What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

News Jarryd Hayne convicted of aggravated sexual assault

Generalzod

Referee
Messages
25,508
So the first jury couldn’t come to some agreement, so the second trail he was found guilty. Was there differences to the evidence that was shown in the first trail, so what was the make up of the jury members? How could one group get it so wrong and the other so right. I think it’s about time we should do away with jury trails the legal jargon will definitely go over my head.
 
Messages
6,616
So the first jury couldn’t come to some agreement, so the second trail he was found guilty. Was there differences to the evidence that was shown in the first trail, so what was the make up of the jury members? How could one group get it so wrong and the other so right. I think it’s about time we should do away with jury trails the legal jargon will definitely go over my head.

I reckon we don’t know if this jury got it right or wrong until the appeal process is over.

I think they dismissed one charge against him but upheld the other this time around.

I haven’t poured over the evidence, I haven’t read the submissions. I think Hayne is a mindless man-child merkin of the highest order, but from my very limited knowledge of the case, I am not sure if I would have found him guilty. Happy to be convinced otherwise.
 

SDM

First Grade
Messages
7,383
I reckon we don’t know if this jury got it right or wrong until the appeal process is over.

I think they dismissed one charge against him but upheld the other this time around.

I haven’t poured over the evidence, I haven’t read the submissions. I think Hayne is a mindless man-child merkin of the highest order, but from my very limited knowledge of the case, I am not sure if I would have found him guilty. Happy to be convinced otherwise.

Like most people who are convinced to give 15% of their income to a scam run by a pedo, he is not too bright.
 

fourplay

Juniors
Messages
2,096
After reading through this case in the news, it seems apparent that the woman was filthy that Hayne didn't stick around, left in a taxi, and then brushed her. It also appears that there is no hard evidence, and it's a "he said she said" type of case, with the "she said" being from a woman scorned.

I find it hard to believe that the jury consider this evidence to be "beyond reasonable doubt". I'd like to know how the jury came to the decision that there was no consent, and that Hayne was aware the woman wasn't consenting, especially considering all the text messages, and the phone call recorded afterwards in the sting operation by police.

I think the jury took the "believe all women" hashtag into the courtroom.
 
Last edited:

Kilkenny

First Grade
Messages
9,026
After reading through this case in the news, it seems apparent that the woman was filthy that Hayne didn't stick around, left in a taxi, and then brushed her. It also appears that there is no hard evidence, and it's a "he said she said" type of case, with the "she said" being from a woman scorned.

I find it hard to believe that the jury consider this evidence to be "beyond reasonable doubt". I'd like to know how the jury came to the decision that there was no consent, and Hayne was aware the woman wasn't consenting, especially considering all the text messages, and the phone call recorded afterwards in the sting operation by police.

I think the jury took the "believe all women" hashtag into the courtroom.

I believe the jury comprised seven men & five women so that is somewhat significant given the guilty verdict.

As for some of your other suggestions you are a little naive and there was significant corroborating evidence, not least of all Jarryd Hayne himself who didn’t do himself any favours in some of his responses during cross examination.

The lengthy jury deliberations in the first trial would suggest the majority of jury members were in favour of a guilty verdict but there were a few members who could not be persuaded.

As for the women scorned comment, I’m not sure it applies in this case and it is a very big statement to make on your part.
 

fourplay

Juniors
Messages
2,096
I believe the jury comprised seven men & five women so that is somewhat significant given the guilty verdict.

As for some of your other suggestions you are a little naive and there was significant corroborating evidence, not least of all Jarryd Hayne himself who didn’t do himself any favours in some of his responses during cross examination.

The lengthy jury deliberations in the first trial would suggest the majority of jury members were in favour of a guilty verdict but there were a few members who could not be persuaded.

As for the women scorned comment, I’m not sure it applies in this case and it is a very big statement to make on your part.

What was the corroborating evidence? I might have missed it because I've only read the newspaper articles.

The 'woman scorned' comment is not really a big statement considering the evidence. It provides context and possible motivation as to why the accuser may not be being truthful.

From the secretly recorded police sting call:
“Like she’s f***ing texting me. I think she started to like me or something. Then because I brushed her, f***ing blowing up.”“And then, umm, cause I didn’t, you know what I mean. Like didn’t really speak to her face, she was filthy.”

He also added: “You know, you know, f***ing, you speak to them for a bit, they get attached and they think f***ing. Well mate you f***ing messaged me off Instagram, you idiot. Like Snapchat and that.

“And then cause I’ve flicked her, she’s blown up.”
 

SBD82

Coach
Messages
13,450
What was the corroborating evidence? I might have missed it because I've only read the newspaper articles.

The 'woman scorned' comment is not really a big statement considering the evidence. It provides context and possible motivation as to why the accuser may not be being truthful.

From the secretly recorded police sting call:
Since you’ve only read newspaper articles, don’t you think there is a possibility that the Jury may have a more informed opinion than yours?
 

Kilkenny

First Grade
Messages
9,026
What was the corroborating evidence? I might have missed it because I've only read the newspaper articles.

The 'woman scorned' comment is not really a big statement considering the evidence. It provides context and possible motivation as to why the accuser may not be being truthful.

From the secretly recorded police sting call:

You did miss it, far be it from me to try and enlighten you.

Jarryd Hayne was convicted by a jury of 12 peers who heard all of the available evidence not just formed a view of his innocence based on snippets in a newspaper.

It is a very trying challenge for ordinary members of society to sit on a jury panel, not least of all in a sexual assault case involving a high profile figure with highly paid counsel defending him. Often and sadly it is the victim who is on trial, and you are someone who demonstrates this unfortunate phenomenon.
 

betcats

Referee
Messages
21,721
After reading through this case in the news, it seems apparent that the woman was filthy that Hayne didn't stick around, left in a taxi, and then brushed her. It also appears that there is no hard evidence, and it's a "he said she said" type of case, with the "she said" being from a woman scorned.

I find it hard to believe that the jury consider this evidence to be "beyond reasonable doubt". I'd like to know how the jury came to the decision that there was no consent, and Hayne was aware the woman wasn't consenting, especially considering all the text messages, and the phone call recorded afterwards in the sting operation by police.

I think the jury took the "believe all women" hashtag into the courtroom.

No hard evidence besides her injuries you dopey merkin
 

Kilkenny

First Grade
Messages
9,026
So the first jury couldn’t come to some agreement, so the second trail he was found guilty. Was there differences to the evidence that was shown in the first trail, so what was the make up of the jury members? How could one group get it so wrong and the other so right. I think it’s about time we should do away with jury trails the legal jargon will definitely go over my head.

You have to have some understanding of the dynamics of our jury system.

Suffice to say the first jury didn’t necessarily get it wrong, it was more likely the case there were ten members of the jury in favour of a guilty verdict (given the lengthy deliberations) but the two dissenting jury members could not be persuaded on the evidence to change there position. Hung jury, it happens.

The jury system is not infallible, given there has been instances throughout history where innocent persons have been convicted. At the same time there are also many more instances where guilty persons have been acquitted. OJ Simpson perhaps is the classic case in point. A classic example of where high profile, high paid counsel throw enough mud, which sticks and a guilty person is acquitted, not on the evidence just purely on the abilities of the defence counsel largely fabricating a defence for the accused.
 

fourplay

Juniors
Messages
2,096
Since you’ve only read newspaper articles, don’t you think there is a possibility that the Jury may have a more informed opinion than yours?

Since I used the words, "seems apparent", "appears", and the phrase "I'd like to know how the jury came to the decision", don't you think I'm aware of the possibility that there may be some kind of other evidence that the jury was privy to, that I'm not aware of?

I literally said that I'd like to know what the jury saw that made them reach there conclusion. Dummy.

You did miss it, far be it from me to try and enlighten you.

Very confidently states that there was "significant" corroborating evidence, and that I missed the "significant" corroborating evidence, yet does not present said "significant" corroborating evidence when questioned. Good one.
 

SBD82

Coach
Messages
13,450
Since I used the words, "seems apparent", "appears", and the phrase "I'd like to know how the jury came to the decision", don't you think I'm aware of the possibility that there may be some kind of other evidence that the jury was privy to, that I'm not aware of?

I literally said that I'd like to know what the jury saw that made them reach there conclusion. Dummy.



Very confidently states that there was "significant" corroborating evidence, and that I missed the "significant" corroborating evidence, yet does not present said "significant" corroborating evidence when questioned. Good one.
You’re defending a rapist, using the words of the rapist and ignoring the fact that 12 jurors, with access to a far greater amount of information, were convinced of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

And if I question the logic, I’m a dummy.

Strange hill to die on.
 

fourplay

Juniors
Messages
2,096
No hard evidence besides her injuries you dopey merkin

Another dummy.

The girl literally stated that she didn't know how the bleeding happened and didn't know whether it was from his fingernail, mouth, or a ring on his finger. It is evidence only that a sexual act took place, and not whether or not the act was consensual. You might know this if you weren't a virgin.
 
Last edited:

fourplay

Juniors
Messages
2,096
You’re defending a rapist, using the words of the rapist and ignoring the fact that 12 jurors, with access to a far greater amount of information, were convinced of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

And if I question the logic, I’m a dummy.

Strange hill to die on.

Wrong. I'm calling you a dummy because you asked me "If I had considered the possibility that the jury had access to a greater amount of information" in response to me literally saying I'd like to know what the evidence was that led the jury to their conclusions.
 
Top