AJ Johnson/Michael Williams Case (merged)

Most of 'em would indict a ham sandwich .

I am always amazed by comments like yours. But, I will play along.

As long as the Prosecutors show that there's probable cause that the ham sandwich committed a crime then yes the ham sandwich would be indicted.

Do you understand stand the concept of probable cause?
 
Is this a trick question? Am I walking into a trap? I'm trying not to pick sides... ;)

Technically (and generally) prior conduct means little to the law in regards to sex crimes. One partner can remove consent at any point during the sexual encounter. So, defendant could have had sex with victim 1000 times, and on the last second of the 1001st time, victim says no, and it is rape. It wouldn't matter if the victim had initiated the act, prepared for it, dressed up, decorated the room, and begged for it...at the instant consent is removed, it is a crime. That is the prosecution's argument.

On the other hand, there are 12 jurors who have to listen to and see the evidence. If that sort of evidence is presented, it is hard to filter the prior conduct/communication in any way other than continued consent. That is the defense argument.

Theoretically and philosophically it is admittedly hard to parse this dichotomy in a meaningful way. If two parties have a history of consensual sexual encounters, with evidence of communication and of consent (or initiation), what could change in that last instant to turn the whole thing non consensual without there being a massive change in the defendant's behavior, or some ill will on the victim's part? I think that is the conundrum that worries/complicates most people's perception.
Not taking sides. Waiting on evidence but to answer your question about "what could change in last instant" . Unable to give consent due to being unconscious. Passed out etc.
 
Not taking sides. Waiting on evidence but to answer your question about "what could change in last instant" . Unable to give consent due to being unconscious. Passed out etc.

There are certainly many variables. I'm just trying to give a general over view.
 
I am always amazed by comments like yours. But, I will play along.

As long as the Prosecutors show that there's probable cause that the ham sandwich committed a crime then yes the ham sandwich would be indicted.

Do you understand stand the concept of probable cause?

The issue is that anyone can be made to appear to be guilty if there is no requirement to show any evidence otherwise. So yeah...a ham sandwich could be made to look incredibly guilty if no one was there to point out the fact that it's a ham sandwich and can't do anything at all.
 
Maybe so, but considering that I'm taking the bar in July and know how the justice system works then maybe not.

The worst scumbag is entitled to their day in court and sentiments like that is why cowboy justice lynch mobs don't fly.

Good luck on the bar. What I attempted to convey is that if my daughter was the accuser, I would not be thinking that most indictments don't led to a trial. That's all.
 
NFL just pulled AJ's combine invitation.

Albert Breer ‏@AlbertBreer 18m18 minutes ago
Indicted in rape case >> RT @jwyattsports: NFL has withdrawn the invitation for former #Tennessee LB A.J. Johnson to attend the NFL Combine.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
You do realize that grand juries are pretty much just a rubber stamp right? Only a fraction of a percentage of cases brought before the grand jury aren't indicted.

By the same token, no district attorney's office wants to be saddled with a case that it doesn't believe it can win. If the District Attorney's office took it to the grand jury, then it's because the prosecutor believes that he or she can get a conviction or the District Attorney wanted the grand jury to be the entity to kill the case. Since an indictment was returned, I suspect the ADAG prosecuting the case feels pretty confident he or she has a winner.
 
By the same token, no district attorney's office wants to be saddled with a case that it doesn't believe it can win. If the District Attorney's office took it to the grand jury, then it's because the prosecutor believes that he or she can get a conviction or the District Attorney wanted the grand jury to be the entity to kill the case. Since an indictment was returned, I suspect the ADAG prosecuting the case feels pretty confident he or she has a winner.

So are you saying that the cases the government loses at trial are the ones they didn't think we're good to begin with?
 
In your opinion, and again, all we have are our own opines - If the defense can show that AJ had prior contact with said victim (text,twit,etc.) and if any of that contact was initiated by said victim, and if the contact contained any "suggestive" behavior, do you believe an acquittal is in order?

Are you suggesting someone can't be raped if they are friendly with the rapist beforehand?

Can a friend steal from you?
Do people ever murder loved ones?

Why do you think rape would be different from any other crime?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
The issue is that anyone can be made to appear to be guilty if there is no requirement to show any evidence otherwise. So yeah...a ham sandwich could be made to look incredibly guilty if no one was there to point out the fact that it's a ham sandwich and can't do anything at all.


Do understand the purpose of the Grand Jury?

The function and purpose of a Grand Jury is NOT to determine if one is innocent or guilty, but rather to establish probable cause that a crime has been committed and who committed it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
When this started, I recall lots of people here saying, "I am waiting to see what the evidence says" and waiting to see if they'd be charged. I predict now it'll be something else. As is already happening by a few posters. News flash, people do not want to believe this kind of thing, I get that. But, to not believe it is absurd. Happens every day by people who others viewed as "such a nice person" therefore can't be true. Get over it.

Omg it's back.
 
I'm not here for the 13 pages of arguments, i'm not here for the popcorn and i'm most certainly not here to say #FreeAJ, I'm just here to say "Good, now let's move past this as a program and let the young men and women involved work thru the legal system to a resolution".

I will continue to pray for the young ladies and their recovery from this and that should the young men be found innocent, that they are able to recover as well. I said that our program would handle this better than FSU, Florida and Vandy, and I was right. This is pretty much EXACTLY how a program / Local DA is supposed to handle things, i am proud of my university and my town to put justice ahead of footbawwl.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
I'm not here for the 13 pages of arguments, i'm not here for the popcorn and i'm most certainly not here to say #FreeAJ, I'm just here to say "Good, now let's move past this as a program and let the young men and women involved work thru the legal system to a resolution".

I will continue to pray for the young ladies and their recovery from this and that should the young men be found innocent, that they are able to recover as well. I said that our program would handle this better than FSU, Florida and Vandy, and I was right. This is pretty much EXACTLY how a program / Local DA is supposed to handle things, i am proud of my university and my town to put justice ahead of footbawwl.


I am also proud that justice was put before UT Football, and I love the Vols as much or more than anyone!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
The article said they had the crime lab testify and I imagine they had the DNA tests results. If true that's pretty strong evidence. Can't imagine the GJ indicting if the DNA results excluded Williams & Johnson.

Possible the lab testified about other aspects of the forensics and not the DNA, I guess.

That gives probable cause and that's all that's needed for an indictment. Doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred though. I'm still taking the wait and see approach... Especially since aj still hasn't formally been indicted yet.
 
That gives probable cause and that's all that's needed for an indictment. Doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred though. I'm still taking the wait and see approach... Especially since aj still hasn't formally been indicted yet.

I agree and 86'd my comment because "consent" will be the final issue here, imo.
 
Are you suggesting someone can't be raped if they are friendly with the rapist beforehand?

Can a friend steal from you?
Do people ever murder loved ones?

Why do you think rape would be different from any other crime?

Great explanation.....some just dont get it when it comes to rape. I dont think it was ever explained to them.:thumbsup:
 

VN Store



Back
Top