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

[FIGJAM]

yep champ. use to read your biased, selective interpretation. you sugar coat some of it in order to create the impression you're merely an observer.

Lee didn't seem to think that there was a whole lot of room for interpretation the other day at the costs hearing, after Quill and Wilkinson hit the media circuit put their own interpretations out there, claiming "vindication" of the article and regurgitating cover-up conspiracies. Lee pulled them up and their highly paid barristers were scrambling to apologise and make amends.

Now that you've finally read the verdict, can you point out where I've done some sugar-coating on the key findings:

1. Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins;
2. The 2021 version of Higgins' accounts differed greatly from her 2019 accounts by way of credibility and she (and Sharaz) crafted a narrative accusing others of putting up roadblocks and forcing her two years earlier of having to choose between her career and seeking justice by making and pursuing a complaint;
3. The conduct of Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson in publishing their story fell short of the standard of reasonableness, with the allegation of rape was the minor theme, and the allegation of cover-up was the major motif;
4. That the combination of Points 2 and 3 above 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.

I appreciate that you are saying that I am being selective, but how is it that you are not being selective if you are only focussed on Point 1 and completely ignore the ramifications of Points 2, 3 and 4?

 

[Not Important]

Lee didn't seem to think that there was a whole lot of room for interpretation the other day at the costs hearing, after Quill and Wilkinson hit the media circuit put their own interpretations out there, claiming "vindication" of the article and regurgitating cover-up conspiracies. Lee pulled them up and their highly paid barristers were scrambling to apologise and make amends.

Now that you've finally read the verdict, can you point out where I've done some sugar-coating on the key findings:

1. Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins;
2. The 2021 version of Higgins' accounts differed greatly from her 2019 accounts by way of credibility and she (and Sharaz) crafted a narrative accusing others of putting up roadblocks and forcing her two years earlier of having to choose between her career and seeking justice by making and pursuing a complaint;
3. The conduct of Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson in publishing their story fell short of the standard of reasonableness, with the allegation of rape was the minor theme, and the allegation of cover-up was the major motif;
4. That the combination of Points 2 and 3 above 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.

I appreciate that you are saying that I am being selective, but how is it that you are not being selective if you are only focussed on Point 1 and completely ignore the ramifications of Points 2, 3 and 4?

your agenda throughout has been to show reynolds as the victim. on one occasion you excused her from being across a matter cos she was in perth. yeah sure! my point is you have no real conception of how ministerial offices work.

 

[FIGJAM]

your agenda throughout has been to show reynolds as the victim.

No, that’s just your interpretation on things and it’s wrong.

I like you and many others, watched The Project interview, which is a show that I never watch and thought “heck me! That is explosive. Brown, Reynolds and the Libs are ******* arseholes…”, only unlike you I added the thought "...assuming that it's true!".

And over time, it became clearer and clearer that it was not true and it's now proven as such.

My "agenda" to use your words, it to hold the circa 2021 Higgins camp and Network 10 to account for propagating falsehoods. It pisses me off!

on one occasion you excused her from being across a matter cos she was in perth. yeah sure! my point is you have no real conception of how ministerial offices work.

So we're back to "It's the vibe!" argument.

As I've said, even if some entities knew something earlier or even at all, it doesn't mean s**t if they're not trying to cover the event up. And there is actually evidence that they didn't only not try to cover it up, but they took Higgins to the police.

I mean, surely your "vibe" conspiracy would have even the slightest whiff of circumstantial evidence that was counter to the known act of taking Higgins to the police. What was it?

 

[CM86]

As I've said, even if some entities knew something earlier or even at all, it doesn't mean s**t if they're not trying to cover the event up. And there is actually evidence that they didn't only not try to cover it up, but they took Higgins to the police.

I mean, surely your "vibe" conspiracy would have even the slightest whiff of circumstantial evidence that was counter to the known act of taking Higgins to the police. What was it?

1. When were the police first able to access the CCTV footage?
2. When did the police first request access to the CCTV footage?

3. Why did Lehrmann's actions stand out to multiple people that evening, if it was a common occurrence?
4. Why was the cleaning service being called in a 'common occurrence', if this wasn't a common occurrence?
5. Why was Lehrmann fired for his common action, that resulted in all of the 'common occurrences'?

6. What was put in place to support the rape victim, when it was evident that a fireable offence had occurred?
7. Why was the rape victim unable to view the CCTV footage of the night she was raped?

8. If the CCTV footage was preserved, based on the allegation and reason for Lehrmann being let go (why wasn't it??), would it not have been very helpful for Higgin's criminal trial?

Please and thank you.

 

[campbell]

No, that’s just your interpretation on things and it’s wrong.

I like you and many others, watched The Project interview, which is a show that I never watch and thought “* me! That is explosive. Brown, Reynolds and the Libs are ******* arseholes…”, only unlike you I added the thought "...assuming that it's true!".

And over time, it became clearer and clearer that it was not true and it's now proven as such.

My "agenda" to use your words, it to hold the circa 2021 Higgins camp and Network 10 to account for propagating falsehoods. It pisses me off!



So we're back to "It's the vibe!" argument.

As I've said, even if some entities knew something earlier or even at all, it doesn't mean s**t if they're not trying to cover the event up. And there is actually evidence that they didn't only not try to cover it up, but they took Higgins to the police.

I mean, surely your "vibe" conspiracy would have even the slightest whiff of circumstantial evidence that was counter to the known act of taking Higgins to the police. What was it?

Sadly, Fig, your words seem to be supporting and protecting, Reynolds and Bruce.

It is awful that you seem to lack insight on this.

 

[FIGJAM]

Sadly, Fig, your words seem to be supporting and protecting, Reynolds and Bruce.

I take umbrage on “supporting and protecting” Bruce, campbell! I’ve said he is a rapist and that his actions are abhorrent. Can you kindly withdraw this?

As for “supporting and protecting” Reynolds, then I would agree with that, to the extent that it relates to the now debunked cover-up claims.

I have empathy for both Brown and Reynolds, who are two women who’ve had false allegations made against them.

For the avoidance of doubt, I feel far greater empathy for Higgins the rape victim.

Higgins showed some contrition and empathy for the hurt experienced by Brown and Reynolds in her statement after the verdict. I’m not sure why having empathy for multiple people negatively impacted by this whole affair seen as a negative.

 

[Wallace52]

1. When were the police first able to access the CCTV footage?
2. When did the police first request access to the CCTV footage?

3. Why did Lehrmann's actions stand out to multiple people that evening, if it was a common occurrence?
4. Why was the cleaning service being called in a 'common occurrence', if this wasn't a common occurrence?
5. Why was Lehrmann fired for his common action, that resulted in all of the 'common occurrences'?

6. What was put in place to support the rape victim, when it was evident that a fireable offence had occurred?
7. Why was the rape victim unable to view the CCTV footage of the night she was raped?

8. If the CCTV footage was preserved, based on the allegation and reason for Lehrmann being let go (why wasn't it??), would it not have been very helpful for Higgin's criminal trial?

Please and thank you.

Agree with all of this. I think there was a cover up, to some extent.

Look at the fact that the Commonwealth settled with Higgins for circa
2.4 Mil.

They didn’t do that for nothing. There must have been a reason she was compensated.

 

[QuietB]

Brown, Reynolds and the Libs are ******* arseholes…”, only unlike you I added the thought "...assuming that it's true!".

And over time, it became clearer and clearer that it was not true and it's now proven as such.

Reynolds is an a-hole. That is not in dispute - “lying cow”, sending her husband off to court, briefing and assisting the defence, etc.

Brown is not.

The Liberals are 100% arseholes. This is also not in dispute.

 

[FIGJAM]

I'm going to respond to your post above CM86 and then will be taking an extended break from the topic.

Can be a bit unhealthy for all of us to be honest, which I'm sure you would agree.

1. When were the police first able to access the CCTV footage?

As early as 16 April 2019.

2. When did the police first request access to the CCTV footage?

Following an Evidence-in-Chief interview.

7. Why was the rape victim unable to view the CCTV footage of the night she was raped?

Because nobody should view the CCTV until they give an an Evidence-in-Chief interview.


Section I.6 details a number of Brittany's concerns on the CCTV and then concludes that the whole issue is a "furphy":

8. If the CCTV footage was preserved, based on the allegation and reason for Lehrmann being let go (why wasn't it??), would it not have been very helpful for Higgin's criminal trial?

I'm not 100% sure of what you mean here, but as above, the footage was preserved and it was used in Lehrmann's criminal trial.

There is some dispute about there being 100% of the footage, which the police says is whole, but Drumgold says isn't and even blamed police for deleting footage (before recanting). Ultimately, the CCTV footage, shows that Higgins was very drunk and it's logical that she was, so I'm not sure what the supposed extra footage (if any) would add to that.

3. Why did Lehrmann's actions stand out to multiple people that evening, if it was a common occurrence?

I don't know how "common" it is or isn't for there to be 'wee hours' of the morning access that would be much longer than just picking up keys or documents. There was a woman who entered in at around the same time as them, so after hours access, even on a Saturday morning, does happen.

Security were right to have suspicions on Lehrmann and Higgins' behaviour. I thought their check ins could have been a more assertive. But ultimately, it's not like they had the lens of 20:20 hindsight either, so that leap to a sexual assault having probably having taken place is a big leap and Higgins gave then assurances that she was ok.

4. Why was the cleaning service being called in a 'common occurrence', if this wasn't a common occurrence?

As above, the context of 'common occurrence' in the context that I read it would be that there is sufficient suspicion that an event happened in the suite that was so egregious that they best put a police tape across the main door and call in forensics.

But it wasn't in security's 'mind's eye'. Did they kick-on and drink some more? Did they do drugs? Were they using the base to procure drugs? Did they have consensual sex? Were one or both of them stealing documents? Was Higgins simply so sickly drunk that she needed time to cool off?

There were so many probabilities as to what may or may not have happened, that rape would be pretty low on the probability list. The cleaner Carlos Ramos was told to look for "signs of a party", demonstrating the mindset of security.

5. Why was Lehrmann fired for his common action, that resulted in all of the 'common occurrences'?

It is well documented why Lehrmann was sacked:



Mishandling confidential documents or lying to get into Parliament House are not "common actions".

6. What was put in place to support the rape victim, when it was evident that a fireable offence had occurred?

As above, the "fireable offence" wasn't a part of the sexual assault allegation.

As to support, Higgins was taken to police by Brown, as recommended by Reynolds.

Higgins had access to the Employee Assistance Program that Sam Maiden scoffed at as effectively being token support, but it is a genuine independent extension to most businesses nowadays.

Brown gave Higgins multiple options as to where she could work from, including Gold Coast, Canberra or Perth, but couldn't get her a gig in the Brisbane campaign headquarters.

Higgins sent Reynolds flowers thanking her for her support.

Higgins also sent Brown this heartfelt text and a bottle of champagne (a text that was missing on Higgins' phone):



While there may a better system that could be put in place going forward is a fair argument and I hope there systemic change has already happened, but Higgins had support.

Please and thank you.

No problem!

 

[FIGJAM]

Reynolds is an a-hole. That is not in dispute - “lying cow”, sending her husband off to court, briefing and assisting the defence, etc.

Brown is not.

The Liberals are 100% arseholes. This is also not in dispute.

Haha!

I would have said the coalition are substantially full of arseholes and that is not in dispute, but we're not far apart.

There is a concept in Justice Lee's verdict that is:



This is obviously to deal with the fact that both Lehrmann and Higgins were unreliable witnesses (to different degrees), but that truth can be weeded out.

I would extend that theory for both the Coalition and Reynolds to be:

Just because you're an a-hole in one thing, doesn't mean you're an a-hole in everything.

Similarly, the truth can be weeded out from their general arseholeness and I think Justice Lee did a bang up job in doing so.

 

[Chief]

your agenda throughout has been to show reynolds as the victim. on one occasion you excused her from being across a matter cos she was in perth. yeah sure! my point is you have no real conception of how ministerial offices work.

I think this is an unfair take on Fig's posting.

 

[Not Important]

I think this is an unfair take on Fig's posting.

i guess it comes from my first-hand knowledge of the way ministerial offices and electoral offices work. in addition to the way their departments work.

i can see from figs comments he doesn’t appreciate that the foremost job of the ministerial offices is to keep the minister informed on all matters politic and out of trouble. some of the poster’s suggestions were indicative of reynolds not knowing. that would be contrary to the way most ministerial offices work and brown’s evidence would suggest the reynolds office was no different to most.

maybe i was too direct.

 

[Festerz]

i guess it comes from my first-hand knowledge of the way ministerial offices and electoral offices work. in addition to the way their departments work.

i can see from figs comments he doesn’t appreciate that the foremost job of the ministerial offices is to keep the minister informed on all matters politic and out of trouble. some of the poster’s suggestions were indicative of reynolds not knowing. that would be contrary to the way most ministerial offices work and brown’s evidence would suggest the reynolds office was no different to most.

Agree.

I've never been a member of a political party nor worked in political offices but have worked directly with them and have friends/colleagues who have worked in them including one who went from being a CoS to becoming a Minister themselves in a Labor Government and one who became a Liberal Leader.

The term 'no surprises' is something I heard constantly in dealing with them. What that phrase means is pretty self explanatory.

 

[FIGJAM]

Irrespective of the above two posts, which I'll respect as having deeper inside knowledge than myself, even if Reynolds was looped in at the earliest possible point in time, which would have had to be the Saturday of the assault itself, the general premise of this is that Reynolds basically orchestrated the office clean from the sidelines that was undertaken with the specific intent of cleaning up a potential sexual assault crime scene.

There are just too many assumptions and leaps of judgement in there that I can't see it as other than probable conspiratorial fantasy. And when the conspiracy to cover-up links become this tenuous, particularly after a plethora of other cover-up claims have been debunked, then it should be treated with even more scepticism.

Justice Lee did ultimately provide some opinion on the cleaning matter:

Anyway, as I said to CM86 earlier, I'm going to take a break from the topic for a while, as arguing over each other's points of view too much can be unhealthy.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

Irrespective of the above two posts, which I'll respect as having deeper inside knowledge than myself, even if Reynolds was looped in at the earliest possible point in time, which would have had to be the Saturday of the assault itself, the general premise of this is that Reynolds basically orchestrated the office clean from the sidelines that was undertaken with the specific intent of cleaning up a potential sexual assault crime scene.

There are just too many assumptions and leaps of judgement in there that I can't see it as other than probable conspiratorial fantasy. And when the conspiracy to cover-up links become this tenuous, particularly after a plethora of other cover-up claims have been debunked, then it should be treated with even more scepticism.

Justice Lee did ultimately provide some opinion on the cleaning matter:



Anyway, as I said to CM86 earlier, I'm going to take a break from the topic for a while, as arguing over each other's points of view too much can be unhealthy.

There have been imo a few posters - including you - going around in circles for some time here.
Probs a good idea for a reset and just let the dust settle and see where things go now.
Hopefully sanity prevails. I'm an optimist.

 

[Gethelred]

How much was fat cat pollie Reynolds wanting from Sharaz when he can't even afford to defend himself. Does she want blood on her desk as well as semen.

I don't think all that much of Linda Reynolds, but that's a pretty foul thing to say.

 

[Festerz]

There have been imo a few posters - including you - going around in circles for some time here.
Probs a good idea for a reset now and just let the dust settle and see where things go from here.
Hopefully sanity prevails. I'm an optimist.

Sage advice.

But remember what this thread is about- Lehrmann's upcoming rape trial in Toowoomba.

Last I heard, the committal hearing for that matter is set for 17 June.

And Lehrmann has been given until 31 May to appeal the findings in his defamation trial.

Dust will barely have time to settle.

 

[campbell]

Sage advice.

But remember what this thread is about- Lehrmann's upcoming rape trial in Toowoomba.

Last I heard, the committal hearing for that matter is set for 17 June.

And Lehrmann has been given until 31 May to appeal the findings in his defamation trial.

Dust will barely have time to settle.

Need more popcorn......imo he would be daft to appeal, but hey, each to his own.

Toowoomba should be interesting though.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

Sage advice.

But remember what this thread is about- Lehrmann's upcoming rape trial in Toowoomba.

Last I heard, the committal hearing for that matter is set for 17 June.

Dust will barely have time to settle.

Thanks mate but does the thread title keep changing as per Lehrmann's new changes / situation(s) or am I posting this in some older thread about something else ? I was talking about going around in circles vibes I was getting on the subject that "Reynolds (and maybe Brown) are victims too". I was trying to say move on from there as it was going around in circles and peeps weren't changing their views. So move on - and I guess that means Toowoomba ? Am I doing this right ?

 

[Festerz]

Thanks mate but does the thread title keep changing as per Lehrmann's new changes / situation(s) or am I posting this in some older thread about something else ? I was talking about going around in circles vibes I was getting on the subject that "Reynolds (and maybe Brown) are victims too". I was trying to say move on from there as it was going around in circles and peeps weren't changing their views. So move on - and I guess that means Toowoomba ? Am I doing this right ?

This thread in the Australian politics forum started with the October 2023 lifting of the suppression order on the media naming Bruce Lehrmann as the man charged with two rape charges in the Toowoomba Courts. While his identity was widely known, he was referred to as the 'High Profile Man' up until the suppression order was lifted.

There is a thread in the Crime forum which goes way back to February 2021 that started up when The Project interview with Ms Higgins first aired.

There's been a fair bit of cross posting between both threads. Not surprising given the high political interest and connections of the original sexual assault and subsequent events.

 

[QuietB]

I see Reynolds wants all the details of Higgins settlement Trust now.

This is increasingly looking like a money grabbing quest for revenge now.

 

[campbell]

I see Reynolds wants all the details of Higgins settlement Trust now.

This is increasingly looking like a money grabbing quest for revenge now.

Shame on her.

 

[Festerz]

I see Reynolds wants all the details of Higgins settlement Trust now.

This is increasingly looking like a money grabbing quest for revenge now.

Yep. The relentless attack on the 'lying cow' by Senator Reynolds continues.

Reported by Janet Albrechtsen with glee:

 

[western royboy]

I see Reynolds wants all the details of Higgins settlement Trust now.

This is increasingly looking like a money grabbing quest for revenge now.

Wasn’t it always that?

 

[Gough]

Reported by Janet Albrechtsen with glee:

View attachment 1981069

I assume this is still the case which makes her pursuit of a private individual even more despicable.

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/taxpayers-to-pay-legal-bills-of-former-defence-minister-linda-reynolds/news-story/1f4bc57ff265d579187049712c695973

Taxpayers are now paying the legal bills of former Defence Minister Linda Reynolds in relation to the AFP police investigation into the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins and a Tasmanian MP who defamed another MP.
The Morrison Government has revealed for the first time in Senate estimates today that Senator Reynolds has engaged legal counsel that is being paid for by taxpayers to provide her with legal advice amid a police investigation.