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

[Number37]

Oh, now I get it!

You've completely got no concept of due process!! Makes sense now...

There was an alleged rape in the office.

The correct due process was followed internally and then externally through the AFP. Then they might like to investigate and give the alleged perpetrator a chance to respond.

It is not part of the process for the Chief of Staff, Minister, the Prime Minister, God, or anyone else to announce this alleged rape to the world at this point.

Going to the media before the police is disruptuve to an investigation and completely unacceptable. And this goes for the both the government and alleged victims.



Not to the extent of the false allegations, no.

But the government coming forward to announce a crime while a criminal investigation had barely started, would put undue pressure on the investigators.

Moller, who investigated the case after Higgins the second time around, said he was heavily pressured from every angle, including in the legal fraternity. That's disgusting!



If Higgins doesn't drop the charges in 2019, which she did all by herself, and if the AFP found enough evidence to proceed with a charge against Lehrmann, then everybody in Australia would have known about it. In the fullness of time and after due process.

But again, the government can't announce things through the media first, to not interfere with the investigation, but to also allow the alleged victim their right not to proceed.



Again, you're putting the cart before the horse; the government should not be disclosing the alleged rape to the media.

They were responsible for disclosing it to the AFP, which they did.

The Minister and Brown (and others) weren't falsely accused of a cover-up because the rape allegation wasn't publicly announced; they were falsely accused of a cover-up by Higgins and Sharaz because of misremembering, embellishment of smaller things over time, being influenced by each other, or even intentionally lying. Only they can disseminate that.



We're in agreement that the criminal trial was compromised. So was Justice Lee.

But you differ in Lee and myself about the causation of the compromised trial. It was the false allegations:

"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."

LOL.

Once again you have shown your true colours.
The trial was aborted because of juror misconduct.
A juror in that trial was found to be in possession of material that was not presented as evidence.

Here you are pretending that accusations of corrupt conduct are the reason that the trial was aborted.
Worse than that you are pretending that the words of Justice Lee are that the criminal trial was aborted because of accusations of corrupt conduct.

How does the PM disclosing that a person alleges they were raped in a Minister's office undermine due process?
Does it mean that the police can no longer investigate? No.
Does it mean that the police can no longer collect evidence? No.
Does it mean that the DPP cannot assess any evidence presented to determine whether to progress further? No.
Does it mean that the accused isn't afforded a presumption of innocence? No.
Does it mean that the accused isn't allowed legal representation to contest the allegation in court? No.

 

[Ballarat Bob]

Reynolds would be far better concentrating on going after Sharaz as he very much pointed the finger at her without seemingly anything to back it up.
I would be interested to see how Higgins and Sharaz and their legal team intend to defend this if it goes that far ?
Reynolds is probably too much in the hole for legal costs to back down (and she wants her pound of flesh anyway). I don't think anyone is winning anything here.

 

[peetoo]

One of the few women in the last Liberal cabinet and she’s pursuing a staffer who was raped and has some money via compensation

Brilliant optics. Is this the party which tried to run a ‘mean girls’ campaign against labor?

 

[FIGJAM]

That's simply not true.
You don't seem to have any interest in media accountability outside of this specific aspect of this specific case.

That's not true!

I've praised Nine for their stellar job on Ben Roberts-Smith.

I've also praised Louise Milligan for her Inside the Canberra Bubble piece, whilst also criticising her for her over eagerness that has lead to her copping defamation claims (why the ABC paid for her Tweet case is beyond me).

Watching Four Corners and Media Watch is my usual Monday night go to. I'm very wary of the role of media.

I am also particularly worried about the sources of media today, whereby many people get targeted articles via socials, which means if you keep clicking on stuff like government conspiracy say during the peak of COVID, then all you ever get is negativity on vaccines, 5G implants, lockdown measures etc.

But I'm not totally against the use of social media either, as I think the #metoo campaign has been fantastic for weeding out some powerful grubs.

So yeah, I have a high degree of interest in the media.

You defend Sofronoff and Albrechtsen with their collaborations during the inquiry and articles attacking Higgins.

I would never support articles "attacking Higgins". I would only support articles that are publishing backable claims.

As for the Sofronoff and Albrechtsen collaboration, I said it is fine for him to speak to journalists like Albrechtsen and Elizabeth Byrne from the ABC, which as it turns out is acceptable. Just not to the extent that it happened with Albrechtsen though.

You defend Reynolds and Albrechtsen. "Who gives a *" and "tin foil hat" I think were your exact words.

I "defend Reynolds and Albrechtsen"? You mean the time two conservatives, going to a conservative dinner full of conservatives after a conservative conference?

Yeah, it's not relevant to anything.

You defend the private recording of Higgins lawyer played on SkyNews in tiny snippets, to create a destructive narrative.

I literally didn't say anything about this at all!

If you want to know, I don't much like people recording others in public without the other entity's consent, which also extends to Higgins recording Cash.

What I don't care much about is the 'no coaching' rules in the legal setting. I'm sure everyone does it!

Where's your outrage at Higgin's private life being forcefully obtained by the AFP, being leaked all over the media??

I've condemned it previously and consider it unacceptable.

I'm slightly confused at your use of the term "forcefully" though. Didn't they just ask her to hand the phone or phones over?

You defend Reynolds trying to sue Higgins (insisting it's vitally important). But you don't even know what the social media posts were.

I had seen two of them, the one with the bullying claim standing out in my mind, but they had been deleted over time. Festerz found more recent information on them.

I've said multiple times that I think Reynolds suing Higgins is foolish, so I'm not "defend(ing) Reynolds trying to sue Higgins (insisting it's vitally important)" at all.

All I've said is that I empathise with someone who's had false allegations in the public domain thrown their way for 2 years. It must seriously grate on you.

Anyway, Higgins has empathised with Brown and Reynolds and the hurt they've experienced, so I don't know why my empathy towards their plight is seen as something negative.

The only reason Higgin's has anything close to justice is because of The Project interview.
Otherwise she would be just another victim of rape, failed by the system.

I could not disagree more with your opinion here.

I am of the view that if she simply went ahead with her April 2019 complaint, that she would have likely gotten charges laid and stood a very good chance of winning at trial.

I am also of the view that even 2 years down the track, had she reactivated the case without The Project article and the 'embellishments' contained within that report particularly, that she still would have stood a very good chance of getting it to trial and winning (there are some of her post 2019 texts that give strong support to her account).

What The Project interview did however, was to introduce a host of new inconsistencies that were exploitable. And in the absence of forensic evidence, the credit of the alleged victim is imperative.

Detective Superintendent Scott Moller said that Higgins was "more preoccupied with media interviews than assisting the police investigation" and that she was "evasive, uncooperative and manipulative.".

Lehrmann investigator claims police were under pressure to placate media

The lead detective in the Lehrmann case says he believed the prosecution would have failed on Brittany Higgins’ evidence alone as he asserted the investigation was rushed to placate the media.

www.smh.com.au

Here is just one example of police concerns:

ACT top prosecutor allegedly labelled police investigators 'boofheads' during Bruce Lehrmann's trial

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold called police officers investigating the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins "boofheads", Bruce Lehrmann's lawyer tells an inquiry.

www.abc.net.au

There are too many issues to raise with regards to the negative impact of The Project article and the negative repercussions and they've been done so ad nauseum, but the key takeaways were that Higgins made false claims of a cover up, false claims to police, there was curation of data to fit the false narrative, there were documents that were of a dubious source and went against earlier police investigations and then there was the demonstrable political weaponisation of the case by Higgins, Sharaz and the media.

And none of the above needed to be a part of the case in the first place, but got dragged into it as a direct result of The Project article in particular. And put this information in the hands of a $10,000 a day barrister and they're going to do their job, which is attack credit. Attack honesty. Attack motive. And they did!

Then the jury was effectively hung and then Drumgold said he couldn't put Higgins through that again, which is understandable, because of all of the angles of attack that were brought in by The Project article.

Then you have Wilkinson's Logies speech that Whybrow stated gave them more time to consolidate more information to attack Higgins' credit. Could not have been more counter productive!

Now, I'm not saying that any legal result would have gone one way or another under alternate circumstances. We can only speculate.

However, I for one can't see why you and others can't see the point of view as to just how destructive The Project article (in particular) has been to the pursuit of the criminal conviction (in particular).

 

[FIGJAM]

LOL.

Once again you have shown your true colours.
The trial was aborted because of juror misconduct.
A juror in that trial was found to be in possession of material that was not presented as evidence.

Here you are pretending that accusations of corrupt conduct are the reason that the trial was aborted.
Worse than that you are pretending that the words of Justice Lee are that the criminal trial was aborted because of accusations of corrupt conduct.

I'm not claiming that accusations of corrupt conduct was the cause of the probable hung jury. It did however form a part of suite of exploitable claims from The Project article that aided the ability of the defence to attack the credit of the most important witness.

How does the PM disclosing that a person alleges they were raped in a Minister's office undermine due process?

I don't understand the point or benefit of announcing something that can be readily and easily investigated in-house with the assistance of police.

Also, at what level of an alleged crime that happens within government, or even business in general, should you make a public announcement?

 

[Crankyhawk]

I'm not claiming that accusations of corrupt conduct was the cause of the probable hung jury. It did however form a part of suite of exploitable claims from The Project article that aided the ability of the defence to attack the credit of the most important witness.



I don't understand the point or benefit of announcing something that can be readily and easily investigated in-house with the assistance of police.

Also, at what level of an alleged crime that happens within government, or even business in general, should you make a public announcement?

I thought the case got ****ed over by a dumb ass (or paid off if we want to go conspiracy theory) juror who “did their own research “. Which probably still happens without project interview, and suspect Bruce lawyers would still have deliberately traumatised Brittany (that’s how rape defences generally work) and so retrial still doesn’t happen.

It does raise a possible approach for those who have been raped is to go nuts doxxing the rapist then defend via defamation as “truth” defence rather than put up with court process

 

[CM86]

That's not true!

I've praised Nine for their stellar job on Ben Roberts-Smith.

I've also praised Louise Milligan for her Inside the Canberra Bubble piece, whilst also criticising her for her over eagerness that has lead to her copping defamation claims (why the ABC paid for her Tweet case is beyond me).

Watching Four Corners and Media Watch is my usual Monday night go to. I'm very wary of the role of media.

I am also particularly worried about the sources of media today, whereby many people get targeted articles via socials, which means if you keep clicking on stuff like government conspiracy say during the peak of COVID, then all you ever get is negativity on vaccines, 5G implants, lockdown measures etc.

But I'm not totally against the use of social media either, as I think the #metoo campaign has been fantastic for weeding out some powerful grubs.

So yeah, I have a high degree of interest in the media.



I would never support articles "attacking Higgins". I would only support articles that are publishing backable claims.

As for the Sofronoff and Albrechtsen collaboration, I said it is fine for him to speak to journalists like Albrechtsen and Elizabeth Byrne from the ABC, which as it turns out is acceptable. Just not to the extent that it happened with Albrechtsen though.



I "defend Reynolds and Albrechtsen"? You mean the time two conservatives, going to a conservative dinner full of conservatives after a conservative conference?

Yeah, it's not relevant to anything.



I literally didn't say anything about this at all!

If you want to know, I don't much like people recording others in public without the other entity's consent, which also extends to Higgins recording Cash.

What I don't care much about is the 'no coaching' rules in the legal setting. I'm sure everyone does it!



I've condemned it previously and consider it unacceptable.

I'm slightly confused at your use of the term "forcefully" though. Didn't they just ask her to hand the phone or phones over?



I had seen two of them, the one with the bullying claim standing out in my mind, but they had been deleted over time. Festerz found more recent information on them.

I've said multiple times that I think Reynolds suing Higgins is foolish, so I'm not "defend(ing) Reynolds trying to sue Higgins (insisting it's vitally important)" at all.

All I've said is that I empathise with someone who's had false allegations in the public domain thrown their way for 2 years. It must seriously grate on you.

Anyway, Higgins has empathised with Brown and Reynolds and the hurt they've experienced, so I don't know why my empathy towards their plight is seen as something negative.



I could not disagree more with your opinion here.

I am of the view that if she simply went ahead with her April 2019 complaint, that she would have likely gotten charges laid and stood a very good chance of winning at trial.

I am also of the view that even 2 years down the track, had she reactivated the case without The Project article and the 'embellishments' contained within that report particularly, that she still would have stood a very good chance of getting it to trial and winning (there are some of her post 2019 texts that give strong support to her account).

What The Project interview did however, was to introduce a host of new inconsistencies that were exploitable. And in the absence of forensic evidence, the credit of the alleged victim is imperative.

Detective Superintendent Scott Moller said that Higgins was "more preoccupied with media interviews than assisting the police investigation" and that she was "evasive, uncooperative and manipulative.".

Lehrmann investigator claims police were under pressure to placate media

The lead detective in the Lehrmann case says he believed the prosecution would have failed on Brittany Higgins’ evidence alone as he asserted the investigation was rushed to placate the media.

www.smh.com.au

Here is just one example of police concerns:

View attachment 1974220

ACT top prosecutor allegedly labelled police investigators 'boofheads' during Bruce Lehrmann's trial

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold called police officers investigating the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins "boofheads", Bruce Lehrmann's lawyer tells an inquiry.

www.abc.net.au

There are too many issues to raise with regards to the negative impact of The Project article and the negative repercussions and they've been done so ad nauseum, but the key takeaways were that Higgins made false claims of a cover up, false claims to police, there was curation of data to fit the false narrative, there were documents that were of a dubious source and went against earlier police investigations and then there was the demonstrable political weaponisation of the case by Higgins, Sharaz and the media.

And none of the above needed to be a part of the case in the first place, but got dragged into it as a direct result of The Project article in particular. And put this information in the hands of a $10,000 a day barrister and they're going to do their job, which is attack credit. Attack honesty. Attack motive. And they did!

Then the jury was effectively hung and then Drumgold said he couldn't put Higgins through that again, which is understandable, because of all of the angles of attack that were brought in by The Project article.

Then you have Wilkinson's Logies speech that Whybrow stated gave them more time to consolidate more information to attack Higgins' credit. Could not have been more counter productive!

Now, I'm not saying that any legal result would have gone one way or another under alternate circumstances. We can only speculate.

However, I for one can't see why you and others can't see the point of view as to just how destructive The Project article (in particular) has been to the pursuit of the criminal conviction (in particular).

Your reply just restated that you don't actually care about media accountability, or the actual reasons for Reynolds to sue Higgins.


You have the all too common mindset that people will just make false rape claims.
The vast majority of REPORTED rapes don't succeed in trial, with the victim going through hell.
ACT the worst in the country.

******* ridiculous to blame The Project for it.
While handwaving Morrison backgrounding the media with the 'politically motivated' narrative that you repeat.

 

[Number37]

Also, at what level of an alleged crime that happens within government, or even business in general, should you make a public announcement?

A person was raped in a Minister's office. In Parliament House. By a staffer of a Minister.

Do you understand this?

I'm not claiming that accusations of corrupt conduct was the cause of the probable hung jury.

There was no probable hung jury. There was juror misconduct.
That's just you again, twisting the narrative into whatever your imagination conjures up.

It did however form a part of suite of exploitable claims from The Project article that aided the ability of the defence to attack the credit of the most important witness.

What the heck does that mean?

 

[FIGJAM]

I thought the case got ****ed over by a dumb ass (or paid off if we want to go conspiracy theory) juror who “did their own research “. Which probably still happens without project interview, and suspect Bruce lawyers would still have deliberately traumatised Brittany (that’s how rape defences generally work) and so retrial still doesn’t happen.

It does raise a possible approach for those who have been raped is to go nuts doxxing the rapist then defend via defamation as “truth” defence rather than put up with court process

It could have possibly happened without The Project article, but my points stand that The Project article was a plethora of extra exploitable claims that had significant flaws any barrister would have jumped on.

The one thing that I find intriguing is that throughout the arguing in here and with reviews into legal systems and the like, that nobody has brought up the problem with the legal adversarial versus an inquisitorial system for allegations of sexual assault. An inquisitorial system would in my view be extremely beneficial for rape victims in my view.

 

[FIGJAM]

Your reply just restated that you don't actually care about media accountability, or the actual reasons for Reynolds to sue Higgins.


You have the all too common mindset that people will just make false rape claims.
The vast majority of REPORTED rapes don't succeed in trial, with the victim going through hell.
ACT the worst in the country.

******* ridiculous to blame The Project for it.
While handwaving Morrison backgrounding the media with the 'politically motivated' narrative that you repeat.

I'm sorry, but if this is all you got out of my detailed post, I can't respond to you any more.

Thanks CM86 and be well!

 

[Crankyhawk]

It could have possibly happened without The Project article, but my points stand that The Project article was a plethora of extra exploitable claims that had significant flaws any barrister would have jumped on.

The one thing that I find intriguing is that throughout the arguing in here and with reviews into legal systems and the like, that nobody has brought up the problem with the legal adversarial versus an inquisitorial system for allegations of sexual assault. An inquisitorial system would in my view be extremely beneficial for rape victims in my view.

Absolutely agree with an inquisitorial system for sexual assault allegations

 

[CM86]

Also, at what level of an alleged crime that happens within government, or even business in general, should you make a public announcement?

Rape...

If someone is raped in Parliament house, in a ministers office... It should be reported.
Its why they fired Lehrmann.

For whatever reason, rape is a minor issue to you that people shouldn't make a fuss over...

There should have been a statement that a rape had allegedly occurred in Parliament house, and that there is an internal inquiry into how this situation could have happened, and that the Government is assisting police with an investigation.

Instead of blocking the police from accessing the CCTV footage before deleting it. And only taking steps to cover their arses.

 

[Number37]

(that’s how rape defences generally work) ...

The victim is not on trial. That kind of defence tactics has been outlawed.
That's why the right wingers put the victim on trial in the media. It would not fly in court.

 

[FIGJAM]

A person was raped in a Minister's office. In Parliament House. By a staffer of a Minister.

Do you understand this?

Yes. Why do you keep saying it? You've got no argument from me!

There was no probably hung jury. There was juror misconduct.
That's just you again, twisting the narrative into whatever your imagination conjures up.

They were out for ages and it was careering towards a hung jury, hence the desperation of the juror in question in bringing in external information. Hence why it was "probable" that that was the likely outcome.

What the heck does that mean?

There was host of demonstrably false information spouted in The Project article that would have not otherwise been usable in the criminal case. The Project article was counter-productive to the criminal investigation.

 

[Number37]

The one thing that I find intriguing is that throughout the arguing in here and with reviews into legal systems and the like, that nobody has brought up the problem with the legal adversarial versus an inquisitorial system for allegations of sexual assault. An inquisitorial system would in my view be extremely beneficial for rape victims in my view.

That is simplistic nonsense.

 

[Crankyhawk]

The victim is not on trial. That kind of defence tactics has been outlawed.
That's why the right wingers put the victim on trial in the media. It would not fly in court.

The process of the trial itself is inherently traumatic
I suspect there are ways for defence lawyers to still do those types of tactics (and as you say engage the victim blame types in mainstream opinion “media”)

 

[Number37]

They were out for ages and it was careering towards a hung jury, hence the desperation of the juror in question in bringing in external information. Hence why it was "probable" that that was the likely outcome.

That's just your wishful thinking again.
If there was a probable hung jury then there would be no need for juror misconduct.

There was host of demonstrably false information spouted in The Project article that would have not otherwise been usable in the criminal case. The Project article was counter-productive to the criminal investigation.

False information can't be used in any case.

The criminal case does not hinge on what is written in an article. It's not evidence.

 

[FIGJAM]

Rape...

If someone is raped in Parliament house, in a ministers office... It should be reported.
Its why they fired Lehrmann.

For whatever reason, rape is a minor issue to you that people shouldn't make a fuss over...

There should have been a statement that a rape had allegedly occurred in Parliament house, and that there is an internal inquiry into how this situation could have happened, and that the Government is assisting police with an investigation.

I disagree with your process of the reporting of the claim and I take umbrage that you think that I think rape is a minor issue. It is a major issue.

Instead of blocking the police from accessing the CCTV footage before deleting it. And only taking steps to cover their arses.

This has all been dealt with previously and is false.

 

[Number37]

The process of the trial itself is inherently traumatic
I suspect there are ways for defence lawyers to still do those types of tactics (and as you say engage the victim blame types in mainstream opinion “media”)

The whole process is traumatic for the victim.

It is very difficult for defence lawyers to go down the victim blaming path these days. They will get pulled up very quickly and most likely censured for even attempting it.

 

[Crankyhawk]

That is simplistic nonsense.

On inquisitorial vs adversarial I found this phd paper

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9257247.pdf

Now it is a long read so yes I skipped to the conclusion which was that the issues re how rape victims are treated is more around the cultural beliefs about rape (and defence lawyers in both adversarial and inquisitorial systems did the same things re the victim’s sexual history, behaviour and the concept of the “perfect victim”) the paper did say both systems were slowly moving away from that culture (obviously a positive)

 

[FIGJAM]

False information can't be used in any case.

The criminal case does not hinge on what is written in an article. It's not evidence.

Higgins' claims and evidence provided within The Project article, false or otherwise, were literally extensively used in the criminal trial.

 

[FIGJAM]

That is simplistic nonsense.

How is effectively bringing up a topic for discussion "simplistic nonsense".

You need to stop responding to me now.

 

[Saint]

The victim is not on trial. That kind of defence tactics has been outlawed.
That's why the right wingers put the victim on trial in the media. It would not fly in court.

Also the reason Lehrman's team was (allegedly, but who else would have done it?) leaking confidential trial information to the media.

The media, LNP and establishment media lined up against a rape victim and those media orgs have used leaked confidential trial information to undermine the trial and the reputation of the victim. They went full bore against a fair trial and attacking a rape victim. The Public Prosecutor also thought the police were against the victim too but couldn't prove it.

And Reynolds (and FIGJAM) want people to think that the main problem with the whole thing was that The Project and the victim's boyfriend hinted that Reynolds was covering it up.

The problem is the whole system which allowed all of this to happen and continues to allow it to happen. This type of behaviour is contributing to violence against women (including dozens of deaths this year), letting men get away with rape for far too long.

Reynolds' situation is nearly non-existent in the order of problems to be addressed. Her referral to NACC makes a mockery of her pretending she actually cares/cared about the rape victim.

 

[Saint]

Reynolds would be far better concentrating on going after Sharaz as he very much pointed the finger at her without seemingly anything to back it up.
I would be interested to see how Higgins and Sharaz and their legal team intend to defend this if it goes that far ?
Reynolds is probably too much in the hole for legal costs to back down (and she wants her pound of flesh anyway). I don't think anyone is winning anything here.

How much money do you think Sharaz has?

She's going after Higgins' payout money (the same payout she referred to NACC). She's being entirely vindictive, knowing that the legal costs will take everything Higgins got and she's got very little chance of getting a decent payday from Sharaz or Higgins.

 

[western royboy]

[QUOTE="FIGJAM, post: 83346157, member: 751"

They were out for ages and it was careering towards a hung jury, hence the desperation of the juror in question in bringing in external information. Hence why it was "probable" that that was the likely outcome.

[/QUOTE]
Have a read back of what you’ve put here - think you’ve stretched it a bit far