News Jarryd Hayne sexual assault trials

[Captain Apollo]

Complete joke.

Must be an election coming up.

The DPP is not an elected position, it is appointed. The current DPP's term in NSW does not expire until August 2031 as she was only appointed in August 2021.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

The DPP is not an elected position, it is appointed. The current DPP's term in NSW does not expire until August 2031 as she was only appointed in August 2021.

Thanks..

I meant the state government but if this is the standard of DPP we get…

….. perhaps the dpp position should be elected.

A third go at him is entirely unconscionable and could result in yet another miscarriage of justice.

How many millions of tax payers dollars is being wasted on this while women’s refuges are being closed down and peoples homes are under water.

Maybe f**king Putin is right, maybe the west is full of would-be nazis?

I never thought I’d see the day when that tosser Hayne would become a unwitting martyr, but here he is.

That is my honest opinion.

 

[SBD82]

Thanks..

I meant the state government but if this is the standard of DPP we get…

….. perhaps the dpp position should be elected.

A third go at him is entirely unconscionable and could result in yet another miscarriage of justice.

How many millions of tax payers dollars is being wasted on this while women’s refuges are being closed down and peoples homes are under water.

Maybe f**king Putin is right, maybe the west is full of would-be nazis?

I never thought I’d see the day when that tosser Hayne would become a unwitting martyr, but here he is.

That is my honest opinion.

We can fund the DPP and also fund Womens refuges.

Also, why is it that people like you only give a shit about funding charitable organizations when it suits your argument?

I know this is a crazy notion, but...

Have you considered the possibility that the DPP have decided to pursue a third trial because they believe that he’s guilty?

 

[stryker]

Obviously still have a tonne of shit on him.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were other cases with little evidence and this one will be used to hang him for it all.

 

[mxlegend99]

Obviously still have a tonne of shit on him.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were other cases with little evidence and this one will be used to hang him for it all.

It always has been a matter of which version of events people believed. The "evidence" fits both stories.

IMO there's just too many things that at the very least provide reasonable doubt.

-She complained that he didn't stay longer after he had already left. This is the biggest one for me. I just can't see why any victim would want the person that supposedly abused them to hang around afterwards.

-Her mother being in the next room and she didn't call out for help. Also it seems a bit risky anyone would rape someone with a potential witness so close also. Not to see that she couldn't have been scared to call for help and he wasn't crazy enough he didn't care. But if she was scared to call for help, why did she want him hanging around afterwards?

-Thousands of messages sent prior where she was trying to make it a sexual relationship. This doesn't mean she can't change her mind obviously. But did she change her mind when she claims she did? or after regretting the encounter that she was willingly participating in and him just bailing on her?

I don't know what happened. I don't think we ever will know for sure. But there's more than enough doubt in my mind that you can't send him away for it. Even though there's reason to doubt his innocence also. It's not up to him to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. It's up to them to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

It just seems ass backwards that in this case he has been presumed guilty even by the judge in the second trial and it has been on him to prove he is definitely innocent rather than the opposite. I just hope if he is found guilty again and sent away that he actually was guilty. But I think it's scary how easily accusations that haven't even been proven can be believed so quickly and a person can be screwed if they can't prove they're a lie.

 

[Mr_Raditch]

DPP should have gone after him for singing Ed Sheeran songs. Mandatory life sentence right there.

 

[Knight76]

So his is going to be another jury trial as far as I am aware.

How are they going to find another jury that doesn't already know all about it and have pre-conceived ideas. This third trial should be judge only, but the case is all just one persons word against another which doesn't necessarily go well with a judge only trial. They need the jury there to try and play to sympathies.

 

[The_Frog]

Have you considered the possibility that the DPP have decided to pursue a third trial because they believe that he’s guilty?

It would be more likely that they believe they can secure a conviction based on the evidence.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Also unless anyone has read the transcripts, most of our news has come via medsia reports. Hence unless we are in court to hear all the testimony we do not know the veracity of any of the evidence presented by the Prosecution nor the Defence.

 

[League Unlimited News]

 

[lockyno1]

Back to Big Bubba’s house lol

 

[fourplay]

It always has been a matter of which version of events people believed. The "evidence" fits both stories.

IMO there's just too many things that at the very least provide reasonable doubt.

-She complained that he didn't stay longer after he had already left. This is the biggest one for me. I just can't see why any victim would want the person that supposedly abused them to hang around afterwards.

-Her mother being in the next room and she didn't call out for help. Also it seems a bit risky anyone would rape someone with a potential witness so close also. Not to see that she couldn't have been scared to call for help and he wasn't crazy enough he didn't care. But if she was scared to call for help, why did she want him hanging around afterwards?

-Thousands of messages sent prior where she was trying to make it a sexual relationship. This doesn't mean she can't change her mind obviously. But did she change her mind when she claims she did? or after regretting the encounter that she was willingly participating in and him just bailing on her?

I don't know what happened. I don't think we ever will know for sure. But there's more than enough doubt in my mind that you can't send him away for it. Even though there's reason to doubt his innocence also. It's not up to him to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. It's up to them to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

It just seems ass backwards that in this case he has been presumed guilty even by the judge in the second trial and it has been on him to prove he is definitely innocent rather than the opposite. I just hope if he is found guilty again and sent away that he actually was guilty. But I think it's scary how easily accusations that haven't even been proven can be believed so quickly and a person can be screwed if they can't prove they're a lie.

Agree on all points. Especially considering the amount of wrongful convictions that have been overturned thanks to developments in DNA evidence. Sometimes you can get a jury made up of the 12 dumbest people in the country or a bunch of people who just don't like the look of you. Based on the 1st and 2nd trials and the lengthy deadlock in the 3rd, I find it hard to believe that he was "guilty beyond reasonable doubt." If Hayne was telling the truth it sure would be a shame that an innocent man is in jail, but he wouldn't be the first and won't be the last.

 

[JamesRustle]

Good opportunity for fat head to lose some weight.

 

[Aliceinwonderland]

Agree on all points. Especially considering the amount of wrongful convictions that have been overturned thanks to developments in DNA evidence. Sometimes you can get a jury made up of the 12 dumbest people in the country or a bunch of people who just don't like the look of you. Based on the 1st and 2nd trials and the lengthy deadlock in the 3rd, I find it hard to believe that he was "guilty beyond reasonable doubt." If Hayne was telling the truth it sure would be a shame that an innocent man is in jail, but he wouldn't be the first and won't be the last.

I agree.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Former NRL player Jarryd Hayne guilty of sexual assault after third trial

A jury finds former NRL star Jarryd Hayne guilty of sexually assaulting a woman in her bedroom more than four years ago, after a third trial over the allegations.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Corner_Post]

facts:
- 2 juries found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt with 1 jury hung.
- all these juries would be privy to a lot more information then we would have and have been attending court day in and day out hearing all evidence.
- his appeal was allowed on a technicality.

 

[Corner_Post]

Just calling a jury dumb because you don’t agree with their decision is one of the most dumb duck things I have heard. 2 f**ken juries have convicted him. The probabilities of them being all dumb twice - particularly in a sexual assault case where rate of conviction is generally low is f**king low. Not saying this should necessarily influence decision but this is from a guy who already paid off someone $100k in a civil sexual assault case in USA. But hey if you think you know he is not guilty by media reports and speculation rather than 2 juries who have been in court for the whole case than go for it.

 

[Ruby Roundhouse]

Just calling a jury dumb because you don’t agree with their decision is one of the most dumb duck things I have heard. 2 f**ken juries have convicted him. The probabilities of them being all dumb twice - particularly in a sexual assault case where rate of conviction is generally low is f**king low. Not saying this should necessarily influence decision but this is from a guy who already paid off someone $100k in a civil sexual assault case in USA. But hey if you think you know he is not guilty by media reports and speculation rather than 2 juries who have been in court for the whole case than go for it.

Yeah, these people are typical moron footy fans. Glad the rapist piece of shit was found guilty.

Rot.

 

[Apey]

Just calling a jury dumb because you don’t agree with their decision is one of the most dumb duck things I have heard. 2 f**ken juries have convicted him. The probabilities of them being all dumb twice - particularly in a sexual assault case where rate of conviction is generally low is f**king low. Not saying this should necessarily influence decision but this is from a guy who already paid off someone $100k in a civil sexual assault case in USA. But hey if you think you know he is not guilty by media reports and speculation rather than 2 juries who have been in court for the whole case than go for it.

Typical footy fan shit really.

 

[fourplay]

Just calling a jury dumb because you don’t agree with their decision is one of the most dumb duck things I have heard. 2 f**ken juries have convicted him. The probabilities of them being all dumb twice - particularly in a sexual assault case where rate of conviction is generally low is f**king low. Not saying this should necessarily influence decision but this is from a guy who already paid off someone $100k in a civil sexual assault case in USA. But hey if you think you know he is not guilty by media reports and speculation rather than 2 juries who have been in court for the whole case than go for it.

Read properly next time before you have a cry. No one directly called a specific jury dumb, just that it's possible to sometimes get a dumb or bias jury hence why wrongful convictions DO occur in our legal system. That you take a critique of our legal system as a whole and apply it to a single case and then have a big cry is your own doing.

Lastly, police investigated his sexual assault case in the USA for 6 months and found that he had no case to answer.

facts:
- 2 juries found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt with 1 jury hung.
- all these juries would be privy to a lot more information then we would have and have been attending court day in and day out hearing all evidence.
- his appeal was allowed on a technicality.

Translation of your facts:
- One of the juries who had access to these mountains of evidence that we were not privy to and had been attending court "day in and day out" contained jurors who believed Hayne was not guilty.
- The "technicality" you refer to was a jury being given "profoundly wrong" legal directions.
- The third jury could not reach a verdict for 5 days which means that jurors on this jury, at least initially, also did not believe beyond reasonable doubt that Hayne was guilty.