AJ Johnson Update [verdict: NOT guilty]

[Burger]

Did you actually read her testimony from today? Not sure how you could still make they claim "that these dudes didn’t do anything wrong" if you did. Unless you think everything out of her mouth is a lie.

I'll just say it been a long time since I was at UT but this kind of story was being told back then too. Different times I guess

Kinda happens when you keep contradicting yourself. Men are being accused of crimes they didn't do these days. Sales of Japanese Sex dolls are also skyrocketing for a reason.

 

[bamawriter]

Kinda happens when you keep contradicting yourself. Men are being accused of crimes they didn't do these days. Sales of Japanese Sex dolls are also skyrocketing for a reason.

Can you go over some of the contradictions? I've seen some inconsistencies, but nothing that I'd call a contradiction.

 

[BreatheUT]

People are not found innocent

You're right. People are presumed innocent but when they accuse you of rape the arena of public opinion has already found you guilty and you have to prove your innocence.

 

[smokeyz1]

I have followed a couple of the journalists that have been tweeting play by play updates during the trial. It is all going to come down to whether the Jury believes the accuser told AJ and Willilams NO to the threesome.

The accuser and her friend have testified to the following in court:
Accuser had consensual sex with AJ three times including while in the room with her friend & Williams.
Accuser encouraged her friend to have sex with Williams while in the room.
Accuser told Williams NO to the threesome but did not resist.
Accuser and friend sold/trashed their phones 2 days later without saving messages/photos/contacts
Accuser did manage to screenshot 2 text messages that helped her case before trashing all other messages.

The two girls actions with their phones would cause me to doubt their testimony if I were on the Jury and the defense has not even had a chance to call their witnesses yet.

 

[butchna]

I have followed a couple of the journalists that have been tweeting play by play updates during the trial. It is all going to come down to whether the Jury believes the accuser told AJ and Willilams NO to the threesome.

The accuser and her friend have testified to the following in court:
Accuser had consensual sex with AJ three times including while in the room with her friend & Williams.
Accuser encouraged her friend to have sex with Williams while in the room.
Accuser told Williams NO to the threesome but did not resist.
Accuser and friend sold/trashed their phones 2 days later without saving messages/photos/contacts
Accuser did manage to screenshot 2 text messages that helped her case before trashing all other messages.

The two girls actions with their phones would cause me to doubt their testimony if I were on the Jury and the defense has not even had a chance to call their witnesses yet.

Decent summation. :good!:

 

[bamawriter]

Accuser and friend sold/trashed their phones 2 days later without saving messages/photos/contacts


The two girls actions with their phones would cause me to doubt their testimony if I were on the Jury and the defense has not even had a chance to call their witnesses yet.

2 months later, not 2 days. They each wiped their phones within a day of one another, but it was 2 months after the incident.

 

[MikeVol44]

I am an investigator and I have some experience with retrieving text messages. Unfortunately, unless a preservation letter is sent to the cell phone companies within a few days the messages are lost forever. Verizon seems to be one of the only companies that keeps them for any length of time. The best way to get this evidence is from the device but in this case it's sounds like that wasn't possible.

Okay, thanks....I truly am ignorant of the process....

But I do believe that AJ's lawyers attempted to subpoena the cell phone records--like 3 years ago--and the girls' lawyers wouldn't give them up....and then the court denied the subpoena request....

Which--3 years later--finally got overturned ....

The whole point of my original comment is that there would be no reason to withhold those records if those girls didn't have something to hide....just my opinion...

I completely understand why their lawyers would not want the defendants to have access to their phones...but cannot for the life of me figure out how the court originally ruled against AJ's defense team being granted access to their cell phone records...

And, do I even remember it correctly? :unsure:

 

[bamawriter]

Okay, thanks....I truly am ignorant of the process....

But I do believe that AJ's lawyers attempted to subpoena the cell phone records--like 3 years ago--and the girls' lawyers wouldn't give them up....and then the court denied the subpoena request....

Which--3 years later--finally got overturned ....

The whole point of my original comment is that there would be no reason to withhold those records if those girls didn't have something to hide....just my opinion...

I completely understand why their lawyers would not want the defendants to have access to their phones...but cannot for the life of me figure out how the court originally ruled against AJ's defense team being granted access to their cell phone records...

And, do I even remember it correctly? :unsure:

Not exactly. It wasn't the girls' lawyers. They don't have representation in the criminal trial. The state requested the records and the cell companies said they didn't have it. The defense asked that the cell companies be forced to dig and that was initially denied. The court of appeals ultimately ruled for the defense, but it only resulted in the cell companies confirming that the data is, in fact, gone.

The police dropped the ball by not subpoenaing the phones earlier. Once the phones were wiped, the data was gone.

 

[MikeVol44]

Not exactly. It wasn't the girls' lawyers. They don't have representation in the criminal trial. The state requested the records and the cell companies said they didn't have it. The defense asked that the cell companies be forced to dig and that was initially denied. The court of appeals ultimately ruled for the defense, but it only resulted in the cell companies confirming that the data is, in fact, gone.

The police dropped the ball by not subpoenaing the phones earlier. Once the phones were wiped, the data was gone.

thanks.....I guess that I just remembered the initial denial and got the facts confused. I truly appreciate the clarity.

You can tell I've followed this case closely....

I still think it's an absolute joke that it has taken almost 4 years to get this case to court....

 

[bamawriter]

thanks.....I guess that I just remembered the initial denial and got the facts confused. I truly appreciate the clarity.

You can tell I've followed this case closely....

I still think it's an absolute joke that it has taken almost 4 years to get this case to court....

It requried making some new law. TN now has rules of evidence for the social media era.

Sucks that Johnson and Williams had to be the guinea pigs, but someone has to be first.

 

[Kristy*]

Can you go over some of the contradictions? I've seen some inconsistencies, but nothing that I'd call a contradiction.

Witness says accuser told her to have relations with Williams during his advances. Accuser originally says she didn't say to. Later she contradicts herself, saying she may have said it.

 

[bamawriter]

Witness says accuser told her to have relations with Williams during his advances. Accuser originally says she didn't say to. Later she contradicts herself, saying she may have said it.

"I don't remember saying it" doesn't contradict "I didn't say it." "Yes, I said it" contradicts "I didn't say it."

Either way, it's not helpful to the defense when the witness says that she took it as "Just do what he wants and he won't get violent."

 

[Kristy*]

"I don't remember saying it" doesn't contradict "I didn't say it." "Yes, I said it" contradicts "I didn't say it."

Either way, it's not helpful to the defense when the witness says that she took it as "Just do what he wants and he won't get violent."

Where exactly are you getting this narrative? From what I've read, witness says she didn't pay attention to what was going on with accuser other than she knew they had started having sex, and accuser says she couldn't see her friend or Williams.

 

[bamawriter]

Where exactly are you getting this narrative? From what I've read, witness says she didn't pay attention to what was going on with accuser other than she knew they had started having sex, and accuser says she couldn't see her friend or Williams.

What narrative are you referring to? If you are asking about Lawn's iterpretation of "it's okay," she said it during during cross on 7/24.

 

[davethevol]

What narrative are you referring to? If you are asking about Lawn's iterpretation of "it's okay," she said it during during cross on 7/24.

And that’s one of those parts that seems to be made up to help their case. I’m pretty sure the accuser states that she had never known the defendants to get violent, and clearly there wasn’t a threat or Lawn wouldn’t have been able to leave the room. The accuser was into having group sex and flipped the script when she realized her friend wasn’t.

 

[Kristy*]

What narrative are you referring to? If you are asking about Lawn's iterpretation of "it's okay," she said it during during cross on 7/24.

Yes, that narrative. Can you provide a quote or link, because I haven't seen her interpretation.

 

[bamawriter]

And that’s one of those parts that seems to be made up to help their case.

Quite possibly. Interpretation is a tricky issue.

I’m pretty sure the accuser states that she had never known the defendants to get violent,

She vouched for Johnson. She claims to have barely known Williams, and it was Williams that Lawn claims was getting aggressive.

and clearly there wasn’t a threat or Lawn wouldn’t have been able to leave the room.

Define "threat." Lawn claims that Williams was trying to physically force her to perform a sex act despite her resistance. You can be a threat to someone else even if you don't restrain that person.

The accuser was into having group sex and flipped the script when she realized her friend wasn’t.

I suppose the defense might try to make that case. But, if what you just laid out is accurate, you've just made a case for rape. This case pivots on whether or not the accuser consented to having sex with two men at the same time. That she was willing to have sex with Johnson is undisputed.

 

[jasonvols2.2]

There are more women in the jury. At the very least, let's hope for a hung jury.

 

[bamawriter]

Yes, that narrative. Can you provide a quote or link, because I haven't seen her interpretation.

911 call played in courtroom on day 2 of rape trial for former UT football players | wbir.com

Sorry, it's down a bit in the live tweeting.

Lawn says the alleged victim said “it’s okay” to her during the sexual acts.

She says that the statement goes on to say the alleged victim was implying the men wouldn’t get violent if they agreed to do what they wanted.

I haven't read the actual transcript yet, so I'm having trouble figuring out what "statement" is being referenced.

 

[Kristy*]

911 call played in courtroom on day 2 of rape trial for former UT football players | wbir.com

Sorry, it's down a bit in the live tweeting.



I haven't read the actual transcript yet, so I'm having trouble figuring out what "statement" is being referenced.

Makes absolutely no sense. So, she feels like she got out of a dangerous situation, but left her friend in there? Why didn't she get help when she left the room?

 

[smokeyz1]

Makes absolutely no sense. So, she feels like she got out of a dangerous situation, but left her friend in there? Why didn't she get help when she left the room?

I agree. I also found it interesting that the accuser says that she said NO once Williams tried to join in, BUT SHE DIDN'T RESIST.

Seems like if she didn't want the threesome, she would have at least been fighting them off. It's pretty obvious her friend resisted Williams' advances earlier and left the room.

 

[bamawriter]

Makes absolutely no sense. So, she feels like she got out of a dangerous situation, but left her friend in there? Why didn't she get help when she left the room?

Hard for me to read her mind.

She clearly said, as did the accuser, that she didn't think there was an issue with Johnson. Perhaps she didn't assume that Williams would want his buddy's sloppy seconds.

 

[bamawriter]

I agree. I also found it interesting that the accuser says that she said NO once Williams tried to join in, BUT SHE DIDN'T RESIST.

Seems like if she didn't want the threesome, she would have at least been fighting them off. It's pretty obvious her friend resisted Williams' advances earlier and left the room.

If she said "no" and they didn't stop, then they raped her.

 

[smokeyz1]

If she said "no" and they didn't stop, then they raped her.

Did she really say "NO". Her actions apparently did not say "NO". The Jury will have to decide if they believe her.

After reading the details of the encounter. The friend would have a much better case for sexual assault against Williams than the accuser does against AJ.

 

[bamawriter]

Did she really say "NO". Her actions apparently did not say "NO".

I don't know what happened in this case. She claims that, for a portion of the event, she was held down on the bed. Simply saying "she didn't fight back," is not a defense. That's the whole "your mouth says 'no' but your body says 'yes,'" schtick. Rape victims often don't physically resist.