The Bobcat Nation

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/22/rolling ... _to_write/

Very open about his feelings in this interview.

"When [Johnson’s] dad testified, he’s such a likable guy and he’s so sincere. I thought, that guy’s going to be acquitted just from that if nothing else. And that makes me mad. I really believe Jordan Johnson is guilty. I believe he got away with it."

Man that interview is disturbing. He admits his bias and all of the questions show hers. When he admonishes a team for sticking by one of their own, he is basically saying the accused are guilty and if you don't shun the guy, you are also a bad person. None of us know what went on with Johnson, she feels she was raped and she is right. Jonson feels she gave him permission, and he is right. What I'm saying in this case is that in their respective minds they both honestly feel they were right.

allcat wrote:Man that interview is disturbing. He admits his bias and all of the questions show hers. When he admonishes a team for sticking by one of their own, he is basically saying the accused are guilty and if you don't shun the guy, you are also a bad person. None of us know what went on with Johnson, she feels she was raped and she is right. Jonson feels she gave him permission, and he is right. What I'm saying in this case is that in their respective minds they both honestly feel they were right.

But that begs the question of: how do you know how they feel? There's a ton of stuff in this interview. He said he only put it the book if he was 110% sure on the corroboration and that he left a lot out even if 95% sure. I don't think it's right that he says he thinks he's guilty. The stuff about Pabst gets more and more interesting.

[cat_bracket] wrote:

allcat wrote:Man that interview is disturbing. He admits his bias and all of the questions show hers. When he admonishes a team for sticking by one of their own, he is basically saying the accused are guilty and if you don't shun the guy, you are also a bad person. None of us know what went on with Johnson, she feels she was raped and she is right. Jonson feels she gave him permission, and he is right. What I'm saying in this case is that in their respective minds they both honestly feel they were right.

But that begs the question of: how do you know how they feel? There's a ton of stuff in this interview. He said he only put it the book if he was 110% sure on the corroboration and that he left a lot out even if 95% sure. I don't think it's right that he says he thinks he's guilty. The stuff about Pabst gets more and more interesting.

It also makes you think one reason a prosecutor does push these cases is that when they lose a high profile case, they might lose their job in the next election.

I thought this comment was pretty interesting, in light of the discussion in another thread on this topic.

"There’s good research to the effect that if you remove alcohol from the equation, the rate of rape would go down little if at all."

I think it would be almost impossible for a person to do the amount of research he did and NOT have an opinion as to whether Johnson was guilty or not. That is not necessarily a sign of "bias," but could rather be the result of him reaching an informed conclusion based on the available evidence.

Bay Area Cat wrote:I think it would be almost impossible for a person to do the amount of research he did and NOT have an opinion as to whether Johnson was guilty or not. That is not necessarily a sign of "bias," but could rather be the result of him reaching an informed conclusion based on the available evidence.

He admits the bias in the interview. He came out of the courtroom crying about the verdict. 12 jurors all agreed, it was not a hung jury. If they were all voting for the football team, then the prosecutor did a lousy job seating the jury. I'm not trying to justify the actions, just pointing to his bias.

allcat wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:I think it would be almost impossible for a person to do the amount of research he did and NOT have an opinion as to whether Johnson was guilty or not. That is not necessarily a sign of "bias," but could rather be the result of him reaching an informed conclusion based on the available evidence.

He admits the bias in the interview. He came out of the courtroom crying about the verdict. 12 jurors all agreed, it was not a hung jury. If they were all voting for the football team, then the prosecutor did a lousy job seating the jury. I'm not trying to justify the actions, just pointing to his bias.

Let's not confuse "not guilty" with "innocent".
He was found not guilty because there was not enough evidence to convict him. That doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it.

I think that's what Krakauer's comment was alluding to. Not that the verdict was necessarily wrong based on the evidence presented, but he thinks now, after everything he's learned, that Johnson did it.

91catAlum wrote:

allcat wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:I think it would be almost impossible for a person to do the amount of research he did and NOT have an opinion as to whether Johnson was guilty or not. That is not necessarily a sign of "bias," but could rather be the result of him reaching an informed conclusion based on the available evidence.

He admits the bias in the interview. He came out of the courtroom crying about the verdict. 12 jurors all agreed, it was not a hung jury. If they were all voting for the football team, then the prosecutor did a lousy job seating the jury. I'm not trying to justify the actions, just pointing to his bias.

Let's not confuse "not guilty" with "innocent".
He was found not guilty because there was not enough evidence to convict him. That doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it.

I think that's what Krakauer's comment was alluding to. Not that the verdict was necessarily wrong based on the evidence presented, but he thinks now, after everything he's learned, that Johnson did it.

It's obvious he did it, it was the differing perceptions of what happened.

allcat wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:I think it would be almost impossible for a person to do the amount of research he did and NOT have an opinion as to whether Johnson was guilty or not. That is not necessarily a sign of "bias," but could rather be the result of him reaching an informed conclusion based on the available evidence.

He admits the bias in the interview. He came out of the courtroom crying about the verdict. 12 jurors all agreed, it was not a hung jury. If they were all voting for the football team, then the prosecutor did a lousy job seating the jury. I'm not trying to justify the actions, just pointing to his bias.

Again, that's not necessarily "bias." That's could just be "having formed an opinion based on the evidence presented." Even a person who is perfectly objective (not that any probably exist) still forms opinions about things based on their observations of the world around them.

To take an extreme example for purposes of illustration, would it prove that a writer has a "bias" if they were wrote a thoroughly researched book about the Brentwood murders and declared that, based on the evidence they saw, they believe that OJ was guilty of those murders?

I have no idea if Johnson would have been convicted of rape if there would have been cameras in the room that recorded every second of what happened (therefore giving the jury virtually perfect and irrefutable evidence upon which to base their decision). But I also don't necessarily think one has to have a "bias" of some kind to reach a conclusion about that ... especially if they immersed themselves in every bit of evidence relating to the charges.

As an aside, I just want to empathize with the jurors a bit. They have a miserable job. Putting myself into their shoes is like a kick in the gut. If you find the defendant not guilty when they really are guilty, you are potentially freeing a guy to do something horrible to more women in the future. You are also denying justice to the victim.

But if you convict a guy based on a he said/she said thing, and you trusted the wrong testimony, you are essentially destroying a person's life.

There is so much grey area in cases like this and so much at stake in the verdict (or even in indicting a person, for that matter).

Sucks all the way around.

He interviewed a juror. One of the more interesting parts of the book.

TomCat88 wrote:He interviewed a juror. One of the more interesting parts of the book.

did you spend the $28 ?

allcat wrote:

TomCat88 wrote:He interviewed a juror. One of the more interesting parts of the book.

did you spend the $28 ?

$21.99 at Hastings.

TomCat88 wrote:

allcat wrote:

TomCat88 wrote:He interviewed a juror. One of the more interesting parts of the book.

did you spend the $28 ?

$21.99 at Hastings.

That is good to know --- I got mine on kindle, but now I feel like I need to get a signed copy for the archives.

Sportin' Life wrote:

TomCat88 wrote:

allcat wrote:

TomCat88 wrote:He interviewed a juror. One of the more interesting parts of the book.

did you spend the $28 ?

$21.99 at Hastings.

That is good to know --- I got mine on kindle, but now I feel like I need to get a signed copy for the archives.

PapaG wrote:

Sportin' Life wrote:

TomCat88 wrote:

allcat wrote:

TomCat88 wrote:He interviewed a juror. One of the more interesting parts of the book.

did you spend the $28 ?

$21.99 at Hastings.

That is good to know --- I got mine on kindle, but now I feel like I need to get a signed copy for the archives.

I have never before been the type that has to have a book upon release (or see a movie, or watch a tv show etc.) It is really interesting to see the price change like that over a couple of days. Economics in action I guess. I think the kindle price is the same as on Tuesday.

Sportin' Life wrote:

PapaG wrote:

Sportin' Life wrote:

TomCat88 wrote:

allcat wrote:

TomCat88 wrote:He interviewed a juror. One of the more interesting parts of the book.

did you spend the $28 ?

$21.99 at Hastings.

That is good to know --- I got mine on kindle, but now I feel like I need to get a signed copy for the archives.

I have never before been the type that has to have a book upon release (or see a movie, or watch a tv show etc.) It is really interesting to see the price change like that over a couple of days. Economics in action I guess. I think the kindle price is the same as on Tuesday.

I have Amazon prime. Free shipping with it. No, I have not ordered this book. I'll wait to get it at the public library.

Of course JK believed Johnson was guilty. The not-guilty verdict sucked the life out is his book. Now his two cases about how rape case are poorly handled are a well conducted investigation leading to a guilty plea and long prison sentence and a not guilty verdict that took a jury of 12 less than an hour to reach. I've read the book, and frankly I came away with a huge WTF!?!? I like JK, but I want my $12 back from the Apple Store on this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jobu wrote:Of course JK believed Johnson was guilty. The not-guilty verdict sucked the life out is his book.

Not really. It's on the NYT best-seller list.

Side note: wouldn't it just be easier for you to "come out" as the Griz fan that you so obviously are? Why the ruse?