#JohnsonTrial Thread Two

[kmax]

Tomcat. You're usually a pretty level headed poster but this trial seems to have caused a melt down or two. Did you get violated as a child by a grizzly or something? Let's begin the healing...show me on the doll where the bad guy in a griz hoody touched you...

Nice job, KMAX.

May as well ban me, because your board is for ****** these days. Keep these Griz trolls, though.

I'm really truly sorry you are so unhappy here, please allow me to remove the gun I've been holding to your head forcing you to remain.

There are a few people here on both sides of the divide, especially some that got very into this trial it seems, that need to take a few steps back and learn some civility.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[tampa_griz]

Tomcat. You're usually a pretty level headed poster but this trial seems to have caused a melt down or two. Did you get violated as a child by a grizzly or something? Let's begin the healing...show me on the doll where the bad guy in a griz hoody touched you...

Nice job, KMAX.

May as well ban me, because your board is for ****** these days. Keep these Griz trolls, though.

Are you drunk?

[TomCat88]

I heard it was a 12-0 decision. From a guy in a Griz jacket.

For any verdict it has to be 12-0 either guilty or not guilty, any other result is a hung jury.

When the verdict came back in a couple of hours I was sure it would be not guilty, I am not surprised at the verdict but was surprised at how quickly they came to an agreement in the jury room, I figured there would be a couple that would hold out longer.

Thanks. I always thought it had to be 12-0 guilty and anything else is not guilty. Then 12-0 not guilty was considered an acquittal, which is not guilty only better.

[gtapp]

I am happy for JJ! I was not there but it sounds like there was not enough hard evidence to convict. I hope he can continue his education and put this all behind him soon!

[cats2506]

I am happy for JJ! I was not there but it sounds like there was not enough hard evidence to convict. I hope he can continue his education and put this all behind him soon!

I dont think there ever is a lot of hard evidence in these types of cases. I followed most of the case by twitter. Personally I would have have voted not guilty too, not because of lack of evidence but because I feel that the woman did not clearly state that she did not want to have sex, if she had done that at any point I would probably go the other way. JJ may be not guilty of rape but he is still guilty of being a douchebag IMO, I have no doubt that this woman feels that she was raped and she most likely was, but she needs to take the responsibility for not having clearly stated her desire no to have sex.

[TomCat88]

I am happy for JJ! I was not there but it sounds like there was not enough hard evidence to convict. I hope he can continue his education and put this all behind him soon!

Not knowing what really happened I can't say I'm happy for JJ or sad for the accuser. The only thing we can do now is respect the jurors and their verdict and I certanly don't envy that jury. It was gut-wrenching trial and neither of these kids will ever be the same. Putting it behind them is something they probably won't fully be able to do, but time will certainly help. Right now, accepting that it is what it is and that they can't control what people think is probably the best they can do.

[bobcatfan15]

I am happy for JJ! I was not there but it sounds like there was not enough hard evidence to convict. I hope he can continue his education and put this all behind him soon!

I dont think there ever is a lot of hard evidence in these types of cases. I followed most of the case by twitter. Personally I would have have voted not guilty too, not because of lack of evidence but because I feel that the woman did not clearly state that she did not want to have sex, if she had done that at any point I would probably go the other way. JJ may be not guilty of rape but he is still guilty of being a douchebag IMO, I have no doubt that this woman feels that she was raped and she most likely was, but she needs to take the responsibility for not having clearly stated her desire no to have sex.

This is sadly true regarding why he probably got off. However if the prosecutors were smart they would have called a psychiatrist to testify. The most common reaction women have when they are raped is to freeze out of shock.

[bobcatfan15]

I didn't follow the trial close so I am not aware if they did or did not call a psychiatrist.

[BWahlberg]

They did bring in a psychologist, of sorts, an educational expert on rape trauma who came in from Delaware. The issue was that he came in speaking in generalities and did not specifically review this case or meet with Jane Doe. He spoke in general, basically indicating that there is no one certain way rape victims act. He went on to further talk about how Jane Doe's post-rape actions were not odd in any way and should not discount her belief that she was raped. On cross from the defense they picked him apart because he never reviewed the case itself, he never met with Jane Doe, he never met with Jordan, he had little to no knowledge of the specific case. They went on (as I recall) to further point out and question why the prosecution did not have an actual psychologist come meet and analyze Jane Doe.

Also on the whole PTSD talk there was a lot of holes punched there b/c the people who gave the diagnosis to her (or suggested it) were in no way qualified to do so. One I think was a nurse practitioner who had only worked with 3 or 4 other clients with PTSD-like symptoms or something. I also missed the last day of the trial which had a lot more PTSD talk there, so there might've been more that came out there too.

[TomCat88]

I'd be interested to hear more from the jurors. I don't think they really spent a lot of time going over the expert testimonies based on what juror Donna M. Aucutt said. The quote in the Missoulian from her is:

One of the jurors said Friday evening that “we were kind of hung up on the fact that we just couldn’t do a conviction because we weren’t sure whether Mr. Johnson was aware of whether the sex was non-consensual.”

“You just can’t convict somebody if you’re not 100 percent, or reasonably sure,” said Donna M. Aucutt, who described the 2 1/2 hours of deliberations as cordial. “It’s a sad case all the way around, with so many people affected. But you’ve just got to go with what the law says ... and there was that little bit of doubt whether Mr. Johnson knew.”

http://missoulian.com/news/local/jordan ... f887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Based on this it all boiled down to the whether or not Johnson was aware that she didn't give consent. In their opinion, based on the evidence, "...there was that littlbe bit of doubt..." about if he was aware that she didn't consent. So they went back to the night of the alleged crime and seem to have focused on that and not much of the rest of the testimony.

[DaCats21]

So what do u think? Will JJ play for the griz this fall?

[tampa_griz]

So what do u think? Will JJ play for the griz this fall?

His uncle says he wants to return to the Griz. He's still got to get RE's blessing. That's going to get interesting. Jim O'Day basically said he's going to be suing UM. I doubt he has much of a case and I think he knows that. I think he's more interested in airing RE's dirty laundry and making him look bad in public. It ain't gonna be pretty.

http://www.registerguard.com/web/news/s ... y.html.csp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BandCat]

I am happy for JJ! I was not there but it sounds like there was not enough hard evidence to convict. I hope he can continue his education and put this all behind him soon!

I dont think there ever is a lot of hard evidence in these types of cases. I followed most of the case by twitter. Personally I would have have voted not guilty too, not because of lack of evidence but because I feel that the woman did not clearly state that she did not want to have sex, if she had done that at any point I would probably go the other way. JJ may be not guilty of rape but he is still guilty of being a douchebag IMO, I have no doubt that this woman feels that she was raped and she most likely was, but she needs to take the responsibility for not having clearly stated her desire no to have sex.

I'm sorry, but this is ******.

If she didn't SAY YES, she didn't give consent. I didn't follow the trial, so I have no opinion whatsoever on whether he should have been convicted or not.

But this is an attitude issue that we need to fix in this society. Any person who wishes to have sexual contact with another person should be looking for "they said yes", not "they didn't say no". There should never be situations where there is ambiguity as to whether consent was given, and we need to teach our children this.

[RationalGriz]

I am happy for JJ! I was not there but it sounds like there was not enough hard evidence to convict. I hope he can continue his education and put this all behind him soon!

I dont think there ever is a lot of hard evidence in these types of cases. I followed most of the case by twitter. Personally I would have have voted not guilty too, not because of lack of evidence but because I feel that the woman did not clearly state that she did not want to have sex, if she had done that at any point I would probably go the other way. JJ may be not guilty of rape but he is still guilty of being a douchebag IMO, I have no doubt that this woman feels that she was raped and she most likely was, but she needs to take the responsibility for not having clearly stated her desire no to have sex.

I'm sorry, but this is ******.

If she didn't SAY YES, she didn't give consent. I didn't follow the trial, so I have no opinion whatsoever on whether he should have been convicted or not.

But this is an attitude issue that we need to fix in this society. Any person who wishes to have sexual contact with another person should be looking for "they said yes", not "they didn't say no". There should never be situations where there is ambiguity as to whether consent was given, and we need to teach our children this.

You must be a virgin! Don't worry, we are all rooting for you.

Sounds like they helped each other remove clothing, were kissing all over each other, and she was all grinding on him....actions that she was interested. Actions can be considered as opposed to her verbally saying yes. Did she say No, I have no idea, but from the testimony of both, there were actions that would be construed as yes.

[BandCat]

I am happy for JJ! I was not there but it sounds like there was not enough hard evidence to convict. I hope he can continue his education and put this all behind him soon!

I dont think there ever is a lot of hard evidence in these types of cases. I followed most of the case by twitter. Personally I would have have voted not guilty too, not because of lack of evidence but because I feel that the woman did not clearly state that she did not want to have sex, if she had done that at any point I would probably go the other way. JJ may be not guilty of rape but he is still guilty of being a douchebag IMO, I have no doubt that this woman feels that she was raped and she most likely was, but she needs to take the responsibility for not having clearly stated her desire no to have sex.

I'm sorry, but this is ******.

If she didn't SAY YES, she didn't give consent. I didn't follow the trial, so I have no opinion whatsoever on whether he should have been convicted or not.

But this is an attitude issue that we need to fix in this society. Any person who wishes to have sexual contact with another person should be looking for "they said yes", not "they didn't say no". There should never be situations where there is ambiguity as to whether consent was given, and we need to teach our children this.

You must be a virgin! Don't worry, we are all rooting for you.

Sounds like they helped each other remove clothing, were kissing all over each other, and she was all grinding on him....actions that she was interested. Actions can be considered as opposed to her verbally saying yes. Did she say No, I have no idea, but from the testimony of both, there were actions that would be construed as yes.

Here's the thing, though. Even if she did anything or everything you stated, she had the right to change her mind at any moment. That's what I'm saying. We need to move away from "implied consent" as our go-ahead. How hard is it to ask "You're sure you want to do this?" before proceeding any further? It has never derailed any of my experiences.

[Eastcoastgriz]

I am happy for JJ! I was not there but it sounds like there was not enough hard evidence to convict. I hope he can continue his education and put this all behind him soon!

I dont think there ever is a lot of hard evidence in these types of cases. I followed most of the case by twitter. Personally I would have have voted not guilty too, not because of lack of evidence but because I feel that the woman did not clearly state that she did not want to have sex, if she had done that at any point I would probably go the other way. JJ may be not guilty of rape but he is still guilty of being a douchebag IMO, I have no doubt that this woman feels that she was raped and she most likely was, but she needs to take the responsibility for not having clearly stated her desire no to have sex.

I'm sorry, but this is ******.

If she didn't SAY YES, she didn't give consent. I didn't follow the trial, so I have no opinion whatsoever on whether he should have been convicted or not.

But this is an attitude issue that we need to fix in this society. Any person who wishes to have sexual contact with another person should be looking for "they said yes", not "they didn't say no". There should never be situations where there is ambiguity as to whether consent was given, and we need to teach our children this.

Boy, most of us must be rapist. Im sure lots us of never heard "yes I want sex" before having sex.

[SonomaCat]

Yeah, unfortunately the way humans communicate often doesn't lend itself to stict legal definitions ... especially when it comes to sex. Most of that communication is done is a nonverbal manner. That's why I hope I'm never called for a jury for a he said/she said kind of trial.

[BandCat]

I am happy for JJ! I was not there but it sounds like there was not enough hard evidence to convict. I hope he can continue his education and put this all behind him soon!

I dont think there ever is a lot of hard evidence in these types of cases. I followed most of the case by twitter. Personally I would have have voted not guilty too, not because of lack of evidence but because I feel that the woman did not clearly state that she did not want to have sex, if she had done that at any point I would probably go the other way. JJ may be not guilty of rape but he is still guilty of being a douchebag IMO, I have no doubt that this woman feels that she was raped and she most likely was, but she needs to take the responsibility for not having clearly stated her desire no to have sex.

I'm sorry, but this is ******.

If she didn't SAY YES, she didn't give consent. I didn't follow the trial, so I have no opinion whatsoever on whether he should have been convicted or not.

But this is an attitude issue that we need to fix in this society. Any person who wishes to have sexual contact with another person should be looking for "they said yes", not "they didn't say no". There should never be situations where there is ambiguity as to whether consent was given, and we need to teach our children this.

Boy, most of us must be rapist. Im sure lots us of never heard "yes I want sex" before having sex.

That's the point I'm trying to make. This is a societal issue that I think we need to change. Don't you think it would help eliminate the situations where there's no real way to prove one way or the other because he didn't ask outright and she didn't say no because she was afraid (which, in my communication with many rape victims, happens a lot)? If we embrace explicit consent universally, it removes the ambiguity. I just don't see the downside to that.

[TomCat88]

That sounds like a scene from Happy Days. Do ya remember Happy Days? The one where The Fonz was supposed to say he was a nerd or wasn't cool or something like that? And it came out, "I'm a neruhh-uhh-uhh-uhh." If a guy has to ask a chick if she's "now prepared to have sexual intercourse with me?" it's gonna sound all messed up. She'll have to help him say it, kind of like helping him undo her bra after he fumbles around with it for a half hour.

[SonomaCat]

That's the point I'm trying to make. This is a societal issue that I think we need to change. Don't you think it would help eliminate the situations where there's no real way to prove one way or the other because he didn't ask outright and she didn't say no because she was afraid (which, in my communication with many rape victims, happens a lot)? If we embrace explicit consent universally, it removes the ambiguity. I just don't see the downside to that.

If the goal is to remove the ambiguity and have it be provable in a court of law, we would need to have each party sign a consent form prior to engaging in the act as well.

Kind of takes the spontaneity out of it, which roughly 99% of the time is a highly desirable part of the process.

Like I was getting at before, sex/romance just isn't a things that tends to lend itself to legalistic discussions. And I don't think its generally going to be possible for any society to change that - the nonverbal communication is central to the act itself.