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.