AJ Johnson Update [verdict: NOT guilty]

[bamawriter]

If both your replies don't lead you to have "reasonable doubt" about the accuser's claims, then I don't know what else I can say.

Here's why I'm very much on the fence:

We know that the phones were destroyed, and we can justifiably draw a negative inference because of that.

However, the cops did get the records from the defendants and Bowles (and perhaps a few others, I'm a little unclear on that). If the accusers had any interaction via their phones with Bowles or either of the defendants, then those conversations were retrieved. At this point, the only real inference is that the girls destroyed evidence of conversations with each other. Any other conversations can be retrieved (and maybe they were, again, I'm a little unclear there).

One can choose to draw the conclusion that these two women conspired against these two men. But one does not have to reach that conclusion. It's easy to say that the phones are the smoking gun. But the problem is that we don't actually have the gun to know whether or not it's smoking.

 

[bamawriter]

Re: The cops absolutely screwed up on that issue


Is this just your opinion, or has this statement been presented already at trial by the State or defense?

I don't believe the defense has used my exact wording. But that is absolutely the case they made with the cop today.

Also, if you know: to whom (the day after) were the students insisting that the phones were malfunctioning (who was inquiring about the functionality of the 2 phones)?

I don't know where that is coming from. The accuser claims to have factory reset her phone the morning before the incident, but I haven't seen anything from either than said their phones didn't work the next day. All the testimony says they switched phones in January.

I'm not saying I haven't missed anything. I'm trying my best to keep up, and I'm not above making a mistake.

 

[NEO]

So Orta is a cop now?

I am not sure how he got onto the department after what his comments were when this all originally went down.

First time someone gets shot by a KPD and he’s a witness his betrayal comments will be revived in the media and in court.

Just not a good look.

 

[smokeyz1]

Here's why I'm very much on the fence:

We know that the phones were destroyed, and we can justifiably draw a negative inference because of that.

However, the cops did get the records from the defendants and Bowles (and perhaps a few others, I'm a little unclear on that). If the accusers and any interaction via their phones with Bowles or either of the defendants, then those conversations were retrieved. At this point, the only real inference is that the girls destroyed evidence of conversations with each other. Any other conversations can be retrieved (and maybe they were, again, I'm a little unclear there).

One can choose to draw the conclusion that these two women conspired against these two men. But one does not have to reach that conclusion. It's easy to say that the phones are the smoking gun. But the problem is that we don't actually have the gun to know whether or not it's smoking.

One last point on the phones to try to get you off the fence..

Another poster said earlier that their kid dropped his phone in the toilet and he did everything he could including taking the phone back to Verizon to try and retrieve his data from the phone. This would be how I would expect any teenager or young adult to react to a bad phone.

In this case, the 2 girls testified that they don't remember why they didn't try to save their phone data. They just trashed/sold them and bought another phone.

 

[BowlBrother85]

So Orta is a cop now?

I am not sure how he got onto the department after what his comments were when this all originally went down.

First time someone gets shot by a KPD and he’s a witness his betrayal comments will be revived in the media and in court.

Just not a good look.

Doesn't that hinge on trusting the word of Bowles, who has admitted to lying to the media about his confrontations with teammates?

 

[bamawriter]

One last point on the phones to try to get you off the fence..

Another poster said earlier that their kid dropped his phone in the toilet and he did everything he could including taking the phone back to Verizon to try and retrieve his data from the phone. This would be how I would expect any teenager or young adult to react to a bad phone.

In this case, the 2 girls testified that they don't remember why they didn't try to save their phone data. They just trashed/sold them and bought another phone.

I'm not disagreeing with your point. Yes, the phone issue is as shady as it can be. However, one has to draw some kind of inference from the destruction of the phones. But what inference? A juror may not draw the same inference as you or me.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Are the phone records even admissible as evidence? The the statute quoted earlier, it seems that the phone records, at least from AJ and Williams, would only shed light on the previous sexual activity between AJ and the accuser.

By the way, do we even know who she is yet? I haven't actually looked nor do I care to go follow someone on Twitter to find out.

 

[gr82btnvol]

Are the phone records even admissible as evidence? The the statute quoted earlier, it seems that the phone records, at least from AJ and Williams, would only shed light on the previous sexual activity between AJ and the accuser.

By the way, do we even know who she is yet? I haven't actually looked nor do I care to go follow someone on Twitter to find out.

Yes people know who she is but the people covering the trial are calling her the accuser and not by her name. You can find out her name online if you chose to look.

 

[smokeyz1]

Are the phone records even admissible as evidence? The the statute quoted earlier, it seems that the phone records, at least from AJ and Williams, would only shed light on the previous sexual activity between AJ and the accuser.

By the way, do we even know who she is yet? I haven't actually looked nor do I care to go follow someone on Twitter to find out.

Yes they are. Unfortunately, the 2 girls phone text messages were not saved by the phone companies and since the 2 girls trashed/sold their phones without saving the data, the data is lost.

Also note that the KPD could have taken the 2 girls phones as evidence prior to them trashing the phones, but did not. However, KPD did take AJ, Williams, and Bowles' phones.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

By the way, do we even know who she is yet? I haven't actually looked nor do I care to go follow someone on Twitter to find out.

If I told you that her name is Jane Smith, and she's 22 years old, from Bucksnort, TN, her dad was a coal miner but died recently of lung cancer, and her mother is an accountant at a local bank...

...would you feel any more illuminated than you are now, with her moniker being simply "accuser"?

It's a question that doesn't even merit asking, don't you think? I mean, no good comes of it, even (especially) if you know her or her family. Right?

 

[butchna]

Stop pretending! You're not a judge or a juror in this case and neither am I or anyone else on this board. We're not in a trial. We're just trying to get each other to believe what we believe because it makes us feel good.

Then why are you on here? You want silence and crickets, go to your shed. :hi:

 

[NEO]

Doesn't that hinge on trusting the word of Bowles, who has admitted to lying to the media about his confrontations with teammates?

I am not sure who honestly heard the betrayal comment. This happened so long ago it’s kinda grey. I am just saying that’s a huge 180 from then to today.

 

[82_VOL_83]

If I told you that her name is Jane Smith, and she's 22 years old, from Bucksnort, TN, her dad was a coal miner but died recently of lung cancer, and her mother is an accountant at a local bank...

...would you feel any more illuminated than you are now, with her moniker being simply "accuser"?

It's a question that doesn't even merit asking, don't you think? I mean, no good comes of it, even (especially) if you know her or her family. Right?

Don't know her or her family, just wondering why Ms. Lawn is called out by name but "the Accuser" has a moniker. If her name is out there, call her by name. Your statement doesn't even merit making if the name is known.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Don't know her or her family, just wondering why Ms. Lawn is called out by name but "the Accuser" has a moniker. If her name is out there, call her by name. Your statement doesn't even merit making if the name is known.

Ah, I see.

KNS and many other newspapers, TV and radio stations have a policy of not revealing the personal information on children or victims of certain crimes (sexual assault, hate crimes, crimes of violence, domestic abuse...the specific rules vary from paper to paper, but they all go generally in this direction).

That's why you're seeing Lawn and "accuser". Lawn is a witness, not a victim. "Accuser" is a purported victim.

The media do this to reduce the "social cost" of coming forth and admitting what happened to you.

Whether they should do the same with the (innocent until proven guilty) defendants as well is, of course, an argument that can be made from the other side. There's a social cost for everyone involved, even before any determinations of guilt or innocence are reached.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Woman accusing two former UT football players of rape testifies on day 3 of trial | wbir.com

I guess I am not following this at all. I don't see from this article all of the contradictions that have been pointed out here. I guess if I go to trial I want a VN jury because NO ONE has the same story as the next guy.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Fwiw, Jamie Satterfield tweeted that she still expects AJ Johnson to testify.

 

[cHiZzLeVOL]

That's for an iMessage, I was referring simply to text messages as that's what I read was lost. Were they using IPhones with the iMessage turned on?

I believe it was stated earlier that the messages couldn't be retrieved from the phone company because they were iMessages. Could be wrong but I believe that is what was said.

Edit: I also might be some sort of investigator... Maybe?!? Or maybe not?!?

 

[bamawriter]

I guess I am not following this at all. I don't see from this article all of the contradictions that have been pointed out here.

Like I said, there are several inconsistencies. I think "contradiction" is not an apt description for most of the testimony so far.

 

[superdave1984]

Yes they are. Unfortunately, the 2 girls phone text messages were not saved by the phone companies and since the 2 girls trashed/sold their phones without saving the data, the data is lost.

Also note that the KPD could have taken the 2 girls phones as evidence prior to them trashing the phones, but did not. However, KPD did take AJ, Williams, and Bowles' phones.

I would think KPD would not have had a reason to take the girls phones. They took the guys phones because they were the accused and they could be used as evidence against them. The girls were the accuser(s) so KPD had no cause to take their phones.

HOWEVER, the attorney for the accuser should have advised the accuser that her phone could be considered evidence in the case. I am sure that conversation took place and the accuser decided what was on the phone was better left unseen.

Lots of circumstantial evidence here. Destroying the phones is a really bad look for the state. Makes it look like the accuser had/has something to hide. (Tom Brady/deflategate ring a bell)

I think reasonable doubt will prevail and the guys will be exonerated.

 

[cHiZzLeVOL]

I would think KPD would not have had a reason to take the girls phones. They took the guys phones because they were the accused and they could be used as evidence against them. The girls were the accuser(s) so KPD had no cause to take their phones.

HOWEVER, the attorney for the accuser should have advised the accuser that her phone could be considered evidence in the case. I am sure that conversation took place and the accuser decided what was on the phone was better left unseen.

Lots of circumstantial evidence here. Destroying the phones is a really bad look for the state. Makes it look like the accuser had/has something to hide. (Tom Brady/deflategate ring a bell)

I think reasonable doubt will prevail and the guys will be exonerated.

Not true at all. KPD should have asked them to cooperate if they were the accusers. The girls should have complied and given them their phones. If the girls did not want to cooperate KPD could have asked for a search warrant for those devices.

Edit: KPD should have asked if there was any relevant information to the case on those phones in their interviews. If the girls said there wasn't.... Then that is on them.

Which btw sounds a little weird to me.

 

[85SugarVol]

Lots of orange tinted opinions in this thread, which is disgusting. Thanks bamawriter for at least trying to keep things in perspective.

We'll never know what truly happened at that party. Accusing these girls of lying about the events is ridiculous.

Why do people feel like they HAVE to accuse someone of lying despite not knowing what took place? Why not just admit that you don't know what happened and leave it at that?

That's not what I said. I said it's ridiculous to accuse them of lying. Its best to not take shots at people, especially when we don't know what happened.

Like others on this board, I read a detailed explanation of what happened at the party. There was a PM floating around one of the pay sites... It did not paint a good picture of AJ and Williams. Some of the things that came out in court align with that story. I don't know if the story was true, but I question how some of the details could be made up. All that to say regardless of whether or not they are found guilty, I'll always have doubts about what actually happened. Only 3 people in this world truly know. I think people should learn to be ok with not knowing - rather than coming to conclusions based on educated guesses and then attacking people as if that conclusion is based on absolute truth.

Stop pretending! You're not a judge or a juror in this case and neither am I or anyone else on this board. We're not in a trial. We're just trying to get each other to believe what we believe because it makes us feel good.

Yea. Why don't you go ahead and sit next few plays out...

:stop:

 

[Kristy*]

Given that the real issue is what happened in that room, and that only three people were there, I'm not sure that it would be wise to only allow one side of the story. Right now, the entirety of the story is "I said no, they held me down, someone covered my mouth, they forced themselves on me." There is no one other than Johnson and Williams who can say otherwise.

However, I do see your point.

The defendants don't have to testify for their story to be heard. They will have witnesses called - some that will speak about the accuser's demeanor after the alleged event. Having the defendants testify can be a gamble. Fair or not, their personalities will become a factor if they do.

 

[bamawriter]

The defendants don't have to testify for their story to be heard. They will have witnesses called - some that will speak about the accuser's demeanor after the alleged event.

That doesn't tell the jury what happened in the room. Again, I understand the risk of putting them on the stand, But there is also a risk in keeping them silent.

 

[superdave1984]

Not true at all. KPD should have asked them to cooperate if they were the accusers. The girls should have complied and given them their phones. If the girls did not want to cooperate KPD could have asked for a search warrant for those devices.

Edit: KPD should have asked if there was any relevant information to the case on those phones in their interviews. If the girls said there wasn't.... Then that is on them.

Which btw sounds a little weird to me.

I don't know about this. The alleged texts happened well after the "event" therefore would not have been something KPD would have asked about at the time.

Again, we don't have all the facts. 3 people know everything that happened. At least one is lying.

EDIT: Also, we don't know what the correct procedure was at the time for KPD to follow during this investigation. Procedure may not have dictated they ask about the accuser's phone. I have no idea. But if it wasn't part of the procedure and they had seized the phones, they could have been held liable in a lawsuit.

 

[cHiZzLeVOL]

I don't know about this. The alleged texts happened well after the "event" therefore would not have been something KPD would have asked about at the time.

Again, we don't have all the facts. 3 people know everything that happened. At least one is lying.

EDIT: Also, we don't know what the correct procedure was at the time for KPD to follow during this investigation. Procedure may not have dictated they ask about the accuser's phone. I have no idea. But if it wasn't part of the procedure and they had seized the phones, they could have been held liable in a lawsuit.

As an investigator you ask for all information to include texts that could be used in the investigation.

What I was stating was that KPD could get those phones. I am not blaming KPD for not getting the phones.

If the girls did not give KPD the information and then ditched their phones and that goes against them and AJ gets off, then that is on the girls.