- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Official Grand Jury Prediction Thread
Posted on 9/22/11 at 1:45 pm to omegaman66
Posted on 9/22/11 at 1:45 pm to omegaman66
quote:Possible that some recanted? I think I heard it was 4 from Lewis yesterday, vs 24 or 25 def witness..
First there are 10 witnesses and 8 are saying JJ kicked Lowery.
1
Posted on 9/22/11 at 1:50 pm to just me
I picked no indictment, because I have seen to many reports that seem to narrow the information down to hearsay. There seems to be multiple people on each side of the "eyewitness" fence. There seems to also be no physical evidence supporting either side, leaving too much reasonable doubt.
Posted on 9/22/11 at 1:50 pm to Mayhawman
quote:
quote:
First there are 10 witnesses and 8 are saying JJ kicked Lowery.
Possible that some recanted? I think I heard it was 4 from Lewis yesterday, vs 24 or 25 def witness..
And that makes my point. The point is we don't have the facts. The rant ran for over a month knowing that JJ was suppose to be the guy wearing black and black in the first video. Then it turns out that wasn't even JJ because it was the wrong shirt... maybe!!!
Posted on 9/22/11 at 1:53 pm to just me
quote:
... although some would argue that those guys might indict him just to keep JL at the helm.
There are plenty of people like that . . . even in this thread.
It's almost scary at the number of people who think like this. It's just unrealistic logic.
Posted on 9/22/11 at 2:11 pm to just me
There should be an indictment. All of the signed statements coming up this long after the fact just smells to high hell. Besides, we have a QB.
Posted on 9/22/11 at 2:13 pm to DaSaltyTiger
quote:
There should be an indictment. All of the signed statements coming up this long after the fact just smells to high hell. Besides, we have a QB.
The police have a lot of statements from players brah.
Posted on 9/22/11 at 2:13 pm to DaSaltyTiger
Besides, anyone thinking that JJ was NFL bound is kidding themselves. He's not even D-1A college material, much less NFL. D-II or D-III, I could see, but not D-I.
Posted on 9/22/11 at 2:14 pm to DaSaltyTiger
quote:
All of the signed statements coming up this long after the fact just smells to high hell.
Yes. It's crazy to think that people who the BRPD refused to interview would have the nerve to give Jefferson's lawyer a sworn statement recounting their version of the events.
quote:
Besides, we have a QB.
That's about as solid a reason to indict someone of a felony as I've ever heard.
But, seriously, die in a fire.
Posted on 9/22/11 at 2:22 pm to DaSaltyTiger
quote:
There should be an indictment. All of the signed statements coming up this long after the fact just smells to high hell. Besides, we have a QB.
And these two statements, mashed together so closely is why I truly hate so many of our fan base. For far too many, the guilt or innocence of this guy runs a distant second to the fact that he hasn't entertained them well enough while under center...so frick him, right?
To be honest, as shitty as this line of "reasoning" is, it wouldn't be so bad if the jackasses that were using it would simply own that belief and come right out and say it. But even on an anonymous forum like this, people feel uncomfortable saying shite like that.
Posted on 9/22/11 at 2:27 pm to LSUdm21
quote:And non-players. Guessing Shady's crew, another guy Lowery hit inside the joint and other parking lot witnesses.
The police have a lot of statements from players brah.
Posted on 9/22/11 at 2:32 pm to just me
I do not deal with criminal law much, but as I recall the standard is very low and I don't think the defendant even has the opportunity to put on evidence (perhaps the accused can speak but not be questioned by counsel?). Anyway, I have some serious questions about whether the case against JJ (or the other JJ) is strong, but I am going with "indicted" becasue the standard is so low.
Posted on 9/22/11 at 2:39 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
but as I recall the standard is very low and I don't think the defendant even has the opportunity to put on evidence
I would describe the standard as "loose," not low. It's something along the lines of -
"if the evidence presented, if taken as fact, could be reasonably interpreted as expressing the guilt of the accused, then an indictment is proper."
Something like that.
The defense doesn't have a right to have evidence presented, but the DA can allow it - which is the case here.
Posted on 9/22/11 at 2:48 pm to Antonio Moss
""if the evidence presented, if taken as fact, could be reasonably interpreted as expressing the guilt of the accused, then an indictment is proper."
Thanks for the clarification - no sarcasm whatsoever - but I would still characterize this as a "low" standard; at least it sounds a lot lower to me than "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "preponderance of the evidence."
Thanks for the clarification - no sarcasm whatsoever - but I would still characterize this as a "low" standard; at least it sounds a lot lower to me than "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "preponderance of the evidence."
Posted on 9/22/11 at 2:48 pm to just me
jm, I suggest you clarify what we're voting on in the OP. When you say "indicted" do you mean indicted for what they were arrested for, i.e., second degree battery which is a felony? Or, do you mean indicted for SOMETHING, not necessarily what they have been charged for but perhaps a lesser charge of simple battery, a misdemeanor?
I voted 'no indictment' thinking they will not be indicted for what the police have charged them with, but I think there is a good chance they will have the charges reduced to simple battery and indicted for that.
So with that in mind, how should I have voted?
eta: OOPS! I just re-read your OP. Nevermind.....
I voted 'no indictment' thinking they will not be indicted for what the police have charged them with, but I think there is a good chance they will have the charges reduced to simple battery and indicted for that.
So with that in mind, how should I have voted?
eta: OOPS! I just re-read your OP. Nevermind.....
This post was edited on 9/22/11 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 9/22/11 at 3:23 pm to LSURussian
It's cool.
Posted on 9/22/11 at 3:55 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:May I suggest he slowly gets eaten alive by a swarm of maggots.
But, seriously, die in a fire.
Posted on 9/22/11 at 4:06 pm to just me
If he isn't indicted then the DA should be ridden out of town on a rail. The defendant has no rights before a grand jury - not even an attorney. Any half baked case gets by a grand jury. Any prosecutor who cannot get an indictment from a grand jury is utterly incompetent.
Posted on 9/22/11 at 4:07 pm to just me
I have no idea because I don't know what evidence will or has been introduced or how it was offered and/or rebutted.
No vote.
No vote.
Posted on 9/22/11 at 4:11 pm to RhodeIslandRed
quote:I don't even think they got the dough to rise on this one.
Any half baked case gets by a grand jury
Posted on 9/22/11 at 4:13 pm to Drew Orleans
From all the "evidence" and all the statements from all sides(Police, DA, Witnesses, and JJ's legal team) there is NO WAY IN HELL he gets indicted. Then there's the video all over youtube showing some guy in a dark colored clothes stomping the hell out of the guy. Unless JJ changed clothes in less than 5 minutes in the parking lot then that wasnt him.
The fact that its gone on this long baffles my mind.
The fact that its gone on this long baffles my mind.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News