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

 

[Kurve]

Again completely taken out of context as it was not referring to the assault but rather the way she was used by Labor and The Greens post assault.

But then again, people making these claims have never read the article (probably more than 148 characters).


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Same thing.

There's no defence for it. Albrechtsen is an accomplished writer if not a journalist and she's a lawyer, she knew exactly how that would be interpreted.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Same thing.

There's no defence for it. Albrechtsen is an accomplished writer if not a journalist and she's a lawyer, she knew exactly how that would be interpreted.

Interpreted by Twitter users - well that’s not a surprise. Most can’t get past 2 sentences.

There is a defence. Read the bloody article and assess based on that instead of regurgitating some idiot on Twitter or reading the headline.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Kurve]

Interpreted by Twitter users - well that’s not a surprise. Most can’t get past 2 sentences.

There is a defence. Read the bloody article and assess based on that instead of regurgitating some idiot on Twitter or reading the headline.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Where did you get the idea I got that from twitter?

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Interpreted by Twitter users - well that’s not a surprise. Most can’t get past 2 sentences.

There is a defence. Read the bloody article and assess based on that instead of regurgitating some idiot on Twitter or reading the headline.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I don't need to come to the defence of someone who carries a big stick with them wherever they go and they are not afraid to use it. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Festerz]

Anyway, I’m done with this.

That didn't last long.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Where did you get the idea I got that from twitter?

Most of this rubbish comes from Twitter and then gets amplified until suddenly it is fact.

I’m assuming you have got that from there given you have said you don’t read her articles.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[MPMonkeys]

I don't need to come to the defence of someone who carries a big stick with them wherever they go and they are not afraid to use it. That's all I'm saying.

I’m not even sure what this means.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[FIGJAM]

https://shorturl.at/fKXY9

That was as useless as **** on a bull! As was the earlier effort. At least nail it before cracking that old chestnut!!


But I found it anyway:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/taxpayers-entitled-to-truth-on-brittany-higgins-24m-payment/news-story/58e0e7effcb13031752f189270c76445

To cut to the chase: did the Albanese government agree to pay Higgins a multimillion payment in secret in return for what they perceived to be services rendered for her role in bringing down the Morrison government by taking her allegation to the media before formalising a police complaint?

Dramatically softens the original out of context quote from Kurve, even if I don't agree with the sentiment.

I do agree with a softer version that the Albo government didn't care if Higgins' claims were true and it did suit them politically to settle with a nice healthy amount.

As for the rest, Kurve:

Albrechtsen published pieces describing Higgins’s partner as her “puppet master”.

Sadly for Higgins, that is a bill that fits Sharaz perfectly.

Albrechtsen described Scott Morrison’s apology to Higgins as “nothing short of grotesque”.

Grotesque is a very weird word to have used. "Ill advised" would have been my term given that legal proceedings were underway.

I'm not doubting that Albrechtsen is biased towards the right, as is The Australian as w whole, but "hateful remarks" or "attacks on a rape victim"? Sorry, I just don't see it here.

 

[Kurve]

Dramatically softens the original out of context quote from Kurve, even if I don't agree with the sentiment.

Disagree, vehemently.

The context is 'rape', whatever Higgins did from then on from that night can't be separated from the rape. And Albrechtsen knows it.

A Services Rendered payment is the payment to an individual for the services they provided, used often as a euphemism for prostitution. Please don't try to tell me Albrechtsen was unaware.

Albrechtsen in the same article, indicates Higgins claim to be 'spurious'.

 

[Kurve]

Sadly for Higgins, that is a bill that fits Sharaz perfectly.

You weren't aware there's a copy of text where Higgins specifically tells Sharaz that he isn't to speak on her behalf?

That the comment by Albrechtsen in print is a crass and humiliating attack on Higgins agency?

 

[MPMonkeys]

You weren't aware there's a copy of text where Higgins specifically tells Sharaz that he isn't to speak on her behalf?

That the comment by Albrechtsen in print is a crass and humiliating attack on Higgins agency?

But isnt that what the text said?
She is simply reporting something that is factual.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Kurve]

But isnt that what the text said?
She is simply reporting something that is factual.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Well, no it isn't factual that Sharaz is Higgins 'puppet master' and Higgins clearly is not a puppet given the text exchange.

That's Albrechtsen's opinion.

 

[FIGJAM]

The context is 'rape', whatever Higgins did from then on from that night can't be separated from the rape. And Albrechtsen knows it.

I agree that it is distasteful to use the phrase and I wouldn’t have used it.

That said, there is more to this whole affair than the assault itself, including the political weaponisation by both Higgins and Sharaz. This is covered by Lee in his verdict.

Bad wording, no doubt. But a bad turn of phrase in thousands of phrases doesn’t make it an “attack on a rape victim”.

 

[MPMonkeys]

I find it curious that everyone attacks Albrechtson but leaves Rice alone.

They both have written similar column inches on the subject.

It’s either misogynistic or people have simply not read their articles. I suspect it’s a mixture of a lot of the latter with a good slice of the former.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Poor Janet. She is the real victim here.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Poor Janet. She is the real victim here.

Thanks again for your contribution. Your intellectual offerings are always appreciated.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Thanks again for your contribution. Your intellectual offerings are always appreciated.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

How many times did this Rice character call/text Sofronoff?

Did they meet for lunch, or anything like that?

 

[MPMonkeys]

How many times did this Rice character call/text Sofronoff?

Did they meet for lunch, or anything like that?

Yes they did. They had a salad for entree, some lamb for main and a lovely peach pie for dessert. This was washed down by a bottle of Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc.

There was some discussion about who should pay but they agreed to split the bill in the end.

Stephen got an Uber back to his office and Walter walked back.

Note: this was originally posted by a Twitter user called @ilove69. Post may have been deleted by political operatives.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Kurve]

I find it curious that everyone attacks Albrechtson but leaves Rice alone.

They both have written similar column inches on the subject.

It’s either misogynistic or people have simply not read their articles. I suspect it’s a mixture of a lot of the latter with a good slice of the former.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

The threads on this case have been swamped with Albrechtson's articles over the course, I don't even remember seeing one from Rice.

It's not misogyny.

 

[jason_recliner]

I agree that it is distasteful to use the phrase and I wouldn’t have used it.

That said, there is more to this whole affair than the assault itself, including the political weaponisation by both Higgins and Sharaz. This is covered by Lee in his verdict.

Bad wording, no doubt. But a bad turn of phrase in thousands of phrases doesn’t make it an “attack on a rape victim”.

It's an attack on a rape victim because the choice of wording is obviously directed and intentional.

 

[FIGJAM]

It's an attack on a rape victim because the choice of wording is obviously directed and intentional.

Again, it was obviously directed at the weaponisation of the story (that was substantially false by the way!) by Higgins and Sharaz.

But Albrechtsen should have just said that rather than using that turn of phrase.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

Again, it was obviously directed at the weaponisation of the story (that was substantially false by the way!) by Higgins and Sharaz.

But Albrechtsen should have just said that rather than using that turn of phrase.

Great you finally agree she is a scumbag.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

But Albrechtsen should have just said that rather than using that turn of phrase.

It's starting to sound like Janet was trying to weaponise the story.

What do you think her motives were?

 

[BFew]

As expected, generalised speculation over on X/Twitter that Lehrmanns legals might have been or get compensated/remunerated for their defamation for Lehrmann by someone or an organisation other than Lehrmann, without it being reflected in the contractual agreement Lehrmann had with his legals.

Hypothetically, what's to stop Whybrow being gifted a directorship and a % share in a Private Company by someone that was just happy that Lehrmann was being defended on a no win, no pay basis, but had gotten word to Whybrow (in a verbal gentleman's agreement) of the intended nature and timing of the gift, if Lehrmann did not win his defamation case(s).

It could be done in a way that Lehrmann had no knowledge of any such gentleman's gift agreement whatsoever.

If someone really wanted to try and make sure that any link between such a gift and Lehmann's case were not linked, waiting a few years from now until it was consummated might do the trick.

Alternatively massively over-pay for something in a private sale, like a piece of artwork or a rare artefact.

 

[jason_recliner]

Again, it was obviously directed at the weaponisation of the story (that was substantially false by the way!) by Higgins and Sharaz.

But Albrechtsen should have just said that rather than using that turn of phrase.

No, it is an accepted reference to prostitution. She knew exactly what she was doing when she chose that turn of phrase or she's an uneducated idiot, and we all know Albrechtsen isn't uneducated or an idiot. You asked for examples, Kurve gave you three without being at all exhaustive, and you're making excuses for her attacks on a rape victim. Why?