didnt care what movie it was"..... "didnt want to stay and watch the end of the movie"...."it was just sex".....

those are just problems with his own statements that question his credibility, then there is the descrepency of weather she ever said "no" even in a playful or baby voice, and that others noticed that she was upset while he noticed nothing at all.

I am not saying that this means he should spend time behind bars, but my impression was that he was being deceitful in his testimony, and is certainly guilty of being a dirtbag if nothing else.

You have me for a bit of that, but some of it seems like a stretch. Nothing in your first paragraph outside of the pinning conversation (Which apparently was worse on twitter than in the courtroom because no media reported on this huge bombshell from the accused) proves anything beyond he is a dirtbag that was there just for sex. Doesn't prove rape at all, certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. None of what you say there wasn't already implied or discussed in the trial before, that is their defense, that it was just a consensual hook up, not a relationship, not rape. Why do they question his credibility at all? Just because someone is a dirtbag, doesn't prove they are a rapist or liar.

And the discrepancy "of wether she ever said "no"" is the whole trial. She says she said no, he says she did not say no. He never said anything on the stand other than she never said no. If the jurors heard his testimony and had problems with it because she stated that she said no, then they had already made their decision and it didn't make one bit of difference whether he testified or not. There job is to basically determine whose version of the she said no/she didn't say no they believe more.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you are looking at this through lenses of wanting him to be guilty or convicted, so you interpret things as such. I think TomCat is attempting to look at this much more rationally and objectively. And no offense intended, but I think Abrams interpretation of the testimony and his statement that Johnson's testimony was a net positive for the defense is an analysis grounded much more in fact with much less opportunity for bias.

[cats2506]

You have me for a bit of that, but some of it seems like a stretch. Nothing in your first paragraph outside of the pinning conversation (Which apparently was worse on twitter than in the courtroom because no media reported on this huge bombshell from the accused) proves anything beyond he is a dirtbag that was there just for sex. Doesn't prove rape at all, certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. None of what you say there wasn't already implied or discussed in the trial before, that is their defense, that it was just a consensual hook up, not a relationship, not rape. Why do they question his credibility at all? Just because someone is a dirtbag, doesn't prove they are a rapist or liar.

And the discrepancy "of wether she ever said "no"" is the whole trial. She says she said no, he says she did not say no. He never said anything on the stand other than she never said no. If the jurors heard his testimony and had problems with it because she stated that she said no, then they had already made their decision and it didn't make one bit of difference whether he testified or not. There job is to basically determine whose version of the she said no/she didn't say no they believe more.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you are looking at this through lenses of wanting him to be guilty or convicted, so you interpret things as such. I think TomCat is attempting to look at this much more rationally and objectively. And no offense intended, but I think Abrams interpretation of the testimony and his statement that Johnson's testimony was a net positive for the defense is an analysis grounded much more in fact with much less opportunity for bias.

That is why his credibility is so important. jurors are going to have to weigh whose story they believe on the issue of weather or not she said "no". If JJ sounds like he is being deceptive then in makes it harder for them to believe his side.

You are wrong on thinking that I want a particular outcome, but I am not looking at it through maroon lenses either. The last thing I would want to see is a man spend time in prison just because he is a griz player.

It will be a difficult decision for the jury, the woman's story seems more credible right now, that want the case before JJ testified. No way I see a unanimous verdict.