Hayne~NFL~RU~Tits~Eels~Dad~Jailed~Mistrial~Jailed 5yrs~Retrial~Jailed~Appeal~Quashed-Sued

[EelEtric]

I always thought you were not guilty until found guilty (at least in Australia).

 

[the phantom menace]

Presumed innocent, yes. But found not guilty (as suggested by Hindy111) not in this case.

 

[hindy111]

Is he basically broke nowdays??

 

[the phantom menace]

Is he basically broke nowdays??

I reckon he'd be getting there - hence the recent report that he's considering telling "his side of the story" (maybe a paid book deal, or interview series or something?).

But while in jail the guy earned virtually nothing (see article above) and was reported to have been defrauded $780K in by an inmate in a scheme to do with bitcoin investments (link appears on an earlier page in this thread).

 

[the phantom menace]

Apparently despite selling off his investment propoerties to fund his legal team, he held onto the unit at Parramatta and the Umina Beach House (where his mum lives in a granny flat out the back).

So still rich enough to have no mortgage to pay I guess.

 

[ImTheMan]

Presumed innocent, yes. But found not guilty (as suggested by Hindy111) not in this case.

OK.

Now, does anyone else think the state would push another trial if a "disgraced rapist" was on the loose if it were to be successful?

The result there says everything and as others have said, Hayne would hope they would to claim $$$. An honest trial and subsequent informed jury, like I suggested at the time when Gronk got his panties in a twist, clears this every time. Honestly it was disgraceful.

I actually wouldn't trust anyone who looked at the case properly on a human level and thought it was beyond reasonable doubt. I can forgive someone if they superficially scanned the news.

 

[the phantom menace]

Now, do anyone else think the state would push another trial if a "disgraced rapist" was on the loose if it were to be successful?

Huh?

The result there says everything and as others have said, Hayne would hope they would to claim $$$.

Not really, it says what it said and nothing else that you are inferring.

The DPP decided not to press for a fourth trial for a variety of reasons, subject to legal privilege, but including the fact time already served by Hayne is very close to the period where he would be eligible for parole anyway. So I suspect a cost-benefit analysis informed that decision.

An honest trial and subsequent infotmermed jury, like I suggested at the time when Gronk ot his panties in a twist, clears this every time. Honestly it was disgraceful.

It wasn't disgraceful, and reading the judges' decision supporting only some of the grounds of appeal, it's evident that this wouldn't get cleared "every time".

I actually wouldn't trust anyone who looked at the case properly on a human level and thought it was beyond reasonable doubt. I can forgive someone if they superficially scanned the news.

I guess the jury has to look at the case properly, not just "on a human level". I trust they did - and as per the appeal findings, it was only certain instructions to the jury that were (partially) technically incorrect. Importantly for your stated position, the first grounds for Hayne's appeal were not supported by judges in their findings.

 

[ImTheMan]

The jury was not informed properly of the evidence hence the release of Hayne. The original post typo was edited if you have anything more to add.

Judge reviewing his case appeal" "Innocent man may have been convicted"

That's it.
End of.
*Sips whiskey*

Cheers

 

[ImTheMan]

No they would go again if he was guilty do not kid yourself

 

[ImTheMan]

Do you think they just let rapists free into the community before their time is served if the appeal doesn't have huge merit?

@the phantom menace what have you been accused of that you are possibly considered guilty of? It doesn't work like that.

 

[ImTheMan]

Mate, I read the Guardian newsite every day - it's my first preference rather than right-wing crap in the Tele, or clickbait stuff in the SMH.

But by all means keep convincing yourself I'm as obsessed about Hayne as you appear to be... ;-).

Well, compared to the obsession some feel for not contributing to the thread topic and only posting about other forumites ...?

Lol ew

 

[the phantom menace]

The jury was not informed properly of the evidence hence the release of Hayne. The original post typo was edited if you have anything more to add.

Judge reviewing his case appeal" "Innocent man may have been convicted"

That's it.
End of.

That quote was from one of the three judges, in a minority ruling on the first grounds of appeal which didn't count against the opinion of the two other judges to dismiss it.

I had posted the link to the actual appeal case ruling by the judges - rather than media stories of it - earlier in the thread.

 

[the phantom menace]

Do you think they just let rapists free into the community before their time is served if the appeal doesn't have huge merit?

You obviously have a limited understanding of what has been posted, and links to primary source material (re the DPP decision) previously provided and described.

The decision to not hold a fourth trial when Hayne had only 12 months left to serve of his original sentence still doesn't equate to being found 'not guilty' - but presumed innocent now, yes.

@the phantom menace what have you been accused of that you are possibly considered guilty of? It doesn't work like that.

Charged of in a court? Nothing. But if I had been charged, found guilty, appealed with the result a possible retrial, and then a decision that a retrial not be sought, then I would be presumed innocent - but not "found 'not guilty'".

That's the quote (of Hindy111's) that was being discussed tonight.

 

[ImTheMan]

You obviously have a limited understanding of what has been posted, and links to primary source material (re the DPP decision) previously provided and described.

The decision to not hold a fourth trial when Hayne had only 12 months left to serve of his original sentence still doesn't equate to being found 'not guilty' - but presumed innocent now, yes.

Charged of in a court? Nothing. But if I had been charged, found guilty, appealed with the result a possible retrial, and then a decision that a retrial not be sought, then I would be presumed innocent - but not "found 'not guilty'".

That's the quote (of Hindy111's) that was being discussed tonight.

Hello strawman lover, I never said he was " not guilty " and agree with everything here. The question "What are you both guilty and not guilty of?" Is a reflection that you can't bang on like he is guilty like some continue to do.

It's okay to be wrong
As long as you learn lesson
Yet they still persist

 

[ImTheMan]

I would like this thread to be an ongoing apology to Hayne by the worst offenders

 

[the phantom menace]

Hello strawman lover, I never said he was " not guilty "

True, that was Hindy111 - but you replied to a post pointing out that his statement was inaccurate, which suggested you might have disgareed. I'll accept that you don't.

The question "What are you both guilty and not guilty of?" Is a reflection that you can't bang on like he is guilty like some continue to do.

No-one is saying he's guilty now... all I've posted is to clarify that he wasn't found not guilty.

 

[ImTheMan]

True, that was Hindy111 - but you replied to a post pointing out that his statement was inaccurate, which suggested you might have disgareed. I'll accept that you don't.

No-one is saying he's guilty now... all I've posted is to clarify that he wasn't found not guilty.

Beautiful, you seek the truth. Lovely to see.

A man who seems beast
Using logic and reason
Seems godly once more
-My haiku based on Meditations by Marcus Aurelius

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Agree with Eelsfan - following three trials and appeals charges are not proven, Hayne has the right to be considered innocent, but was not found not guilty as such...

Neither were you.

 

[Twizzle]

 

[Poupou Escobar]

It’s like Mandela walking free