Solved Jarryd Hayne - Found Guilty (Again) for 2018 Se#ual Assault..

[ZionMig22]

Surprised to see no thread on this bloke.

Found guilty for the 2nd time for the Sexual Assault in 2018.

Not the first rodeo for Hayne as he paid $100k to another victim in the US before quitting the NFL and coming home.

‘I did not lie’: Jarryd Hayne pledges appeal after being found guilty of 2018 sexual assault

‘I did not lie’: Hayne pledges appeal after being found guilty of 2018 sexual assault

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Sqotty from office works]

Lots of people on the rugby page told us he's the greatest sportsman the country has produced.
He's now the most goaled for sex crimes sportsman NSW has produced.
In the words of chopper "he's just another bare bum in the shower".

 

[FrankGrimes]

Scumbag, who pays $550 for a taxi for a random hookup, blokes a DH.

 

[jason_recliner]

"the greatest sportsman the country has produced."

LMFAO!!!

 

[ZionMig22]

Scumbag, who pays $550 for a taxi for a random hookup, blokes a DH.

And had a track record for the same thing in the US

Leaving a $1.5M USD contract to avoid prison

 

[HirdsTheWord]

And had a track record for the same thing in the US

Leaving a $1.5M USD contract to avoid prison

i actually totally forgot he settled a sexual assault case in the US.

seems a pig of a bloke

 

[Kurve]

Hayne's lawyer has argued he would be a target if his bail was pulled before sentencing. Remand is a more volatile and dangerous place I suppose.

Hayne in danger of 'random gratuitous violence' in jail, judge says as he extends bail

Disgraced former NRL star Jarryd Hayne again walks free on bail despite being convicted of sexually assaulting a woman in Newcastle more than four years ago.

www.abc.net.au

 

[jason_recliner]

I'd take my chances in prison rather than spend another month with the wife if I'd done what he's done

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Hayne's lawyer has argued he would be a target if his bail was pulled before sentencing. Remand is a more volatile and dangerous place I suppose.

Hayne in danger of 'random gratuitous violence' in jail, judge says as he extends bail

Disgraced former NRL star Jarryd Hayne again walks free on bail despite being convicted of sexually assaulting a woman in Newcastle more than four years ago.

www.abc.net.au

Since when is being high profile an excuse to get bail when guilty...

 

[tandino]

Does he get credit for time served for the first time round?

 

[Kurve]

Hayne might have his bail pulled.

Prosecutors lodge bid to overturn Jarryd Hayne's bail decision

The former NRL player faces a second bail hearing in as many weeks as prosecutors again seek to have him remanded in custody ahead of sentencing for sexual assault.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Angry Red Bull]

She was chasing Hayne. Wanted more than sex but wasn't averse to just sex. Even texted him teasing him how good it would be to have him f**K her. When he turned up drunk and with taxi waiting she was massively annoyed.

This is a case of immediately opposite accounts. She said she said no repeatedly. He said she gave consent just not for penetrative sex. When it's opposite accounts and the only evidence is what each said then the decision has to be determined on basis of which account is more sustainable, believable to a standard of veracity beyond reasonable doubt. That is the decision. If there is even a hint that what she said wasn't true or was embellished then you must conclude reasonable doubt in my view.

In her favour is she texted her friend that night and said she said no but the exchange seemed to be more concerned with how rough he was and consequences .....causing a bleed (hayne says was from his nail) than lack of consent. it was her friend that labelled it rape not her. Why? That is a little disturbing tbh. She had to be convinced it was rape? What amongst her own behaviours gave her doubt to it's character? If she didn't intend ANY sexual exchange at all (because she was annoyed) then why go to the bedroom at all?.......just stay in lounge room and tell him so.

Against her is the now acknowledged fact that she deleted numerous texts between her and Hayne and her and the other friend who was scheduled to hook up with her that night.That is dishonest and an attempt to tamper with evidence. She even visited the other guy when he came forward and harassed him that he had "wrecked her case." Seriously? For me this is dishonest behaviour and must undermine her veracity even if just slightly. What else is she prepared to lie about?

Given that:

* She was incredibly angry with him and has a vengeful nature (as shown with texts with the other guy) leaving a taxi waiting and is prone to lie
*She deleted messages to hide evidence
*She herself had to be convinced it was rape
* He is a target for civil case claim

I cannot conclude beyond reasonable doubt there was a rape. Perhaps she said no. Perhaps she has fabricated she did to hurt Hayne with whom she had a romantic intent then destroyed when all he wanted was a random hook up.

I believe a plausible alternative explanation available in the evidence was that she wanted a relationship not a hook up and was annoyed he only wanted sex and so sought to punish him and create a civil claim by saying she repeatedly said no when she had consented

This case seems to follow a trend of case decisions where seemingly the decision is balance of probability NOT beyond reasonable doubt. The trend is disturbing tbh.

 

[Kurve]

She was chasing Hayne. Wanted more than sex but wasn't averse to just sex. Even texted him teasing him how good it would be to have him f**K her. When he turned up drunk and with taxi waiting she was massively annoyed.

This is a case of immediately opposite accounts. She said she said no repeatedly. He said she gave consent just not for penetrative sex. When it's opposite accounts and the only evidence is what each said then the decision has to be determined on basis of which account is more sustainable, believable to a standard of veracity beyond reasonable doubt. That is the decision. If there is even a hint that what she said wasn't true or was embellished then you must conclude reasonable doubt in my view.

In her favour is she texted her friend that night and said she said no but the exchange seemed to be more concerned with how rough he was and consequences .....causing a bleed (hayne says was from his nail) than lack of consent. it was her friend that labelled it rape not her. Why? That is a little disturbing tbh. She had to be convinced it was rape? What amongst her own behaviours gave her doubt to it's character? If she didn't intend ANY sexual exchange at all (because she was annoyed) then why go to the bedroom at all?.......just stay in lounge room and tell him so.

Against her is the now acknowledged fact that she deleted numerous texts between her and Hayne and her and the other friend who was scheduled to hook up with her that night.That is dishonest and an attempt to tamper with evidence. She even visited the other guy when he came forward and harassed him that he had "wrecked her case." Seriously? For me this is dishonest behaviour and must undermine her veracity even if just slightly. What else is she prepared to lie about?

Given that:

* She was incredibly angry with him and has a vengeful nature (as shown with texts with the other guy) leaving a taxi waiting and is prone to lie
*She deleted messages to hide evidence
*She herself had to be convinced it was rape
* He is a target for civil case claim

I cannot conclude beyond reasonable doubt there was a rape. Perhaps she said no. Perhaps she has fabricated she did to hurt Hayne with whom she had a romantic intent then destroyed when all he wanted was a random hook up.

I believe a plausible alternative explanation available in the evidence was that she wanted a relationship not a hook up and was annoyed he only wanted sex and so sought to punish him and create a civil claim by saying she repeatedly said no when she had consented

This case seems to follow a trend of case decisions where seemingly the decision is balance of probability NOT beyond reasonable doubt. The trend is disturbing tbh.

Two juries, not one but two, have found him guilty.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Two juries, not one but two, have found him guilty.

Three actually. And all three were hung for extended time for the reasons I've outlined imo. The first one was hung unresolved. The last two were hung until resolved with guilt after long delay.

 

[Kurve]

Three actually. And all three were hung for extended time for the reasons I've outlined imo. The first one was hung unresolved. The last two were hung until resolved with guilt after long delay.

What's the 'disturbing trend' you're concerned about? Accountability?

You weren't on the jury and you weren't there, two juries that were to hear all the evidence found him guilty. He's copped his right whack.

 

[Kurve]

Here in the video within this article, the press ask Hayne if he will appeal the jurie's decision and while he responds with 'Yeh, pretty confident' his wife standing beside him shakes her head in the negative.

Jarryd Hayne back behind bars ahead of sentencing for rape

The former NRL star has had his bail revoked by a Supreme Court judge ahead of his sentencing hearing next month.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Angry Red Bull]

What's the 'disturbing trend' you're concerned about? Accountability?

You weren't on the jury and you weren't there, two juries that were to hear all the evidence found him guilty. He's copped his right whack.

The disturbing trend is deciding cases on balance of propability than on reasonable doubt.

To have reasonable doubt the prosecution must exclude any other plausible explanation. That is the test. I've outlined she was deceitful and prone to vengeance and has started a civil claim. Pretty clear to me that the possibility exists she embellished her testimony about consent. The explanation I've outlined was entirely possible and therefore creates reasonable doubt. To conclude otherwise you'd have to consider it 100% truthful about lack of consent when she has been shown to be deceitful on other critical things .

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Here in the video within this article, the press ask Hayne if he will appeal the jurie's decision and while he responds with 'Yeh, pretty confident' his wife standing beside him shakes her head in the negative.

Jarryd Hayne back behind bars ahead of sentencing for rape

The former NRL star has had his bail revoked by a Supreme Court judge ahead of his sentencing hearing next month.

www.smh.com.au

You want to suggest her reaction is a sign of guilt? More likely she has had enough pain from the trauma

 

[Kurve]

I've outlined she was deceitful and prone to vengeance and has started a civil claim. Pretty clear to me that the possibility exists she embellished her testimony about consent. The explanation I've outlined was entirely possible and therefore creates reasonable doubt. To conclude otherwise you've have to consider it 100% truthful about lack of consent when she has been shown to be deceitful on other critical things .

So what if she started a civil claim? You think all those images of her bleeding after his assault were manufactured?

Character assassination of a rape victim, particularly when it's carried through after guilt has been established is evidence of a disturbingly backwards, misogynistic mindset.

The disturbing trend is deciding cases on balance of propability than on reasonable doubt.

The case was decided beyond all reasonable doubt with unanimous decision.

 

[Kurve]

You want to suggest her reaction is a sign of guilt? More likely she has had enough pain from the trauma

Yep. Mrs. Hayne is no longer in denial and accepts the jury's made the correct decision. imo.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

So what if she started a civil claim? You think all those images of her bleeding after his assault were manufactured?

Character assassination of a rape victim, particularly when it's carried through after guilt has been established is evidence of a disturbingly backwards, misogynistic mindset.



The case was decided beyond all reasonable doubt with unanimous decision.

Character assassination? SHE deleted messages to influence her case. No assassination. Just truth. She is prone to deceit.

 

[Kurve]

Character assassination? SHE deleted messages to influence her case. No assassination. Just truth. She is prone to deceit.

That isn't evidence of someone who is 'prone to deceit' and has no bearing on what actually occurred after Hayne got there.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

That isn't evidence of someone who is 'prone to deceit' and has no bearing on what actually occurred after Hayne got there.

What happened as a fact after he got there will be either according to Hayne or alternatively her story. He said she said and different. To determine which story is to be believed the propensity of one or other to hide evidence is entirely relevant because it shows deceit. It was done to hide texts to paint her story as the right one and by so doing shows that deceit.

 

[Kurve]

What happened as a fact after he got there will be either according to Hayne or alternatively her story. He said she said and different. To determine which story is to be believed the propensity of one or other to hide evidence is entirely relevant because it shows deceit. It was done to hide texts to paint her story as the right one and by so doing shows that deceit.

The text messages in question were before Hayne got there.

You're wrong.

 

[craffles]

Think I’ll stay out of this thread