Corner_Post
Juniors
- Messages
- 2,092
This is wrong in so many areas... seriously it pisses me off how wrong this is no matter which side you may have an opinion of.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 verdictwww.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
The main part of why this is wrong and actually why I am so pissed off at this dumb shit (not usually this angry but this stuff really bugs me when people just have no idea about serious issues). This part particularly is dumb:
"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... "
This is seriously just f**ked up. You're referring to consent. So where is the consent???????????????????????????????
Too many people are watching too many movies/tv shows and reading media reports which actually are not doing a very good job at reporting what the main legal issues are. Actually is very frustrating because it is important that the greater public understand these cases to ensure that these crimes are prevented from happening in the future or at the very least reduced.
