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.
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.
You are painting yourself into a corner with your layman interpretation of the law- A Bush Lawyer view at most
So everyone you have ever had intimate activities with you have always sought their consent (even your partners ) and never once maybe took some advantage of the other person being a bit tipsy/flirtatious when they may not have wanted to go that far.
If you haven't obtained consent at all times then you are no better than Jarryd Hayne is then in your mind are you as only they would know if they had consented.
The landscape has certainly changed in the litigation world we now live in.
She said He said is very appropriate as there were no witnesses and that Taxi and beeping of the horn was a major factor in this case if you actually read the case notes.
Also ask yourself why would someone delete 22 text messages before going to the Police- If Hayne had done this you would be crucifying him for it.
Social media and other 24/7 media outlets have also changed the legal landscape in relation to hearsay
You would never be able to say that none of the jurors across the three trials had no knowledge of the case and never viewed news reports and especially social media sites where folk with supposedly first knowledge "knew" what had occurred or heard it from someone else with this supposedly first hand knowledge.
You would be hard pressed convincing anyone that jurors are not influenced by what they see/hear and read about in trials they have been empanelled on as a Juror in the 24/7 news/social media cycle we live under.