Things that give you the sh1ts

[Lightning McQueen]

After Jarryd Hayne was convicted and sentenced for rape, one of his “supporters “ spat on the girl outside court.

In no way do i condone violence against women (or anyone), and it's important for women to stand up and people be held to account.. but..

There is a lot about that case that doesn't seem to make sense, and rightfully or wrongfully i cant help but think perhaps he's been stitched up.

However, given their were reports of behavior in the US it also makes you find it hard to believe he could be innoncent.

I'm sure the prosecutors, judge and jury went through everything with a fine toothed comb, he would've had the best possible legal team, I think the truth came out.

[amber_fluid]

After Jarryd Hayne was convicted and sentenced for rape, one of his “supporters “ spat on the girl outside court.

In no way do i condone violence against women (or anyone), and it's important for women to stand up and people be held to account.. but..

There is a lot about that case that doesn't seem to make sense, and rightfully or wrongfully i cant help but think perhaps he's been stitched up.

However, given their were reports of behavior in the US it also makes you find it hard to believe he could be innoncent.

What makes you think he’s been stitched up?

Sounds guilty as if you ask me.

Where there’s smoke...........

[Lightning McQueen]

After Jarryd Hayne was convicted and sentenced for rape, one of his “supporters “ spat on the girl outside court.

In no way do i condone violence against women (or anyone), and it's important for women to stand up and people be held to account.. but..

There is a lot about that case that doesn't seem to make sense, and rightfully or wrongfully i cant help but think perhaps he's been stitched up.

However, given their were reports of behavior in the US it also makes you find it hard to believe he could be innoncent.

Whilst agree with what your saying and certain things didn't add up at the point of a judge or jury finding him guilty we just have to trust the decision they have made.

Get off Bedge's horn

[Lightning McQueen]

And he has already launched an appeal

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Of course he was going to, Jarryd Hayne can't be locked up!!

[Lightning McQueen]

What makes you think he’s been stitched up?

Sounds guilty as if you ask me.

Where there’s smoke...........

Because Bedgie has pictures of Hayne on his wall.

[Dutchy]

And he has already launched an appeal

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Of course he was going to, Jarryd Hayne can't be locked up!!

Is he in the clink awaiting appeal or is he back out on bail?

[The Bedge]

This was also the second trial after the 1st was a mistrial given the jury couldn't come to a verdict.

"The crown case against Hayne was he arrived drunk at the woman’s house on the outskirts of Newcastle about 9pm on September 30, 2018 and stayed for about 45 minutes, committed two sex acts on her without her consent involving digital penetration and oral sex before causing two separate injuries to her genitalia before leaving."

"Hayne claimed he knew the woman did not want to have sex with him after she realised he had a taxi waiting outside, but she agreed to him performing oral sex on her to please her."

"He had never met her but believed she had promised him sex after they had been exchanging flirty messages on Instagram and Snapchat."

"The victim admitted she had been open to having sex with Hayne but was hoping for a future with the former Parramatta Eels star, not a fling."

[The Bedge]

The recorded phone convo between Hayne and Pearce I thought was interesting too..

[MW]

This was also the second trial after the 1st was a mistrial given the jury couldn't come to a verdict.

"The crown case against Hayne was he arrived drunk at the woman’s house on the outskirts of Newcastle about 9pm on September 30, 2018 and stayed for about 45 minutes, committed two sex acts on her without her consent involving digital penetration and oral sex before causing two separate injuries to her genitalia before leaving."

"Hayne claimed he knew the woman did not want to have sex with him after she realised he had a taxi waiting outside, but she agreed to him performing oral sex on her to please her."

"He had never met her but believed she had promised him sex after they had been exchanging flirty messages on Instagram and Snapchat."

"The victim admitted she had been open to having sex with Hayne but was hoping for a future with the former Parramatta Eels star, not a fling."

This does not give him consent anytime he wants it though

[The Bedge]

What makes you think he’s been stitched up?.

Few things - firstly the reaction of his supporters - i mean sure supporters will always back you, but it was a bit extreme.. if the dude was guilty you'd think they'd accept that.

The phone convo with Pearce where he talks about her sending him nudes and wanting him to come around.. then that she cracked it when he said he was leaving her house, and then next day messaging him saying she was in a park and didn't feel safe.

He says she allowed him to perform oral.. she says's she didn't.. i would've thought it would be pretty hard to force your head between some ladies legs if she didn't want it.

She admits to being open to sex.. but then not?

So then you piece together.. he's pissed at a bucks show, he's copping nudes constantly from some random and she wants to hook up and apparently open to sex.. gives him her address and invites him around at a late hour.. then suddenly she's not interested anymore or changed her mind (she's of course well within her right if that's what happened)?

If it was a relationship she was after and something more long term, not sure any of those things are really an ideal platform.. unless courting these days has changed since i was young.

[The Bedge]

This does not give him consent anytime he wants it though

No of course not, not saying it does

[MW]

This does not give him consent anytime he wants it though

No of course not, not saying it does

I wasnt saying you personally were saying that, just commenting on the quote

[Lightning McQueen]

What makes you think he’s been stitched up?.

Few things - firstly the reaction of his supporters - i mean sure supporters will always back you, but it was a bit extreme.. if the dude was guilty you'd think they'd accept that.

The phone convo with Pearce where he talks about her sending him nudes and wanting him to come around.. then that she cracked it when he said he was leaving her house, and then next day messaging him saying she was in a park and didn't feel safe.

He says she allowed him to perform oral.. she says's she didn't.. i would've thought it would be pretty hard to force your head between some ladies legs if she didn't want it.

She admits to being open to sex.. but then not?

So then you piece together.. he's pissed at a bucks show, he's copping nudes constantly from some random and she wants to hook up and apparently open to sex.. gives him her address and invites him around at a late hour.. then suddenly she's not interested anymore or changed her mind (she's of course well within her right if that's what happened)?

[amber_fluid]

What makes you think he’s been stitched up?.

Few things - firstly the reaction of his supporters - i mean sure supporters will always back you, but it was a bit extreme.. if the dude was guilty you'd think they'd accept that.

The phone convo with Pearce where he talks about her sending him nudes and wanting him to come around.. then that she cracked it when he said he was leaving her house, and then next day messaging him saying she was in a park and didn't feel safe.

He says she allowed him to perform oral.. she says's she didn't.. i would've thought it would be pretty hard to force your head between some ladies legs if she didn't want it.

She admits to being open to sex.. but then not?

So then you piece together.. he's pissed at a bucks show, he's copping nudes constantly from some random and she wants to hook up and apparently open to sex.. gives him her address and invites him around at a late hour.. then suddenly she's not interested anymore or changed her mind (she's of course well within her right if that's what happened)?

If it was a relationship she was after and something more long term, not sure any of those things are really an ideal platform.. unless courting these days has changed since i was young.

She may have invited him and lead him on but if she changes her mind and says NO then it’s NO!

And his supporters are clearly idiots given one spat at/on the victim

[whufc]

What makes you think he’s been stitched up?.

Few things - firstly the reaction of his supporters - i mean sure supporters will always back you, but it was a bit extreme.. if the dude was guilty you'd think they'd accept that.

The phone convo with Pearce where he talks about her sending him nudes and wanting him to come around.. then that she cracked it when he said he was leaving her house, and then next day messaging him saying she was in a park and didn't feel safe.

He says she allowed him to perform oral.. she says's she didn't.. i would've thought it would be pretty hard to force your head between some ladies legs if she didn't want it.

She admits to being open to sex.. but then not?

So then you piece together.. he's pissed at a bucks show, he's copping nudes constantly from some random and she wants to hook up and apparently open to sex.. gives him her address and invites him around at a late hour.. then suddenly she's not interested anymore or changed her mind (she's of course well within her right if that's what happened)?

If it was a relationship she was after and something more long term, not sure any of those things are really an ideal platform.. unless courting these days has changed since i was young.

She may have invited him and lead him on but if she changes her mind and says NO then it’s NO!

And his supporters are clearly idiots given one spat at/on the victim

That's what's the hard part in these cases every time (where at one point consent was given and then not unlike an aggravated rape where there is likely to be defensive wounds etc) It literally comes down a two person conversation in a room they were the only people in and no one else factually knows exactly what was and wasnt said.

Sadly until we have 400% accurate lie detectors that are trusted globally we are never really going to know the exact truth. Even camera footage would not have recorded the conversation that took place.

No absolutely means NO sadly there is 1% of the population who will lie about this and another 1% of the population who don't care for No meaning No.

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.

[The Bedge]

Agree whuffer.

[amber_fluid]

What makes you think he’s been stitched up?.

Few things - firstly the reaction of his supporters - i mean sure supporters will always back you, but it was a bit extreme.. if the dude was guilty you'd think they'd accept that.

The phone convo with Pearce where he talks about her sending him nudes and wanting him to come around.. then that she cracked it when he said he was leaving her house, and then next day messaging him saying she was in a park and didn't feel safe.

He says she allowed him to perform oral.. she says's she didn't.. i would've thought it would be pretty hard to force your head between some ladies legs if she didn't want it.

She admits to being open to sex.. but then not?

So then you piece together.. he's pissed at a bucks show, he's copping nudes constantly from some random and she wants to hook up and apparently open to sex.. gives him her address and invites him around at a late hour.. then suddenly she's not interested anymore or changed her mind (she's of course well within her right if that's what happened)?

If it was a relationship she was after and something more long term, not sure any of those things are really an ideal platform.. unless courting these days has changed since i was young.

She may have invited him and lead him on but if she changes her mind and says NO then it’s NO!

And his supporters are clearly idiots given one spat at/on the victim

That's what's the hard part in these cases every time (where at one point consent was given and then not unlike an aggravated rape where there is likely to be defensive wounds etc) It literally comes down a two person conversation in a room they were the only people in and no one else factually knows exactly what was and wasnt said.

Sadly until we have 400% accurate lie detectors that are trusted globally we are never really going to know the exact truth. Even camera footage would not have recorded the conversation that took place.

No absolutely means NO sadly there is 1% of the population who will lie about this and another 1% of the population who don't care for No meaning No.

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.

How do you know they can’t be 100% confident?
The jury knows a lot more than we do.

[whufc]

Put simply she either said yes or no to him.

She says she said no
He says she said yes.

Unless there is a recording of the conversation you don't 100% know what exact words were said you just think you know. No evidence can prove that conversation other than the exact words at the time.

An example of that would be he could have sent her a text an hour later saying thanks for being a consenting part of sex with me just before....but that doesn't make it fact.

She could have had evidence of her hair being pulled in a scuffle that ensured but unless you were in the room it doesn't mean she didn't have kink for having her hair pulled.

I stand to be wrong but I don't believe in this case their was any physical evidence that a rape had occurred.....could be wrong though.

[The Bedge]

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.

[whufc]

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 $$$$$$