Senator Reynolds

Remove this Banner Ad

Aristotle Pickett said:
Stop quoting the Australian who leak txts of an alleged but also real rape victim that have a political agenda.
Reynolds is a scumbucket.
Click to expand...
Does this help inform your closed mind:

1.https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-05/alex-matters-rape-trial/102193444

2.https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-18/david-smith-labor-staffer-alexander-matters-charged-with-rape/100473280

Are you finding this guy guilty .....
 
Kwality said:
Does this help inform your closed mind:

1.https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-05/alex-matters-rape-trial/102193444

2.https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-18/david-smith-labor-staffer-alexander-matters-charged-with-rape/100473280

Are you finding this guy guilty .....
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell no one is running a protection racket for either of them.

If they did commit rape I hope they are found guilty and face appropriate punishment.

It really is not that hard.
 
QuietB said:
As far as I can tell no one is running a protection racket for either of them.

If they did commit rape I hope they are found guilty and face appropriate punishment.

It really is not that hard.
Click to expand...

You've quoted my reply to Ari. Context dear boy, given neither have been found guilty.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

FredLeDeux said:
Somewhat surprised :D:D:D:D:D that this wasn't posted by our regular roving Murdoch shill.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to gain my attention. The news.com.au site is click bait, perhaps you are late to the story too.

What difference does that article make to any of the Court actions Ms Reynolds has in progress ?
 
Festerz said:


Who's the 'lying cow' now?
Click to expand...

Calm down on the hubris. The context of the evidence and given by Reynolds, subsequent conversations and her different recollections are all common in criminal litigation. If it helps, to date, I haven't come away with a positive view of any of the participants. What a horrible lot of self seeking, amoral individuals who should be examples to the rest of us. Of that horrible lot, the least blameworthy, not by much, are Higgins and Lehrmann, they, at least have the excuses of youth, inexperience and that feeling of invincibility that comes after Friday night drinks, how many of us haven't got into a bit of bother under similar circumstances.
 
Can't do well for Reynolds' defamation trial, if her memory of those times are so flimsy that she testified wrongly at a Supreme Court trial already.

Is she going to pinky promise that she remembers correctly this time?
 
Saint said:
Can't do well for Reynolds' defamation trial, if her memory of those times are so flimsy that she testified wrongly at a Supreme Court trial already.

Is she going to pinky promise that she remembers correctly this time?
Click to expand...
Defamation is about what the Defendant does, not the Plaintiff. She has to show that the Defendant has published material, that's provable objectively; and whether what's published defames her, evidence of that is mostly 3rd party.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

D Mitchell said:
Calm down on the hubris. The context of the evidence and given by Reynolds, subsequent conversations and her different recollections are all common in criminal litigation. If it helps, to date, I haven't come away with a positive view of any of the participants. What a horrible lot of self seeking, amoral individuals who should be examples to the rest of us. Of that horrible lot, the least blameworthy, not by much, are Higgins and Lehrmann, they, at least have the excuses of youth, inexperience and that feeling of invincibility that comes after Friday night drinks, how many of us haven't got into a bit of bother under similar circumstances.
Click to expand...
A "bit of bother" is an interesting way to describe the alleged events.
As is the claim that Lehrmann has the "excuse" of "inexperience".
 
FredLeDeux said:
A "bit of bother" is an interesting way to describe the alleged events.
As is the claim that Lehrmann has the "excuse" of "inexperience".
Click to expand...
Yeah - I can't see how both Higgins and Lehrmann can be "excused" or apportioned less blame here, at least not for both of them.

Deep down, one of them can claim this, because they are right. The other person has blatantly lied about the goings on that evening and is no less culpable for the fallout than anyone else, for that reason alone.
 
FredLeDeux said:
A "bit of bother" is an interesting way to describe the alleged events.
As is the claim that Lehrmann has the "excuse" of "inexperience".
Click to expand...
Take away the Political implications. At the end of the day, a couple of kids in their 20's, who work in jobs that inflate their importance, go back to their workplace, objectively, for no important reason (Bruce has put forward 3, Brittany none). It's the adults who have made a mess of this, not the 2 Bs.
 
FredLeDeux said:
A "bit of bother" is an interesting way to describe the alleged events.
As is the claim that Lehrmann has the "excuse" of "inexperience".
Click to expand...
& as we all know there are different understandings of what really happened, often along party lines.
 
Carn The Berries said:
Yeah - I can't see how both Higgins and Lehrmann can be "excused" or apportioned less blame here, at least not for both of them.

Deep down, one of them can claim this, because they are right. The other person has blatantly lied about the goings on that evening and is no less culpable for the fallout than anyone else, for that reason alone.
Click to expand...
If Bruce was an assistant Burser at Kilmore Grammar and Brittany the newly appointed clerk in the admin office and they'd ended up back at the School offices in the wee hours of Saturday after Friday night Staff drinks at the Station Hotel, how would that have played out ? Don't you remember the good old days of Friday Night drinks ? A couple of dumpy kids are costing the taxpayer squillions.
 
D Mitchell said:
Calm down on the hubris. The context of the evidence and given by Reynolds, subsequent conversations and her different recollections are all common in criminal litigation.
Click to expand...

Another one who conveniently chooses to ignore context of the specific event by referencing generalities.

In her evidence to the Supreme Court in the Lehrmann trial Senator Reynolds flatly denied being told by her Chief of Staff Fiona Brown that her former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins had alleged “I remember him on top of me” BEFORE Reynolds met with Higgins.

And on Sunday night's Spotlight program Reynold's completely changed her story saying she had a conversation with Brown before she met with Higgins where her CoS told her that Higgins remembered Lehermann being on top of her. She claimed in the Sunday interview that was the key reason why she insisted Higgins go to police when she met with her.

Why is this significant?

Brown and Reynolds were both asked when they learnt of an alleged sexual incident after Higgins was found in the office, and the latter said — under oath — she initially thought it was just a security breach involving two people in her office- that she did NOT know of Higgins claim that Lehrmann had been lying on top of her when she woke up. Brown said differently — it was one of the key moments in the aborted trial.


F3jwRQYa0AAN8_r


And a written statement provided to the AFP by Senator Reynolds nearly two years after the incident on March 23, 2019


F3jwTw5aAAAhEMJ

Extract of the written statement Linda Reynolds made to the AFP in June 2021 (more than two years after the incident which is interesting in itself):

F3jwSYnaEAACCqP





(from the Glen Schaefer @hardenuppete twitter feed linked by kalex6251 above)

here's a video extract from the 7news Spotlight broadcast which specifically relates to the statements Linda Reynolds made.







Forgotten? FMD.
 
Last edited:
FredLeDeux said:
A "bit of bother" is an interesting way to describe the alleged events.
As is the claim that Lehrmann has the "excuse" of "inexperience".
Click to expand...
how the hell did someone with 'inexperience' end up being a senior advisor to a minister of the crown?
 
D Mitchell said:
If Bruce was an assistant Burser at Kilmore Grammar and Brittany the newly appointed clerk in the admin office and they'd ended up back at the School offices in the wee hours of Saturday after Friday night Staff drinks at the Station Hotel, how would that have played out ? Don't you remember the good old days of Friday Night drinks ? A couple of dumpy kids are costing the taxpayer squillions.
Click to expand...
Interesting analogy - If that was the case they'd be costing both State and Commonwealth taxpayer dollars ;)

My point is, when apportioning blame for the ensuing expenditure, one of them is far more responsible than the other.

Example 1: Brittany Higgins was sexually assaulted/raped by Bruce Lehrmann. Lehrmann is responsible for the costs (to a large degree) as he has committed a crime and subsequently lied about it, tying up police and government resources

Example 2: Brittany Higgins and Bruce Lehrmann have consensual sex at Parliament House. Higgins is responsible for the costs (to a large degree) as she has lied about being sexually assaulted.

There is no situation where the "responsibility" for the time and resources used up by this situation isn't a-symmetrical between these 2 parties.
 
Kwality said:
Are you trying to gain my attention. The news.com.au site is click bait, perhaps you are late to the story too.

What difference does that article make to any of the Court actions Ms Reynolds has in progress ?
Click to expand...
Of course, I mean the fact Renoylds has already admitted lying to the Supreme Court will be great for her credibility.

You have Trump levels of delusion.

Has Reynolds explained why she steam cleaned her office yet. Nothing even happened in there didn’t it 🤷‍♂️
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chief
Anti-vax LNP senate candidate. Where did all the adults go?
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Johnny Bananas
Johnny Bananas

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top