News Jarryd Hayne sexual assault trials

[Danish]

Imagine if Wally Lewis was convicted of rape does that mean an entire decade of the game is wiped from history

Not sure how?

For a start Lewis never even won a dally M, not to mention I don’t see how revoking individual honours have any effect on the games that individual played in.

it’s not like they are talking about revoking his try tally or something and want to alter all of parra’s results to remove points scored by Hayne

 

[edabomb]

Hard to believe people are realistically suggesting his achievements be stricken from the record. Much more value in Hayne being a cautionary tale for for those coming up the ranks about how bad decisions can take away everything you've earnt - lack of freedom being a far better illustration of this than awards. If only there was a great saying about those who deny history being destined to make the same mistakes.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

I really don't get all this 'strip him of the Dally M, put an asterixis next to it' stuff.

People will do that themselves. In fact, keeping him in there will probably better serve to remind everyone what a piece of shit convicted rapist he is.

And the lame comparison to Jobe Watson, or the Melbourne Storm circa 2007-09, both of those groups were found to have 'cheated' (Watson for testing positive for a banned substance, Melbourne for being massive salary cap cheats). Hayne didn't win the Dally M by being a POS rapist.

Where do we stop...do we take away his Origin series win? His Parra POTYs (if he won any)? Any game he was involved in and won, is that now a loss?

There's no need to change history. He won the Dally M in 2009 and 2014, and is now going to jail for rape. There's your cold, hard, likely irreparable facts (unless he wins an appeal)

 

[Floodwaters]

I really don't get all this 'strip him of the Dally M, put an asterixis next to it' stuff.

People will do that themselves. In fact, keeping him in there will probably better serve to remind everyone what a piece of shit convicted rapist he is.

And the lame comparison to Jobe Watson, or the Melbourne Storm circa 2007-09, both of those groups were found to have 'cheated' (Watson for testing positive for a banned substance, Melbourne for being massive salary cap cheats). Hayne didn't win the Dally M by being a POS rapist.

Where do we stop...do we take away his Origin series win? His Parra POTYs (if he won any)? Any game he was involved in and won, is that now a loss?

There's no need to change history. He won the Dally M in 2009 and is now going to jail for rape. There's your cold, hard, likely irreparable facts (unless he wins an appeal)

Take away the 3 or 4 wooden spoons

 

[6 more kfc buckets]

Does this mean his headbutt on Billy Slater would also be wiped from the record books. Some say its his greatest achievement

 

[King hit]

Or the Maroons 8 straight victories becomes awkward to look at because you see Hayne on the highlights

 

[soc123_au]

5 years in jail and Hayne didn't even get to blow a load LMAO

Probably did in gaol. A good prostate massage will do the trick.

 

[Marshall_magic]

I really don't get all this 'strip him of the Dally M, put an asterixis next to it' stuff.

People will do that themselves. In fact, keeping him in there will probably better serve to remind everyone what a piece of shit convicted rapist he is.

And the lame comparison to Jobe Watson, or the Melbourne Storm circa 2007-09, both of those groups were found to have 'cheated' (Watson for testing positive for a banned substance, Melbourne for being massive salary cap cheats). Hayne didn't win the Dally M by being a POS rapist.

Where do we stop...do we take away his Origin series win? His Parra POTYs (if he won any)? Any game he was involved in and won, is that now a loss?

There's no need to change history. He won the Dally M in 2009 and 2014, and is now going to jail for rape. There's your cold, hard, likely irreparable facts (unless he wins an appeal)

Stripping him would be a PR move and nothing else. If Joey got to keep his medal then there’s no ground to strip Jarryd of his. It’s not the games fault he did something shit after the fact.

For the record, I don’t think Joey should have his medals stripped either.

 

[Sphagnum]

Lol. Cancel culture is the lamest part of this dystopian shithole that we live in. Just rewrite history whenever it suits you. Wonder how long that’s actually been happening.

 

[Corner_Post]

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.




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.

Seriously fourplay - I have read a heap of dumbshit on these forums but your posts have to be right up there.

So seriously after reading your posts, what the f**k are you trying to say? so you believe he is not guilty or guilty and if so why?

And yes, the technicalities were relating to 2/4 items that were appealed. And why the f**k do you quote "profoundly wrong" that is what the defence put forward rather than being fact. This just goes to show you seriously know f**k all. Also more importantly, one of those appeal grounds that was put forward and was rejected was that: "Firstly, that the complainant’s evidence was so inconsistent that it was unreasonable for the jury to find Mr Hayne guilty. This means that it would have been open to the jury to accept the complainant’s evidence, had adequate directions been provided." There are cases where this has been allowed but not in this case.

Also you note that the 3rd jury took 5 days for the jurors to make a decision. So what if they took 5 days? Seriously what the f**k? You think everything should be an open/shut case? what about if jurors just wanted to carefully consider all the evidence and not rush to any conclusions or they just wanted to confirm, re-confirm etc. and want to hear from everyone - you don't know what happened behind closed doors at all? But no - you reach the conclusion that certain jurors did not at least initially believe beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty...

Also note, there was also evidence provided in closed court sessions that the public is also not privy to.

Again after reading your posts, what are you trying to say? it appears that you don't believe he is guilty based on the number of trials and time that jurors took to convict? If so I am glad you do not formulate our justice system...

 

[Apey]

Again after reading your posts, what are you trying to say?

Parra fan - prob under 25 years old, Hayne an idol, etc.

 

[marshall stalin]

It is not without a possibility that the jury could have arrived at the wrong verdict though and countless court cases around the world demonstrate that fact.

People being convicted for crimes they didn't commit and many years later found to have not committed the crime and not solely because of new advanced methods for testing DNA.

It is a flawed system as how many of the jury had no knowledge of the case - none i would suggest as it was well published so many may have already formed an opinion of his guilt prior to the trials commencement.

Like the 12 angry men movie all but the Henry Fonda character thought the young fellow was guilty for a variety of reasons and many of these were not connected to the actually case in question or the evidence and witness testimony.

Whose is to say the jury didn't come to their verdict based on other factors - their knowledge of the case from TV news/press reports /previous trials / dislike of Haynes/ Dislike of Rugby League players or a range of other reasons.

It's a classic he said she said case - she saying no and hayne saying she never said that which is the crux of the case - consent

She was also under the impression this could be something long term until of course the infamous taxi and the driver beeping the horn which shifted things in her mind. This caused the possibility of sexual activity between them to "evaporate" for her.

I find this strange the text messages between the victim and someone who would later become a defence witness especially as it was deleted.

During the trial, the jury was told Mr Page’s evidence was deleted off the woman’s phone before she handed it to police.

What we couldn’t tell you until Jarryd Hayne was found guilty of sexual assault

‘You f***ed the appeal’: Hayne victim’s outburst revealed after guilty verdict

www.foxsports.com.au

If an appeal is granted will there be a 4th trial ?

I think there are some grey areas in this case as per below - why would you delete 22 messages from your mobile phone before speaking to police

“I never lied to police, I never deleted evidence, I never hid witnesses, do the maths,” Hayne said.

He refused to comment when asked if he thought he had a fair trial.

“Did I lie? Did I lie? That’s factual evidence,” he said.

Hayne was referring to evidence heard before the jury that the victim had deleted 22 messages from her mobile phone before speaking to police.

Deleted messages include some sent to Hayne, a friend and another man on the day of the assault.

Hayne indicates legal saga far from over after being found guilty on rape charges

The former NRL star was found guilty in his third trial - but comments outside court indicate that he could appeal the verdict.

7news.com.au

 

[marshall stalin]

Seriously fourplay - I have read a heap of dumbshit on these forums but your posts have to be right up there.

So seriously after reading your posts, what the f**k are you trying to say? so you believe he is not guilty or guilty and if so why?

And yes, the technicalities were relating to 2/4 items that were appealed. And why the f**k do you quote "profoundly wrong" that is what the defence put forward rather than being fact. This just goes to show you seriously know f**k all. Also more importantly, one of those appeal grounds that was put forward and was rejected was that: "Firstly, that the complainant’s evidence was so inconsistent that it was unreasonable for the jury to find Mr Hayne guilty. This means that it would have been open to the jury to accept the complainant’s evidence, had adequate directions been provided." There are cases where this has been allowed but not in this case.

Also you note that the 3rd jury took 5 days for the jurors to make a decision. So what if they took 5 days? Seriously what the f**k? You think everything should be an open/shut case? what about if jurors just wanted to carefully consider all the evidence and not rush to any conclusions or they just wanted to confirm, re-confirm etc. and want to hear from everyone - you don't know what happened behind closed doors at all? But no - you reach the conclusion that certain jurors did not at least initially believe beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty...

Also note, there was also evidence provided in closed court sessions that the public is also not privy to.

Again after reading your posts, what are you trying to say? it appears that you don't believe he is guilty based on the number of trials and time that jurors took to convict? If so I am glad you do not formulate our justice system...

So you have always asked consent to have intimate activities with someone - mmm if not that person could have also gone to the police and have you charged with rape as well - then your fate is decided by 12 people who may have a dislike of you for whatever reason and find you guilty

Convicted on hearsay - she said he said - she said no and hayne saying she didn't say that.- no witnesses

The case revolves around the taxi and the beeping of the horn - she was keen for some activites with Hayne thinking it would lead to something - the taxi changed that to the point that she felt he was there was there for one thing and then would leave and that would be that.

Some of the 22 text messages she deleted before going to the police allude to this meeting.

Hayne was referring to evidence heard before the jury that the victim had deleted 22 messages from her mobile phone before speaking to police.

Deleted messages include some sent to Hayne, a friend and another man on the day of the assault.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

Stripping him would be a PR move and nothing else. If Joey got to keep his medal then there’s no ground to strip Jarryd of his. It’s not the games fault he did something shit after the fact.

For the record, I don’t think Joey should have his medals stripped either.

Why Joey, because he did drugs?

You're right, it would be a PR move. And it's not needed. There are no mothers wailing outside the court room that NRL players are rapists and oh no spare my child, I won't let them watch the game. There's very little fallout from this apart from to Jarryd Hayne.

I hate the term cancel culture and I don't think it's the right word here...but it's something similar. It's revisionist BS, to try and change something that happened. As I said, I'm OK with that if the achievement was aided by something illegal (performance enhancing drugs, cheating etc) but not in this instance.

 

[Marshall_magic]

Why Joey, because he did drugs?

You're right, it would be a PR move. And it's not needed. There are no mothers wailing outside the court room that NRL players are rapists and oh no spare my child, I won't let them watch the game. There's very little fallout from this apart from to Jarryd Hayne.

I hate the term cancel culture and I don't think it's the right word here...but it's something similar. It's revisionist BS, to try and change something that happened. As I said, I'm OK with that if the achievement was aided by something illegal (performance enhancing drugs, cheating etc) but not in this instance.

yes, if Joey can admit to being on the gear during his career and keep his medals (rightfully so), then Jarryd should keep his regardless of what happened after his career. What Joey did would have had been more likely to affect his performance.

If Jarryd had an honour named after him, and they wanted to change that then it’s a different debate altogether.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

I

yes, if Joey can admit to being on the gear during his career and keep his medals (rightfully so), then Jarryd should keep his regardless of what happened after his career. What Joey did would have had been more likely to affect his performance.

If Jarryd had an honour named after him, and they wanted to change that then it’s a different debate altogether.

Hmmm you're going down a tricky path if you're going to take Dally Ms off drug takers. There might a few hand-backs.

And it's also an interesting comparison that drug taker is equal to rapist.

 

[soc123_au]

I

Hmmm you're going down a tricky path if you're going to take Dally Ms off drug takers. There might a few hand-backs.

And it's also an interesting comparison that drug taker is equal to rapist.

You shouldn't be stripping legitimate awards of anyone no matter what horrors they commit after the fact. The only time should be is if its discovered a misdeed contributed directly to them winning whatever it was.

If Adolf Hitler won the Austrian National Yodeling Championship in 1921 then it should stand. Being a Merkin down the track doesn't change anything. Modifying history to appease peoples sensitivities is a slippery slope.

The Joey thing is interesting. The drug thing could be argued either way re performance enhancement. History in that case should be left alone imo. Awarding Immortal Status after it all came out is a head scratcher though.

 

[Bazal]

You shouldn't be stripping legitimate awards of anyone no matter what horrors they commit after the fact. The only time should be is if its discovered a misdeed contributed directly to them winning whatever it was.

If Adolf Hitler won the Austrian National Yodeling Championship in 1921 then it should stand. Being a Merkin down the track doesn't change anything. Modifying history to appease peoples sensitivities is a slippery slope.

I mean I don't fully agree and I don't think it's about sensitivity but I do think that it would take something pretty horrible to justify stripping an individual award. Like, I'm not sure you'd want Martin Bryant recognised in the history books as the Players Player.

I don't think stripping a Dally M is the right call in this case but it also means nothing because stripping is symbolic anyway, it's not like they're sending someone to rifle through his place and take the medals back. He'll always be the best player (/tied) in those years whether they do or not

 

[Corner_Post]

So you have always asked consent to have intimate activities with someone - mmm if not that person could have also gone to the police and have you charged with rape as well - then your fate is decided by 12 people who may have a dislike of you for whatever reason and find you guilty

Convicted on hearsay - she said he said - she said no and hayne saying she didn't say that.- no witnesses

The case revolves around the taxi and the beeping of the horn - she was keen for some activites with Hayne thinking it would lead to something - the taxi changed that to the point that she felt he was there was there for one thing and then would leave and that would be that.

Some of the 22 text messages she deleted before going to the police allude to this meeting.

Hayne was referring to evidence heard before the jury that the victim had deleted 22 messages from her mobile phone before speaking to police.

Deleted messages include some sent to Hayne, a friend and another man on the day of the assault.

Marshall Stalin - seriously what the f**k? convicted on hearsay? there is seriously a lot of clueless shit here. The case does not just f**king revolve around the taxi beeping the horn.

f**k - do you even know what hearsay is? It clearly appears you do not as you have used it in the completely wrong context and it would in nearly all cases be inadmissable.

Your whole post is a complete fail.

 

[Mr Angry]

Fascists try to re-write history, it is there way.

Hayne was once a great league player, award winning at the time, is now a convicted felon.

Sad but true.

Ban the book.