Bruce Lehrmann revealed as man charged with two counts of rape in Toowoomba

[CM86]

There are still many unknowns.

Further I am over posters deferring to what Lees said about coverup in regard to Brown and Reynolds. I don't believe anyone is disputing that part. He heard the evidence and based on that that is the only thing he mentioned re cover up.

What about others? News of the rape was just kept to Brown and Reynolds? No-one else knew?

Security didn't make a note of it?

Morrison, his sidekick who didn't finish his investigation, Federal Police, Dutton etc etc.

Who authorised the cleaning of the office? Why?
What happened to the CCTV, who saw it and what did they do about it?

No way do I believe no-one else knew about it. What did they do or not do?
Who really cared that a rape/or something inappropriate occurred?

Kinda smells like a cover up to me.

Totally agree.


Was the rape covered-up to keep Morrison from knowing about it?
OR
Was Morrison's knowledge of the rape, covered-up?

 

[Wallace52]

Higgins’ statement regarding the Lee judgement.

#i#itstimetohealHASH]

 

[Festerz]

The uncomfortable truth of how our political leaders responded to Brittany Higgins's rape allegation lingers

Bruce Lerhmann's defamation case has exposed a continuing hostility to women in the broader Australian community which has seen women too eagerly cast as liars, whatever the nature of the issue that has brought them to public attention.

www.abc.net.au

Laura Tingle - as always, succinct and straight to the art of the matter with a focus on the facts. Calling out BS and hypocrisy in the process while laying out clearly why politics lay at the very centre of how this young woman's rape in her workplace after hours was poorly dealt with.

These 4 sentences in particular:

It remains the case that no one felt it necessary to tell the PM that a young woman working for his government had been assaulted in an office not far from his own.

There is an uncomfortable truth here though that, whatever the story was about who said what to who about Higgins within the Morrison government, what most Australians would have taken away from the whole affair was not those details, but the various public reflections of the prime minister of the day.

Morrison's comments — he said his wife had explained the significance of Higgins's claims to him, and later, that the women who marched in their thousands were lucky not to have been met with guns — would have to rank as some of the more tin-eared observations of recent times.

The fact that the government had not responded to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's report on workplace harassment for more than year at the time of the Higgins revelations also sent a message to women from a workplace which should have been both our safest and a standard setter.

 

[peetoo]

‘Gods work’

 

[Wallace52]

‘Gods work’

Perhaps ScoMo was what they call “a false prophet.”

 

[CM86]

Higgins’ statement regarding the Lee judgement.

#i#itstimetohealHASH]

That needs to be posted as txt, because it's hard enough to read. Let alone by the people who hate her for speaking out.

 

[western royboy]

Higgins’ statement regarding the Lee judgement.

#i#itstimetohealHASH]

Hopefully the Senator reads that and does the right thing…

 

[Festerz]

The Saturday Paper's editorial doesn't mince words with their attack on Murdoch's Janet Albrechtsen who has led the defence of Lehrmann the rapist and the gutless leaks and attacks on his victim that have become the rallying point for conservative misogynists on social media platforms.

'Albrechtsen occupies a curious place in the Australian media. Where there is an ideological grift, she is often there grifting. She has spent half her lifetime fighting culture wars. She is a studious defender of conservative power and its belief to be forever under attack, a useful female voice in the lonely role of guardian of men's rights.'

'It was Albrechtsen who raked through the diaries of the dead woman who accused Christian Porter of rape.

'It was Albrechtsen whose obsession with the Brittany Higgins case infected an inquiry into its handling.'

'I was Albrechtsen who described Scott Morrison's apology to Higgins as "nothing short of grotesque"'.

'It was Albrechtsen who wondered in print if the compensation paid to Higgins after she was raped as "for services rendered"

'Albrechtsen knows what these words imply. Double meaning is essential to columns that say the opposite of what is true. There is always in her work a cruelty and a cleverness.'

 

[Festerz]

That needs to be posted as txt, because it's hard enough to read. Let alone by the people who hate her for speaking out.

A statement of grace, courage and empathy from a rape victim — despite everything the last 5 years has thrown at her and is still being thrown at her.

Printed here in full size text because that is the least it deserves.

'Let the healing begin'

 

[FIGJAM]

And if the issue is media uncritically publishing the accusations surely they should be a target for Reynolds?

They aren't defaming her if they are reporting widely publicised Tweets.

 

[FIGJAM]

I'm going to put in a mega post, that will ultimately give you my points of view and allow us to, I sincerely hope, move on with our own opinions on the matter, even in the acknowledgement that we probably won't see eye to eye.

With respect to the term cover-up, we need to address some differing perceptions by posters here. There is a hard and a soft version.

1. The cover-up that Higgins stated was a direct threat to her job if she proceeded with criminal charges (this is that hard cover-up that both I and Justice Lee refer to);
2. A broad and soft "cover-up" as in the office may have generally wanted this issue to go away and could have given more support.

The first "cover-up" has been adjudged as not having happened (Justice Lee italicised "very opposite" for a reason):

666 One of the most topsy-turvy aspects of this case is that putting what occurred at this meeting and the events of the preceding days together, a clear picture emerges, but it is entirely at odds with the notion of an attempt being made to cover up an allegation of rape by discouraging it to be reported to the police.

667 Indeed, I am comfortably satisfied that the Minister considered it would protect her personal interests that the very opposite occur. She wanted the incident to be reported to the police and was doing what she could to encourage Ms Higgins to see the AFP, having failed in her attempt to direct Ms Brown to report the incident the previous Friday. As I said during the hearing, it is the only alleged cover-up of which I am aware where those said to be responsible for the covering up were almost insisting the complainant to go to the police.

If you want to get the gist about what Justice Lee is talking about when referring to the "cover-up narrative", literally do a find in your browser of "cover-up" in the decision below and there is a section on it:

https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0369

The second more general "cover-up" is of an organisation wanting an issue to go away. At which point, I'm like, what entity wouldn't want this to go away quietly?! Did Labor not want Bill Shorton's rape allegations to "go away" or be done quietly in the background? Did "No carbon emissions by 2002!" Adam Bandt publicly advertise his private jet usage for junkets?

It's human nature on a soft cover-up occurring.

Even then though, the Libs didn't even have much of a chance to influence Higgins in the soft cover-up side of things anyway.

Monday, April 8
* Ms Higgins meets with AFP at Belconnen police station and lodges a complaint.

Tuesday, April 9
* Higgins tells boyfriend that she didn't want to proceed with the police. Then deleted this text in 2021.

Saturday, April 13
* Ms Higgins tells police she won't continue with her complaint.

It's a handful of days and a significant amount of her issues with certain parties, Reynolds in particular, happened after all of this.

Are there systemic issues that coulda. woulda, shoulda been done better? Well, yeah, but that is the case for every major event in the history of mankind!

View attachment 1964653

1097 The publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice won the Project team, like Ms Maiden, a glittering prize; but when the accusation is examined properly, it was supposition without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact; its dissemination caused a brume of confusion, and did much collateral damage – including to the fair and orderly progress of the underlying allegation of sexual assault through the criminal justice system. To the extent there were perceived systemic issues as to avenues of complaint and support services in Parliament, this may have merited a form of fact-based critique, not the publication of insufficiently scrutinised and factually misconceived conjecture.​

With regards to the above, firstly, Lee reiterates what he means by "cover-up":

"...corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice..."

Secondly, he details the huge amount of negative karma induced by the false narrative of the cover-up:

"...supposition without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact; its dissemination caused a brume of confusion, and did much collateral damage – including to the fair and orderly progress of the underlying allegation of sexual assault through the criminal justice system."

Thirdly, he details that which you have latched on to, which is a general inference to what the article potentially could have looked like without the false narrative of "a rape victim to choose between her career and justice". It needs some deduction based on the whole of the paragraph, but I think he is effectively stating that without the cover-up angle, there is still a story if they had an orderly complaint with the criminal justice system and they examined the complaint and support services in Parliament (again, this is the soft "cover-up" that I have mentioned before).

Plus they could have rehashed some of Milligan's Canberra Bubble article for some extra clout.

Without the cover-up (ie. "...corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice...") angle, the extent of the investigative journalism angle is minimised to something much more 'matter of fact'. Maiden and Wilkinson smelt political blood in the water:

1096 The contemporaneous documents and the broadcast itself demonstrate the allegation of rape was the minor theme, and the allegation of cover-up was the major motif.

Ultimately, these supposed "freedom fighter" journos were more interested in the political angle than they were the welfare of a rape victim. That's worth pondering for a bit!

Justice Lee has specifically stated that Higgins was raped. And Lehrmann raped her.

As I've stated before, I celebrate this fact with you and have said he probably did it for yonks.

So then what is the sticking point?

For me it comes down to there being two separate issues:

1. Higgins was raped by Lehrmann;
2. Higgins misremembered, embellished or outright lied about there being corrupt conduct her employer in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice, then actively sought to curate information to support her fabrications.

So if you've got 1. ticked off, then why does it matter? Isn't her getting 'RAPIST' metaphorically tattooed to Bruce's head all that matters?

Well not in my opinion, because I'm a firm believer in the end not always justifying the means. And she has obviously done wrong here and needs to be accountable for her sins.

But she has and is paying for her indiscretions in real time. The biggest one is the failed criminal trial.

As a direct result of the false cover-up narrative, Higgins exposed a number of demonstrable lies that gave fodder to the defence in the criminal proceeding, that was from then almost certain to end in a hung jury.

But even before that, the AFP led by Detective Superintendent Scott Moller (himself a sexual assault survivor) stated that he didn't want to proceed with the criminal case as he didn't think that it had met the threshold for prosecution, but was pressured from every which way to proceed. A large part of that his reluctance was to do with Higgins' general credibility resulting to a large part from her media interviews and reluctance to hand over her phone, which she later did after curating it (the Justice Lee covers extensively in his verdict).

“Throughout the investigation Ms Higgins has been evasive, uncooperative and manipulative." - Moller

Ultimately, she was clearly engaging in deceptive behaviour at around the time of the media articles and subsequent reactivation of the case. It cut to the core of her credibility in what was a largely circumstantial criminal case. And I have no doubt that Moller would have pressed charges if Higgins had have simply reactivated the charge. Further to that, I think the jury would have been a far less chance of being hung.

It was the biggest shamble in this omnishambles.




*I know you don't like me selectively quoting, so I'll come back to address your other points when I've got time.

 

[Black Diamond]

[...]

Great summary.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

The Saturday Paper's editorial doesn't mince words with their attack on Murdoch's Janet Albrechtsen who has led the defence of Lehrmann the rapist and the gutless leaks and attacks on his victim that have become the rallying point for conservative misogynists on social media platforms.

'Albrechtsen occupies a curious place in the Australian media. Where there is an ideological grift, she is often there grifting. She has spent half her lifetime fighting culture wars. She is a studious defender of conservative power and its belief to be forever under attack, a useful female voice in the lonely role of guardian of men's rights.'

'It was Albrechtsen who raked through the diaries of the dead woman who accused Christian Porter of rape.

'It was Albrechtsen whose obsession with the Brittany Higgins case infected an inquiry into its handling.'

'I was Albrechtsen who described Scott Morrison's apology to Higgins as "nothing short of grotesque"'.

'It was Albrechtsen who wondered in print if the compensation paid to Higgins after she was raped as "for services rendered"

'Albrechtsen knows what these words imply. Double meaning is essential to columns that say the opposite of what is true. There is always in her work a cruelty and a cleverness.'


View attachment 1965609

Agree with this - the editor didn't miss here. Bullseye !

 

[Not Important]

reynolds has run self-interested interference for the grub from the get-go. and is still doing it.

reynolds should be pursued until those funding her legal actions are identified.

The fact that Linda Reynolds has been shown to have been a self-interested boss and a suspiciously unreliable witness at Lehrmann’s criminal trial has not stopped her from claiming victimhood and pursuing her former employee for defamation – a now judicially-determined rape survivor with fragile mental health who has been hospitalised on multiple occasions for suicidal ideation – because her feelings were hurt by a tweet. One might have thought this week’s careful, considered and comprehensive findings would give Albrechtsen, Reynolds and their torrid band of supporters pause for thought.

Once more unto the den: Lehrmann cops a mauling - The Shot

The cyclonic wind that whistled across the nation at 1:15pm last Monday was the exhalation of a thousand sighs of

theshot.net.au

 

[Not Important]

hopefully, it’ll turn out to be another case of going back into the lions to retrieve her hat.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

reynolds has run self-interested inference for the grub from the get-go. and is still doing it.

reynolds should be pursued until those funding her legal actions are identified.

Once more unto the den: Lehrmann cops a mauling - The Shot

The cyclonic wind that whistled across the nation at 1:15pm last Monday was the exhalation of a thousand sighs of

theshot.net.au

She'd have plenty of money to fund it herself I'd think.

 

[Festerz]

reynolds should be pursued until those funding her legal actions are identified.

When it comes to Reynolds I am relatively certain that the bulk of funding for her action against Ms Higgins is coming from her own resources - including the $90,000 she received last month as settlement for her defamation action against the ACT Government subsequent to the Sofronoff Inquiry, which was split between $20,000 for legal costs and $70,000 for damages.

 

[Not Important]

When it comes to Reynolds I am relatively certain that the bulk of funding for her action against Ms Higgins is coming from her own resources - including the $90,000 she received last month as settlement for her defamation action against the ACT Government subsequent to the Sofronoff Inquiry.

judging from the costs allegedly paid to some of the silks in the lee issue, $90,000 wouldn't be much more than a deposit.

 

[FIGJAM]

reynolds has run self-interested interference for the grub from the get-go. and is still doing it.

reynolds should be pursued until those funding her legal actions are identified.

Once more unto the den: Lehrmann cops a mauling - The Shot

The cyclonic wind that whistled across the nation at 1:15pm last Monday was the exhalation of a thousand sighs of

theshot.net.au

Brittany showed great empathy to Reynolds today in her statement on the case and yet she's still copping it from all angles from people who think she's the Wicked Witch of the West!

Higgins also extended an olive branch in the same statement, so let's see if they can find the common ground that she referred to.

And if Reynolds doesn't find some common ground and goes back into the lion's den to retrieve her Carla Zampatti jacket, then may she be eaten alive!

 

[Brian Oblivion]

Brittany showed great empathy to Reynolds today in her statement on the case and yet she's still copping it from all angles from people who think she's the Wicked Witch of the West!

Higgins also extended an olive branch in the same statement, so let's see if they can find the common ground that she referred to.

And if Reynolds doesn't find some common ground and goes back into the lion's den to retrieve her Carla Zampatti jacket, then may she be eaten alive!

Reynolds just needs to move on - it's a very bad look for her to pursue this imo.

 

[Festerz]

Reynolds just needs to move on

As expected. That ain't happening.

Edit: Notice the use of the official Senate letterhead and the multiple references to 'allegation(s)' of rape in Reynolds formal public response to Ms Higgins plea to allow her to move on.

Reynolds is a political player who knows full well the trauma the re-use of that term causes to rape victims - especially one who was a former employee raped in the official Parliamentary Office office of the Senator who drafted that response.

From anyone else the use of those words would be seen as insensitive. But from someone of Reynolds political standing and experience who was criticised in Justice Lee's judgement for taking 'agency' from Ms Higgins when she first reported her assault it seems like yet another deliberate and callous slap in the face of a rape victim who was hoping to move on from five years of being disbelieved and hounded.

 

[FIGJAM]

As expected. That ain't happening.

Was a well written letter and Reynolds has made good points.

Reading between the lines it’s pretty clear that she’s good with the olive branch and is happy to talk, but feels she shouldn’t be out of pocket, which I think is fair enough.

Reynolds can’t be chasing mega-bucks and she, unlike Lehrmann and Roberts-Smith, would win this one. Cover the costs, then Higgins and Sharaz are millions in front and the omnishambles might just start petering out.

 

[Wallace52]

Did anyone catch Ms. Higgins (brief) response to Reynolds’ statement via her Instagram?

 

[Brian Oblivion]

Was a well written letter and Reynolds has made good points.

Reading between the lines it’s pretty clear that she’s good with the olive branch and is happy to talk, but feels she shouldn’t be out of pocket, which I think is fair enough.

Reynolds can’t be chasing mega-bucks and she, unlike Lehrmann and Roberts-Smith, would win this one. Cover the costs, then Higgins and Sharaz are millions in front and the omnishambles might just start petering out.

How on earth is she feeling "out of pocket" ? Unless you are saying she wants to recover her "lying cow" donation ?

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Reading between the lines it’s pretty clear that she’s good with the olive branch and is happy to talk, but feels she shouldn’t be out of pocket, which I think is fair enough.

She's only out of pocket because she is proceeding with an ill advised defamation action. After just witnessing 2 very ill advised defamation actions.

She should cut her losses now before she has to pay everyone's court costs.