SA Footy

The Bedge wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:How do you know they can’t be 100% confident?

Because ultimately it's normal people listening to two peoples varied version of events.. and they've got to try and differentiate whose telling the truth, and whose not.

Absolutely and they found him guilty!
Good enough for me.

MW wrote:weren't here genitals damaged? I'd say that's not usually the case during consent...

She was scratched - common occurrence if people don't cut their fingernails.

whufc wrote:

The Bedge wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:How do you know they can’t be 100% confident?

Because ultimately it's normal people listening to two peoples varied version of events.. and they've got to try and differentiate whose telling the truth, and whose not.

Throw in the element that not only are they listening to varied version of events they are listening to some of the highest quality experts (lawyers) at telling a story in a scientifically studied /emotional manner to make you believe their version. This is why a good lawyer is worth $$$$$$

I’m sure Haynes spent more on his lawyers but still lost the case.

The Bedge wrote:

MW wrote:weren't here genitals damaged? I'd say that's not usually the case during consent...

She was scratched - common occurrence if people don't cut their fingernails.

The account i read it sounded like more than a "scratch"

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

The Bedge wrote:

MW wrote:weren't here genitals damaged? I'd say that's not usually the case during consent...

She was scratched - common occurrence if people don't cut their fingernails.

"Lacerations that bled profusely"...what is he the wolverine?

"The video, which was played to the jury, shows blood at the head of the bed, which backed up the woman’s account that she began inching up the bed when he began performing the sexual acts on her."

whufc wrote:Im sure the jury and judges have done their absolute best but I struggle to believe they genuinely can put their hand on their heart and 100% be confident they know 100% of the truth from what occurred.

Maybe because they were given the evidence and you weren't?

Booney wrote:

whufc wrote:Im sure the jury and judges have done their absolute best but I struggle to believe they genuinely can put their hand on their heart and 100% be confident they know 100% of the truth from what occurred.

Maybe because they were given the evidence and you weren't?

But what actual other evidence 100% proves anything other than two conversation the two people had in the room at that time given the nature of the case.

Like I said a text to one another before or after is not 100% proof, its just helps make a presumption. We have all sent a text that's not 100% true before.

I don't know, I wasn't in the court.

whufc wrote:

Booney wrote:

whufc wrote:Im sure the jury and judges have done their absolute best but I struggle to believe they genuinely can put their hand on their heart and 100% be confident they know 100% of the truth from what occurred.

Maybe because they were given the evidence and you weren't?

But what actual other evidence 100% proves anything other than two conversation the two people had in the room at that time given the nature of the case.

Like I said a text to one another before or after is not 100% proof, its just helps make a presumption. We have all sent a text that's not 100% true before.

Photos, videos, taped phone conversations.
All of which would have been shared with the jury and not the public.

whufc wrote:

Booney wrote:

whufc wrote:Im sure the jury and judges have done their absolute best but I struggle to believe they genuinely can put their hand on their heart and 100% be confident they know 100% of the truth from what occurred.

Maybe because they were given the evidence and you weren't?

But what actual other evidence 100% proves anything other than two conversation the two people had in the room at that time given the nature of the case.

Like I said a text to one another before or after is not 100% proof, its just helps make a presumption. We have all sent a text that's not 100% true before.

The required standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

This is a high threshold.

It means that the jury must be sure that the accused is guilty.

References to '100% proof' miss the point - where the jury is satisfied on the evidence presented that there is no reasonable explanation other than the accused's guilt, then this threshold has been met.

Based on the evidence this jury were given - including the testimony of Hayne and the complainant, and others, as well as the videos etc., they were sure he was guilty.

They reached the verdict because they were confident they knew the truth.

RB wrote:

whufc wrote:

Booney wrote:

whufc wrote:Im sure the jury and judges have done their absolute best but I struggle to believe they genuinely can put their hand on their heart and 100% be confident they know 100% of the truth from what occurred.

Maybe because they were given the evidence and you weren't?

But what actual other evidence 100% proves anything other than two conversation the two people had in the room at that time given the nature of the case.

Like I said a text to one another before or after is not 100% proof, its just helps make a presumption. We have all sent a text that's not 100% true before.

The required standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

This is a high threshold.

It means that the jury must be sure that the accused is guilty.

References to '100% proof' miss the point - where the jury is satisfied on the evidence presented that there is no reasonable explanation other than the accused's guilt, then this threshold has been met.

Based on the evidence this jury were given - including the testimony of Hayne and the complainant, and others, as well as the videos etc., they were sure he was guilty.

They reached the verdict because they were confident they knew the truth.

That's literally my point, that the verdicts are not based off 110% undisputable fact, its based on a confidence of the evidence that exists that does not mean it is 100 fact. This is always going to mean there is a seed of doubt in particular cases which are of a 'he said' / 'she said' nature. compared to say a clear cut murder case.

The only point I originally made is that I am comfortable with accepting a jury/judges decision its just these style cases are extremely messy and I honestly believe judges would admit they are much harder to reach a verdict than many other styles of cases. No surprise that his had two trials and two different results. Would we be surprise if his appeal is overturned....probably not.

You lose any argument when you use 110%.

Booney wrote:You lose any argument when you use 110%.

But is that fact or just beyond reasonable doubt

Booney wrote:

whufc wrote:Im sure the jury and judges have done their absolute best but I struggle to believe they genuinely can put their hand on their heart and 100% be confident they know 100% of the truth from what occurred.

Maybe because they were given the evidence and you weren't?

As were the jury in the Lindy Chamberlain trial. I'm a bit with WHUFC in terms of not passing a judgement on a case I don't personally know the answer to. I think regardless Hayne's done himself no favours though by treating a young lady disrespectfully, and just behaving like a dumb/shit bloke. As for his mates, I get that they wanna defend their friend, but by doing it via shaming the victim it's such shit form and an example should be made of them to better spread the word of protecting females in the community rather than sticking the boots in.

whufc wrote:

RB wrote:

whufc wrote:

Booney wrote:[quote="whufc"]
Im sure the jury and judges have done their absolute best but I struggle to believe they genuinely can put their hand on their heart and 100% be confident they know 100% of the truth from what occurred.

Maybe because they were given the evidence and you weren't?

But what actual other evidence 100% proves anything other than two conversation the two people had in the room at that time given the nature of the case.

Like I said a text to one another before or after is not 100% proof, its just helps make a presumption. We have all sent a text that's not 100% true before.

The required standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

This is a high threshold.

It means that the jury must be sure that the accused is guilty.

References to '100% proof' miss the point - where the jury is satisfied on the evidence presented that there is no reasonable explanation other than the accused's guilt, then this threshold has been met.

Based on the evidence this jury were given - including the testimony of Hayne and the complainant, and others, as well as the videos etc., they were sure he was guilty.

They reached the verdict because they were confident they knew the truth.

That's literally my point, that the verdicts are not based off 110% undisputable fact, its based on a confidence of the evidence that exists that does not mean it is 100 fact. This is always going to mean there is a seed of doubt in particular cases which are of a 'he said' / 'she said' nature. compared to say a clear cut murder case. [/quote]

What is '100% indisputable fact'? Any fact can be disputed by anybody at anytime.

You refer to a 'seed of doubt' - the jury convicted because they had no reasonable doubt.

This is not to say that they thought there was no absolutely possibility at all that Hayne was innocent - rather, they merely had to be satisfied that there was no innocent explanation that wasn't implausible, fanciful or contrary to common sense.

Perhaps you underestimate how many criminal cases are based in part or in whole on 'word-against-word' evidence.

How do you think anybody ever went down for anything before video cameras were invented?

Although no jury is perfect, there are so many (not unjustified) hurdles to securing convictions for sexual offences that wrongful convictions are exceptionally rare.

The jury saw the complainant undergo cross-examination. This is a sometimes brutal process and it is particularly difficult to succeed in given misleading testimony, let alone 'stitch up' the accused. The jury then had to assess the credibility of the evidence provided by the complainant (and other witnesses).

If the jury thought there was a reasonable possibility that Hayne's evidence was credible, they would have found him not guilty.

As for the 'clear cut murder case' - LOL.

whufc wrote:

Booney wrote:You lose any argument when you use 110%.

But is that fact or just beyond reasonable doubt

I’m 110% sure his inmates will like him...........

amber_fluid wrote:

whufc wrote:

Booney wrote:You lose any argument when you use 110%.

But is that fact or just beyond reasonable doubt

I’m 110% sure his inmates will like him...........

His a biggish boy himself, I would think you want to come in at least 110kg if your gonna make a move on him

whufc wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:

whufc wrote:

Booney wrote:You lose any argument when you use 110%.

But is that fact or just beyond reasonable doubt

I’m 110% sure his inmates will like him...........

His a biggish boy himself, I would think you want to come in at least 110kg if your gonna make a move on him

They’re not the smartest blokes in jail though

tipper wrote:

The Bedge wrote:

MW wrote:weren't here genitals damaged? I'd say that's not usually the case during consent...

She was scratched - common occurrence if people don't cut their fingernails.

The account i read it sounded like more than a "scratch"

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

A bit of gravel rash?

Rocking into work and everyone asking "why are you here, aren't you on leave?".

I've got Thursday and Friday booked off and they thought my back up was doing my role for the whole week, just as well though, he had a sickie!!!

I think I'll request tomorrow and Wednesday off now though.