News Jarryd Hayne sexual assault trials

[the phantom menace]

Alright, so you claim that anyone who gives Hayne the benefit of the doubt is a piece of shit, but then say people who sat inside the court room and listened to weeks of evidence and decided that Hayne was not guilty are not pieces of shit. Real sound logic.

But no-one actually decided he was not guilty, apart from an unspecified number (possibly as low as two out of 12) in the jury of the very first trial.

The jury verdict in this trial was unanimous. As was the previous trial's verdict - which was only set aside on appeal via a technicality.

 

[fourplay]

But no-one actually decided he was not guilty, apart from an unspecified number (possibly as low as two out of 12) in the jury of the very first trial.

Read that sentence again.

And like I said, there were jurors who sat through weeks of evidence who had access to information that we were not privy to who did not believe that Hayne was guilty, so there is no need for the other mental midgets to have a big cry and tantrum if other members of the public also still give Hayne the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Chimp]

haha reckon anyone would give a f**k about trying to defend him if he wasn't a footy player they liked at some point?

Reckon the authorities would have given enough of a f**k to send a ‘he said, she said’ case like this to course if he wasn’t a footy player people liked at some point?

 

[SLRBRONCOS]

Get rekt

 

[Ruby Roundhouse]

I actually think they would. Like I’m sure there are some Parra/NSW super fans who try and defend him because of his footy but mostly I think the people trying to defend him are the same merkins who always want to give men the BOTD, and some how think women are out there on masse putting themselves through all kinds of bullshit just to put poor innocent men behind bars

real blokes advice types

Spot on, sums it up perfectly.

 

[nick87]

Alright, so you claim that anyone who gives Hayne the benefit of the doubt is a piece of shit, but then say people who sat inside the court room and listened to weeks of evidence and decided that Hayne was not guilty are not pieces of shit. Real sound logic. Best you lay off the lead crayons for a while.

No. I quite clearly specified that anyone who still gives him the botd now after the three trials is a piece of shit. More pointedly I said you were a piece of shit

the jurors in the second trial are out of scope since they made their call BEFORE the third trial.
As would be f**king obvious to anyone who can f**king read, which in fairness appears to exclude a simpleton like you.

He’s had three trials and none have come back with a unanimous verdict of not guilty. Not one. Do you know how f**king hard it is for a he said, she said to case like this to obtain two clear convictions in three trials? Can you even imagine the evidence they’d have to present and how compelling their case would have to be to achieve a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt?

Two juries have come back as guilty and one was deadlocked and unable to unanimously agree. (Though it appears like the third was mostly leaning guilty too with a few who may be as little as 2/12 hold outs)… three juries have heard all the evidence and none of them felt convince enough to render a unanimous verdict in his favour . And two agreed he was guilty. But you don’t believe them. Lol.

But by all means keep showing us who you are and what you stand for. It’s revealing.

 

[the phantom menace]

Read that sentence again.

And like I said, there were jurors who sat through weeks of evidence who had access to information that we were not privy to who did not believe that Hayne was guilty, so there is no need for the other mental midgets to have a big cry and tantrum if other members of the public also still give Hayne the benefit of the doubt.

Two unanimous verdicts (24 guilty) and one previous hung jury (maybe 10 guilty 2 not guilty).

It's up to individuals if they want to give this convicted sexual assaulter the benefit of the doubt... but going by the juror numbers they'd be in the dimmest 5% of the population.

 

[JamesRustle]

Hayne calling Geoff Bellew to see of he can get a charge downgrade and if not, an early guilty plea back on the table.

 

[betcats]

He has had 3 chances to be found not guilty and not once has he been found so. I mean you can talk about the length of time this jury took to find him guilty and decide well there must be some reasonable doubt but really the most telling fact beyond this guilty verdict is 3 seperate juries could not decide he was not guilty. You only need to read this thread to find out some people will never believe a famous footy player assaulted a woman no matter what the evidence is.

 

[Pneuma]

Blokes guilty. Move on.

 

[nick87]

He has had 3 chances to be found not guilty and not once has he been found so. I mean you can talk about the length of time this jury took to find him guilty and decide well there must be some reasonable doubt but really the most telling fact beyond this guilty verdict is 3 seperate juries could not decide he was not guilty. You only need to read this thread to find out some people will never believe a famous footy player assaulted a woman no matter what the evidence is.

some real incel vibes from a few in this thread

 

[Floodwaters]

I don't know law but no wonder the legal system is logged up when a bloke gets found guilty twice and can still appeal lol

 

[Floodwaters]

he was accused of assault in the states when he was with the niners too.

Paid the victim off.

 

[Bazal]

Cases like this, from a purely detached legal viewpoint, are difficult because it largely relies on who the jury finds more credible. There's not really a mountain of evidence either way. So yeah, some of the points about juries and wrongful convictions are at least related, for sure. No system is perfect.

I've got a view on what I think happened like I think most people do, but this being a public forum is probably not the place for it.

And before wastes of life like Bartman get the wrong idea, my view on what happened loosely matches what the jury determined. I'm not defending him. Two juries found him guilty, not just one, and a third was close. Which I find somewhat surprising given the case against him (at least what we've seen of it) but don't disagree with.

 

[Apey]

Reckon the authorities would have given enough of a f**k to send a ‘he said, she said’ case like this to course if he wasn’t a footy player people liked at some point?

You think footy players are the only ones who go to court over this sort of stuff? Oh hun.

 

[fourplay]

No. I quite clearly specified that anyone who still gives him the botd now after the three trials is a piece of shit. More pointedly I said you were a piece of shit

the jurors in the second trial are out of scope since they made their call BEFORE the third trial.
As would be f**king obvious to anyone who can f**king read, which in fairness appears to exclude a simpleton like you.

He’s had three trials and none have come back with a unanimous verdict of not guilty. Not one. Do you know how f**king hard it is for a he said, she said to case like this to obtain two clear convictions in three trials? Can you even imagine the evidence they’d have to present and how compelling their case would have to be to achieve a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt?

Two juries have come back as guilty and one was deadlocked and unable to unanimously agree. (Though it appears like the third was mostly leaning guilty too with a few who may be as little as 2/12 hold outs)… three juries have heard all the evidence and none of them felt convince enough to render a unanimous verdict in his favour . And two agreed he was guilty. But you don’t believe them. Lol.

But by all means keep showing us who you are and what you stand for. It’s revealing.

So what if the jurors who sat through mountains of evidence, which you did not, are STILL walking around today believing that he is not guilty? Do you think you know more than them?

You don't. So stop crying because someone has or leans towards the same opinion as a juror who sat inside the court room day in day out. It's absolutely pathetic.

It's up to individuals if they want to give him the benefit of the doubt...

A great burst of insight. Still waiting for the crayon eater to reach the same conclusion.

some real incel vibes from a few in this thread

It takes a real brave man to have almost 12k posts on a forum in under 10 years and still throw around the incel word.

 

[nick87]

The only crying I see here is coming for the desperate he-man who are upset a footy player is being held accountable for his abhorrent actions and who continue to insist he is innocent despite being through three trials and not one of them feeling the evidence justified a unanimous verdict in his favour.

I don’t profess to know more than the juries. They’ve found him guilty and I respect their decision understanding they have all the facts. You however, with all your wisdom seem convinced he’s innocent because… reasons! It’s in fact you who seems to think he knows more than the juries who convicted him. Not me who is accepting their decision

but again, that’s just a reflection on you and what you’re about. As for the jury members who may still believe he’s innocent, I would suggest they’re almost certain probably people like you who would never be convinced otherwise regardless of the evidence which is why we have the justice system we do, so shit bags can’t pervert the course of justice

Hayne is a convicted sexual offender. After three trials, two convicted and one hung. None came back close to an affirmative in his favour. You, Hayne and the other he-men will have to come to terms with that one day

 

[Floodwaters]

Hayne's only got 2 years 11 months of the original sentence still to serve, unless the sentence length gets altered (in either direction) on Thursday.

Hope he brings his Hillsong bible with him to sentencing so he can celebrate Good Friday in the slammer, like the good christian (hypocrite) he obviously is...

It's a new trial so he could easily get a bigger sentence this time.

I read on line Hayne hasn't got alot of money left, so it's a huge fall from grace, If he could catch a punt in the NFL he'd be worth 10s of millions.

 

[Floodwaters]

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?

He pulled her pants off had a lick for 30 seconds and jammed her with a couple fingers which all the evidence shows she didn't want it or concent to it so imo the jury come to the correct verdict.

 

[fourplay]

As for the jury members who may still believe he’s innocent, I would suggest they’re almost certain probably people like you who would never be convinced otherwise regardless of the evidence which is why we have the justice system we do, so shit bags can’t pervert the course of justice

So now you are even attacking individual jury members and suggesting they ignored evidence, despite not being in the court room and having no knowledge of what the evidence even was. People who sat through WEEKS of evidence and testimony. Unbelievable. This might even be a new low for you. I suspected I was talking to someone mentally unhinged but this just confirms it.