Updated The Bruce Lehrmann Trials Pt2 * Justice Lee - "Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins."

[Kurve]

Here is PART 1

Historical Rape Allegation Against Fmr AG Christian Porter
The Alexander Matters matters

Just a reminder, this is the crime board and we need to be aware that there will be victims of crime either watching this thread or engaging in here from time to time. A degree of respect in all discussions is expected.

LINK TO TIMELINE
CJS INQUIRY
FINAL REPORT – BOARD OF INQUIRY – CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Joint media statement – Chief Minister and Attorney-General

LINK TO FEDERAL COURT DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS

 

[FIGJAM]

Lee's colourful description of this case as an 'omnishambles" covered far, far more than the just "cover-up angle" imo.

I know you are loving the word - so lets see what else it may refer to, shall we ?

What about the Taylor Auerbach evidence and what that revealed about the Spotlight program and the culture
at Channel 7 in securing interviews with scumbags like Lehrmann ? and the fallout from that ? Think that would fit under the 'omnishambles"
heading ?

What about the Walter Sofronoff inquiry and it's Chair being referred to the ACT Integrity Commission ?
Acting Justice Stephen Kaye ruled Mr Sofronoff's contact with journalist Janet Albrechtsen of The Australian while he was leading the inquiry could lead the fair-minded observer to conclude that Mr Sofronoff "might have been influenced by the views held and publicly expressed by Ms Albrechtsen". Do you think this fits ? I know I do ?

I could go on as there is more .........

100% agree! They're all part of the omnishambles / cluster****. The fall out is borderline comical!

Ground Zero for the shambles is The Project article though.

 

[Festerz]

Remarkable that the political component of this case is now being wished away as not important and/or insignificant.

Current serving Liberal Senator for WA Linda Reynolds is suing her former Liberal staff member Brittany Higgins who was raped in Parliament House by one of Reynolds' other staffers Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann. That case is scheduled to hit the WA Supreme Court next month.

This is clearly political in nature and for several weeks has been the main focus of this thread subsequent to the judgement in the Lehrmann defamation action before you started your unhinged bleating rants yesterday.

Pretty clear that it's you that's wanting to wish it way as 'not important and/or insignificant'.

Best you follow your own advice to yourself from yesterday and take a break from this thread.

You're getting more and more shrill and less and less coherent with every post.

 

[Kurve]

100% agree! They're all part of the omnishambles / cluster*. The fall out is borderline comical!

Ground Zero for the shambles is The Project article though.

Let's not forget either that it was Linda Reynolds appearance on Spotlight that had her at risk of perjury, recanting her testimony under oath in court that was in conflict with Brown's. Reynolds straight up denied any knowledge of a sexual element in court, changed her mind on the Spotlight interview.

A Minister for the Crown and legislator, just changed her mind over testimony that was a key element of the trial.

Her false testimony at trial, had the ability to damage Higgins credibility but we'll never know how much because that multi million dollar trial was aborted.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

100% agree! They're all part of the omnishambles / cluster*. The fall out is borderline comical!

Ground Zero for the shambles is The Project article though.

Disagree - I think ground zero as you put it was the event itself - the rape itself. That is what kicked everything off.

Lee would never have uttered the word "omnishambles" if the rape never occurred and this thread wouldn't exist
if Lehrmann just dropped Higgins home and gone home to his girlfriend rather than taking a detour to PH.

If he had taken care of his drunken junior colleague rather than taken advantage of her - everything is different.

End of story.

 

[FIGJAM]

Disagree - I think ground zero as you put it was the event itself - the rape itself. That is what kicked everything off.

Lee would never have uttered the word "omnishambles" if the rape never occurred and this thread wouldn't exist
if Lehrmann just dropped Higgins home and gone home to his girlfriend rather than taking a detour to PH.

Well, of course the rape is the trigger for everything! That goes without saying.

After that, there were no real missteps until 29 May 2020, when Higgins met Sharaz. Then things percolated for some months, before the cavalcade of missteps ensued from the shopping of the story in early 2021 and it's ultimate publication.

From there, there are bodies strewn all over the place from the collateral damage. Justice Lee might be the only to have gone anywhere near this case and not been thrown under a bus somehow. It's one of the most extraordinary things I've ever seen!

 

[Kurve]

Reynolds, in contradicting Brown, added to the distress Brown was under. Brown's boss essentially testified that she was a liar, under oath.

I've always felt some sympathy for Brown, early in I briefly held some for Reynolds but that was gone in a flash.

 

[Festerz]

As previously posted in this thread, five serving officers of the AFP are taking defamation action in the Federal Court against the ACT Government for comments made by former ACT DPP Shane Drumgold in a letter to the ACT Police Chief that officers engaged in “a very clear campaign to pressure him not to prosecute” Bruce Lehrmann for the rape of Brittany Higgins.

Interesting to note that one of the Five ACT Police Officers involved in the action is Commander Michael Chew. Interesting because Chew admitted under oath during the Sofronoff Inquiry that he had provided Lehrmann's defence team with the private medical counselling notes of rape victim Brittany Higgins prior to Lehrmann's rape trial.

Chew blamed the covid pandemic and his 'rush to move on' for his devastating breach of Ms Higgins' personal privacy:

'Get it served': Rush to 'move on' resulted in Higgins counselling notes error

Police inappropriately sent the counselling notes to Bruce Lehrmann's lawyers.

www.canberratimes.com.au

It would be good to see this matter proceed to Federal Court to see the actions of the ACT police during the Higgins investigation given the proper scrutiny they deserve. Including not only Commander Chew's admitted actions but inconsistencies in the actions of Detective Inspector Marcus Boorman (also part of the defamation action) who it is claimed deleted 2 key paragraphs of a document written by other police, that accused Bruce Lehrmann of lying, which was sent to a senior police officer to determine the prospect of rape charges against Lehrmann.

Remembering that Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister Steve Whybrow told the Sofronoff Inquiry that he had a conversation with Marcus Boorman during the rape trial and Mr Whybrow claims that Marcus Boorman told him he would resign from the police if Lehrmann was found guilty.

Another one of the AFP officers involved in the action, Detective Trent Madders, was attacked by a judge in an ACT court late last year for his involvement in a 'cover-up' relating to the mis-handling of evidence with Justice Loukas-Karlsson stating:

"lawlessness on the part of police encourages lawlessness in our society".

Judge blasts police ‘cover up’ in case of brothers who allegedly secretly filmed tenants | Riotact

A judge blasted a police officer for mishandling evidence in the case of twin brothers accused of spying on their…

the-riotact.com

If this matter makes it to the Federal Court, under 2021 legislative amendments to Defamation legislation, the five AFP officers involved will have to prove they have suffered “serious harm" to their reputations from the claim in the letter if they are to be awarded damages. Given the fact that they have all retained their positions and the documented evidence of failings of AFP processes during the Lehrmann investigation and trial process and claims of what, on a prima facia basis, looks like bias from at least one of the officers involved I would imagine this would be very difficult to prove.

But the ACT Government is most likely sick and tired of the whole bastardised saga that has taken place in its courts and will therefore likely settle the defamation action with the officers concerned handing them a nice payday.

 

[jason_recliner]

As previously posted in this thread, five serving officers of the AFP are taking defamation action in the Federal Court against the ACT Government for comments made by former ACT DPP Shane Drumgold in a letter to the ACT Police Chief that officers engaged in “a very clear campaign to pressure him not to prosecute” Bruce Lehrmann for the rape of Brittany Higgins.

Interesting to note that one of the Five ACT Police Officers involved in the action is Commander Michael Chew. Interesting because Chew admitted under oath during the Sofronoff Inquiry that he had provided Lehrmann's defence team with the private medical counselling notes of rape victim Brittany Higgins prior to Lehrmann's rape trial.

Chew blamed the covid pandemic and his 'rush to move on' for his devastating breach of Ms Higgins' personal privacy:

'Get it served': Rush to 'move on' resulted in Higgins counselling notes error

Police inappropriately sent the counselling notes to Bruce Lehrmann's lawyers.

www.canberratimes.com.au

It would be good to see this matter proceed to Federal Court to see the actions of the ACT police during the Higgins investigation given the proper scrutiny they deserve. Including not only Commander Chew's admitted actions but inconsistencies in the actions of Detective Inspector Marcus Boorman (also part of the defamation action) who it is claimed deleted 2 key paragraphs of a document written by other police, that accused Bruce Lehrmann of lying, which was sent to a senior police officer to determine the prospect of rape charges against Lehrmann.

Remembering that Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister Steve Whybrow told the Sofronoff Inquiry that he had a conversation with Marcus Boorman during the rape trial and Mr Whybrow claims that Marcus Boorman told him he would resign from the police if Lehrmann was found guilty.

Another one of the AFP officers involved in the action, Trent Madders, was attacked by judge in an ACT court late last year for his claimed involvement in a 'cover-up' relating to the mis-handling of evidence:

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/st...ne-a-cover-up-judge-slams-police-lawlessness/

If this matter makes it to the Federal Court, under 2021 legislative amendments to Defamation legislation, the five AFP officers involved will have to prove they have suffered “serious harm" to their reputations from the claim in the letter if they are to be awarded damages. Given the fact that they have all retained their positions and the documented evidence of failings of AFP processes during the Lehrmann investigation and trial process and claims of what, on a prima facia basis, looks like bias from at least one of the officers involved I would imagine this would be very difficult to prove.

But the ACT Government is most likely sick and tired of the whole bastardised saga that has taken place in its courts and will therefore likely settle the defamation action with the officers concerned handing them a nice payday.

They would probably win a defamation case considering Sofronoff's findings.

 

[Festerz]

They would probably win a defamation case considering Sofronoff's findings.

It's an interesting point.

Putting aside the outrageous actions of Sofronoff himself during his 'independent' inquiry and the fact an ACT Supreme Court judge ruled communications between a journalist and the head of the inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann's prosecution "gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias" that same judicial inquiry did indeed find that Sofronoff's adverse findings in relation to Drumgold were lawful.

However, as the Director of the Centre for Public Inquiry, Geoffrey Watson SC, has made clear, the findings of the judicial review in relation to the lack of procedural fairness afforded to Drumgold by Sofronoff could mean that the adverse findings against him have 'no legal affect'. This has yet to be tested. Sofronoff himself has been referred to the ACT Integrity Commission.

There is also the fact that subsequent to its conclusion, allegations have surfaced in relation to the truth of evidence provided to it by at least one of the ACT police officers. This allegation is also yet to be tested but would no doubt be the subject of inquiry if the defamation action made it to court.

Under our arse-about defamation laws it would be up to the ACT Government to prove that the specific allegation made by Drumgold in his letter to the head of ACT Police was factually correct. I suspect this would be very difficult to do and that the ACT Government would have zero interest in doing so.

But my point is that it would be up to the five ACT Police officers to prove that their reputations had suffered' serious harm'. That too would be extraordinarily difficult to do given subsequent revelations.

 

[Lebbo73]

Those who keep referring to Justice Lee's findings as 'fact' or 'the truth' show they just don't understand our justice system.

That’s one thing we can agree on

 

[FIGJAM]

They would probably win a defamation case considering Sofronoff's findings.

They will probably probably win a defamation case because they will have been defamed by Drumgold.

Drumgold withdrew his comments, so he obviously ****ed up!

The main question that people should be asking is; why is the Director of Public Prosecutions not only completely ignoring the findings of a sizeable group of his best his best police officers, but then creating conspiracy theories about them just because he didn't get the result that he demanded?

Shows just how politically charged this case was in the end and why they need to be conducted outside of the sphere of the media.

 

[Kurve]

They will probably probably win a defamation case because they will have been defamed by Drumgold.

Drumgold withdrew his comments, so he obviously ****ed up!

The main question that people should be asking is; why is the Director of Public Prosecutions not only completely ignoring the findings of a sizeable group of his best his best police officers, but then creating conspiracy theories about them just because he didn't get the result that he demanded?

Shows just how politically charged this case was in the end and why they need to be conducted outside of the sphere of the media.

IMO Drumgold's observations were valid but they threatened the establishment and this is why he was thrown under a bus. Drumgold overstepped.

 

[Festerz]

That’s one thing we can agree on

Now come on.

Don't get me started on my 'context' lecture.

 

[FIGJAM]

IMO Drumgold's observations were valid but they threatened the establishment and this is why he was thrown under a bus. Drumgold overstepped.

I know it's just your opinion, Kurve, but that seems like a fairly extreme conspiracy theory to me!

Putting aside Sofronoff's abnormal amount of calls to Albrechtsen (and plenty to Elizabeth Byrne from the ABC FWIW), a significant number of damning issues were identified with Drumgold, including him directing “a junior lawyer in his office to make a misleading affidavit”, “preyed on the junior lawyer’s inexperience”, “egregiously abused his authority and betrayed the trust of his young staff member”, “deliberately advanced a false claim of legal professional privilege” and “knowingly lied to the chief justice”.

‘Invalid and of no effect’: Fallout from Sofronoff Report continues with outgoing DPP Drumgold launching legal action | Riotact

Legal documents have officially been served against the Board of Inquiry, ACT Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury and the Territory by outgoing…

the-riotact.com

Either way, I'm don't think the Board of Inquiry was even set out to go at Drumgold specifically, but was rather a knee jerk reaction among a cavalcade of knee jerk reactions in this case. The "We need to be seen to be doing something!" reflex that affected the Liberal ACT government multiple times and both the previous Liberal and current Labor governments.

But this broader Drumgold/police issue here could act as a convenient example as to why a lot of us end up poles apart on so many issues (bearing in mind that 99% of us agree that Bruce is almost certainly a dirty sex pest, so we can always meet at this common ground and smoke the peace pipe). That is, with each issue that arises, there is enough room for you (and the alternate viewpoint) to spin it their way with some degree of plausibility.

It ends up like a Choose Your Own Adventure! Do you:

a) Think that Drumgold was correct in his assessment of the team of 5 police officers as being effectively corrupt in being in a “a very clear campaign to pressure” him not to prosecute the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins, saying there was “inappropriate interference” and he felt investigators “clearly aligned with the successful defence of this matter (to basically bury the charges)". That it was “possible, if not probable” that an unnamed Morrison government minister put pressure on AFP Commissioner Reece Kershaw (this was withdrawn by Drumgold, but he suspected it initially, so...). The police officers clearly expressed frustrations at not proceeding because they were an inherently corrupt group who wanted to set a rapist free.

b) Think that the police formed a team of 5 of ACT's best sex crimes officers, led by top brass Detective Superintendent Scott Moller, with the officers in some instances pulled from other cases and told to prioritise Operation Covina which they did and they collectively put in months of work into the investigations. Moller expressed “I didn’t think there was enough evidence” to Dumgold. But, based on the DPP’s advice after providing a brief of evidence, “I decided to go ahead [and charge Lehrmann]”. Moller said there was “a significant amount of pressure” on police to lay charges from “the public, the media, my own organisation”. “There was a real desire to expedite this process and get Mr Lehrmann before a court.” Moller said he was troubled that usual processes – such as an internal police “adjudication” of potential charges – were not followed. “I was concerned about not following our procedures.”. The removal of officers from other cases completely halted the investigation of one case and caused another alleged victim to withdraw her charges due to the delays being felt by Operation Covina. The police officers were as a result of all of these issues were extremely pissed off that all of their hard work was completely ignored by the DPP and in some instances, expressed it.

 

[Kurve]

I know it's just your opinion, Kurve, but that seems like a fairly extreme conspiracy theory to me!

It's not a conspiracy theory to suggest Drumgold's observations were valid, with Sofronoff early in criticising and holding him responsible for actually needing to be there, which signalled to me which way it was to go.

 

[Festerz]

'Putting aside' the 273 mostly hidden communications between the so-called 'independent' justice appointed to review the aborted rape trial of Bruce Lehrmann and his biggest media supporter opinion columnist Janet Albrechtsen of the Australian newspaper...blah blah blah.. (but ABC)..blah blah blah..

'Putting aside' the fact that before the hearings started, Sofronoff sent Albrechtsen parts of the evidence with comments critical of Drumgold. During the public hearing, Albrechtsen even proposed to Sofronoff that he put particular questions to a witness – and Sofronoff agreed!

'Putting aside' the fact that during the crucial phase during which Sofronoff was drafting his report, he was actually sending successive versions to Albrechtsen for edit and comment.

The same silk who lectured other lawyers about the independence of the legal profession who is now the subject of corruption allegations which are being investigated by The ACT Integrity Commission.

The Sofronoff Inquiry was meant to restore faith in the ACT Justice System - it did the complete opposite.

But yeah - 'extreme conspiracy theory'

FMD.

 

[FIGJAM]

It's not a conspiracy theory to suggest Drumgold's observations were valid, with Sofronoff early in criticising and holding him responsible for actually needing to be there, which signalled to me which way it was to go.

Who was responsible for throwing Drumgold "under a bus" as a result of these "threats to the establishment"?

Was it the "unnamed Morrison government minister" that Drumgold says existed?

Was it AFP Commissioner Reece Kershaw?

The 5 police officers?

Wasn't it Labor Chief Minister Andrew Barr and Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury who appointed Sofronoff?

I'm just interested in the deeper conspiracy.

I feel like I'm in an episode of the X-Files and that there's a 'Cigarette Smoking Man' lurking in the shadows controlling every move...

 

[Kurve]

Putting aside Sofronoff's abnormal amount of calls to Albrechtsen (and plenty to Elizabeth Byrne from the ABC FWIW), a significant number of damning issues were identified with Drumgold, including him directing “a junior lawyer in his office to make a misleading affidavit”, “preyed on the junior lawyer’s inexperience”, “egregiously abused his authority and betrayed the trust of his young staff member”, “deliberately advanced a false claim of legal professional privilege” and “knowingly lied to the chief justice”.

You've just presented those criticisms as if they were multiple instances of wrongdoing when they spring from one.

Drumgold tried to bury the Moller Report under legal privilege, which shouldn't have been in the brief in the first place. No wonder Drumgold was suspicious they were trying to sink his prosecution.

Janet Albrechtsen got hold of that and we can be pretty sure it wasn't Drumgold who leaked it to her. Who did?

 

[Kurve]

Who was responsible for throwing Drumgold "under a bus" as a result of these "threats to the establishment"?

You needn't bother with all the nonsense, with my post it should be obvious.

 

[Kurve]

b) Think that the police formed a team of 5 of ACT's best sex crimes officers, led by top brass Detective Superintendent Scott Moller, with the officers in some instances pulled from other cases and told to prioritise Operation Covina which they did and they collectively put in months of work into the investigations. Moller expressed “I didn’t think there was enough evidence” to Dumgold. But, based on the DPP’s advice after providing a brief of evidence, “I decided to go ahead [and charge Lehrmann]”. Moller said there was “a significant amount of pressure” on police to lay charges from “the public, the media, my own organisation”. “There was a real desire to expedite this process and get Mr Lehrmann before a court.” Moller said he was troubled that usual processes – such as an internal police “adjudication” of potential charges – were not followed. “I was concerned about not following our procedures.”. The removal of officers from other cases completely halted the investigation of one case and caused another alleged victim to withdraw her charges due to the delays being felt by Operation Covina. The police officers were as a result of all of these issues were extremely pissed off that all of their hard work was completely ignored by the DPP and in some instances, expressed it.

A staffer was raped in Parliament House, in the Minister for Defence's suites. Of course there was pressure.

What's with all the whinging and backstabbing going on inside the AFP? Was Drumgold told how pissed off AFP Police were?

 

[Festerz]

Credit to you Kurve for your patience in moderating this thread. Sometimes I'm sure it seems like ..

 

[FIGJAM]

What's with all the whinging and backstabbing going on inside the AFP? Was Drumgold told how pissed off AFP Police were?

What whinging and backstabbing? By the sounds of it, the police just wanted to do their ****ing job properly and have their expert opinions heard.

They cautioned against there being insufficient evidence to get a criminal conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and well......no matter how you spin it......there has been no criminal conviction beyond a reasonable doubt!

Drumgold stated that "very clear campaign" to pressure him not to prosecute the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins, saying there was “inappropriate interference” and he felt investigators “clearly aligned with the successful defence of this matter (to basically bury the charges)". He must have therefore known more than just the opinions of lead investigator Detective Supernintendo Moller.

So anyway, you've chosen a) on the Choose Your Own Adventure timeline above.

 

[FIGJAM]

Credit to you Kurve for your patience in moderating this thread.

I know I'm on ignore with Festerz, but what exactly has needed moderating?

Has there been a heap of deleted posts?

Looks like good robust discussion to me!

 

[Brian Oblivion]

Credit to you Kurve for your patience in moderating this thread. Sometimes I'm sure it seems like ..

Agree - from my short time here I'm impressed. I couldn't do it.

Must feel like moderating a Merry Go Round at times ......... round and round we go .........

 

[Xtreme]

Agree - from my short time here I'm impressed. I couldn't do it.

Must feel like moderating a Merry Go Round at times ......... round and round we go .........