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

How long will the jury be out for?

  • Back the same afternoon

    Votes: 12 34.3%
  • One day

    Votes: 12 34.3%
  • Two days

    Votes: 6 17.1%
  • Three to five days

    Votes: 3 8.6%
  • Over a week

    Votes: 2 5.7%

  • Total voters
    35
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #21
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 โ€“ BOARD OF INQUIRY โ€“ CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Joint media statement โ€“ Chief Minister and Attorney-General

LINK TO FEDERAL COURT DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS
 
Last edited:
Module One of the Inquiry, which concluded today, only called 2 witnesses - Mr Shane Drumgold SC and Mr Steven Whybrow SC.

The Inquiry will recommence on Monday (22 May) by which time I expect the Chair will detail witnesses called for Module Two - most likely AFP representatives and Victim of Crimes Commissioner.

The use of victim not complainant should get a thorough hearing.
 
Why would being truthful be a sackable offence when made to a 3rd party.
Where is there any evidence whatsoever that he was being truthful?

He shouldn't be talking about work matters to a third party in the first place.
 
Does anybody know if Janet Albrechtsen can be called up to the inquiry and asked who sent her the leaked Moller Report?

Because that would be fabulous.
Ignoring the issue of freedom of the press, to go along with denying the presumption of innocence, and the complainant described as the victim.

You are making the assumption that Albrechtsen received the leak at Newscorp based on her call on October 19 2022, when the article in question was published 6 weeks later.

From The Aus on Tuesday May 16, 2023:

'Mr Whybrowโ€™s communications โ€“ published by the Board overnight โ€“ show that on December 3 last year Ms Jerome contacted him just after 7am demanding to know whether he had leaked the AFPโ€™s investigative review document, now known as the Moller Report, to The Weekend Australian after an article detailing its contents was published that Saturday morning.'

'The messages were obtained after the ACT Board of Inquiry issued a subpoena to obtain Mr Whybrowโ€˜s communications with prosecutors and police over matters related to Mr Lehrmannโ€™s trial.

The communications also reveal that The Australianโ€™s columnist Janet Albrechtsen had called Mr Whybrow on October 19, 2022 โ€“ the day the jury began deliberating โ€“ and asked him to confirm the Moller Reportโ€™s existence.'

โ€œI received a call from Janet Albrechtsen (journalist) asking me about a document she referred to as the โ€˜Moller Reportโ€™,โ€ Mr Whybrow said in his statement to the inquiry.

โ€œFrom what she was telling me, I understood this to mean the Investigative Review Document or some parts of it.

โ€œMs Albrechtsen requested I confirm the document existed. I informed her I was not prepared to comment on the matter at all.'

โ€œI suggested she may wish to enquire with AFP media, the Police involved in the investigation, or lodge a Freedom of Information request for the document she was describing.โ€
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Where is there any evidence whatsoever that he was being truthful?

He shouldn't be talking about work matters to a third party in the first place.

Shouldnt ? Moral outrage has emotion in it & needs to be taken as such.
I could understand your protestations if it was being used on the employer, it was not.

It is fairly obvious the personal relations of those involved at the AFP, DPP & the legal profession are both cordial & civil*. They are not footy teams trying to win a game of footy. The law of the land is not a game.


* see the robust conversation between Ms Jerome from the DPP & Defence lawyer Whybrow. She rings at 7am on Saturday & a frank discussion is had:

Ms Jerome contacted him just after 7am demanding to know whether he had leaked the AFPโ€™s investigative review document ....
At 7.13am Ms Jerome texted Mr Whybrow asking: โ€œWho leaked the documents to the Australian?โ€

Mr Whybrow texted straight back: โ€œWhatโ€™s happened nowโ€.

Ms Jerome then sent him a link to The Weekend Australianโ€™s article.

โ€œQuoting all the police advices,โ€ she wrote. โ€œOutrageous.โ€

Mr Whybrow responded: โ€œFirewalled. None of us. 100%.โ€

Ms Jerome then sent him the link to another related story published by The Weekend Australian that morning.

โ€œHope you make the same accusation to the cops,โ€ Mr Whybrow fired back.

Ms Jerome sent him a question mark, followed by a frosty: โ€œI asked you a questionโ€.

Mr Whybrow responded that he had โ€œno idea where that comes fromโ€.

Ms Jerome then screenshotted and texted the article to Mr Whybrow.

โ€œWow. Thanks for sending. F*ck!,โ€ he replied.

The pair spoke on the phone before Ms Jerome texted Mr Whybrow again at 10.15am.

โ€œThanks for talking this morning,โ€ she said. โ€œI appreciate it.โ€

โ€œStill canโ€™t read it,โ€ he said.

 


jurors are meant to be a representation of the wider community.

it's unfortunate that, the wider community are actually a lot dumber than a lot of us want to admit.

This isn't the first time a jury member has done the wrong thing, and it sure as s**t won't be the last. So i wouldn't put a stake in the ground that this is the moment people in the ACT should lose faith.
People in the ACT long since lost confidence in the justice here, massive under policing and prosecutions pursued or not depending on the political of the day, inconsistent sentencing. But it isn't a big issue as Canberra is very very safe ALP territory (might change if the deceitful Katy Gallagher loses her senate seat to a Green which would be great).";

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Ignoring the issue of freedom of the press, to go along with denying the presumption of innocence, and the complainant described as the victim.

You are making the assumption that Albrechtsen received the leak at Newscorp based on her call on October 19 2022, when the article in question was published 6 weeks later.

I haven't made any assumptions.
 
I didn't.

My reference was to the whole clusterfeck of proven lies and mistruths, belligerence, stupidity, deliberate mis-reporting, political interference, and (quite possibly) deliberate misfeasance:

its likely stupidity as you said.

I am no sure how Bruce would command such power that they can influence people yo throw jurys. The guy is a nobody.
 
The guy is a nobody.

And yet this 'nobody' has been able to gain the financial support needed to have top tier silks represent him in multiple defamation actions and has seen confidential and highly prejudicial AFP case notes, detrimental to the reputation and claims of his alleged victim in an active criminal trial, find their way onto several front pages of The Australian national newspaper.

A 'nobody' who has garnered a lot of support and interest from very high places it seems.
 
And yet this 'nobody' has been able to gain the financial support needed to have top tier silks represent him in multiple defamation actions and has seen confidential and highly prejudicial AFP case notes, detrimental to the reputation and claims of his alleged victim in an active criminal trial, find their way onto several front pages of The Australian national newspaper.

A 'nobody' who has garnered a lot of support and interest from very high places it seems.

a nobody is allowed support from people in high places just as much as the next bloke. There would be plenty of people that believe he is 100% innocent, nothing wrong with that at all. Not like Higgins also didn't get her share of high-profile support. Much so before the trial even started.

There's no doubt he has some connections but the ability to get someone to deliberately throw a case? I very much doubt it.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The difference here being the role of the ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner* in the matters being examined by Sofronoff KC.

*Victims of Crime Commissioner - ACT Human Rights Commission
I don't understand how a person can be classified as a "victim" before a crime has been proven and/or an accused has been convicted. Therefore the person is a "complainant". Perhaps they could rename her as the Complainants of Crime Commissioner?
 
I don't understand how a person can be classified as a "victim" before a crime has been proven and/or an accused has been convicted. Therefore the person is a "complainant". Perhaps they could rename her as the Complainants of Crime Commissioner?

The title doesn't need to be renamed. The Commissioner just needs to ensure a crime has been established before getting themselves involved with those affected.
 
The title doesn't need to be renamed. The Commissioner just needs to ensure a crime has been established before getting themselves involved with those affected.

The Commissioner might have sent a support team in with Brittany Higgins rather than been herself so visible but the role is advocacy for victims, not all crimes result in charges, a prosecution or a successful conviction but that doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed against a person and that they weren't a victim.

The role is extremely important particularly given it's vulnerable people with few resources that more often become victims of crime, they're easy marks and I wouldn't like to see that advocacy or support taken from them.

I think it's that which annoys me so much about case.
 
The Commissioner might have sent a support team in with Brittany Higgins rather than been herself so visible but the role is advocacy for victims, not all crimes result in charges, a prosecution or a successful conviction but that doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed against a person and that they weren't a victim.

The role is extremely important particularly given it's vulnerable people with few resources that more often become victims of crime, they're easy marks and I wouldn't like to see that advocacy or support taken from them.

I think it's that which annoys me so much about case.

Nothing you say is incorrect, but not all criminal proceedings are the same.

There are some cases where regardless of the result of the proceedings, it is still established that a crime has taken place. The most obvious example is a murder trial where there is a coroners report stating the cause of death is homicide and the trial is whether the accused killed that person (assume there are not relevant defences in this example).

Given the circumstances in this case, the trial was to establish whether or not a crime had taken place at all.
 
Nothing you say is incorrect, but not all criminal proceedings are the same.

There are some cases where regardless of the result of the proceedings, it is still established that a crime has taken place. The most obvious example is a murder trial where there is a coroners report stating the cause of death is homicide and the trial is whether the accused killed that person (assume there are not relevant defences in this example).

Given the circumstances in this case, the trial was to establish whether or not a crime had taken place at all.

You're saying you want a Coroner's report that can take decades, to establish a crime has taken place so there's a 'formalised' obvious victim, who's dead also by the way and doesn't require the Commissioner's advocacy.
 
Nothing you say is incorrect, but not all criminal proceedings are the same.

There are some cases where regardless of the result of the proceedings, it is still established that a crime has taken place. The most obvious example is a murder trial where there is a coroners report stating the cause of death is homicide and the trial is whether the accused killed that person (assume there are not relevant defences in this example).

Given the circumstances in this case, the trial was to establish whether or not a crime had taken place at all.

Perhaps not in your case but I cant help but think more broadly that the criticism of the Commissioner's advocacy and support for Higgins is a smokescreen to disguise resentfulness and push towards further isolating and weakening victims of crime, rape more specifically, alleged or not.
 
You're saying you want a Coroner's report that can take decades to establish a crime has taken place so there's an obvious victim, who's dead also by the way and doesn't require the Commissioner's advocacy.

OK so there's a few things to unpack here.

A medical examiner who works for the coroner can assist in establishing homicide very quickly. A Coronial Inquest is not required for every reportable death, but a report by a medical examiner will be. This report will be released by the State Coroner (Coroner can refer to both an individual person and the office of the state) to the police amongst any other findings to commence an investigation.

And under the relevant legislation in each jurisdiction, a victim is much more broadly defined. It will include family members, witnesses etc. They do need the commissioners support/advocacy if a family member is murdered.

That was also just an example where there is no doubt that a victim exists without a conviction. There are others that won't need the involvement of the Coroner.
 
You're saying you want a Coroner's report that can take decades, to establish a crime has taken place so there's a 'formalised' obvious victim, who's dead also by the way and doesn't require the Commissioner's advocacy.

think he was just giving him an example....dont think he was suggesting every proposed victim needs a coroner's findings to substantiate that a crime actually occurred.

labelling someone a victim, implies that someone committed a crime. I dont really have issued with believing victims who say they were assaulted, actually were. But the same respect should be shown for someone who is alleged of a crime, who said they didn't do it.

Determination of verdicts is what the court system is for, it certainly isn't perfect but that's what we have.
 
think he was just giving him an example....dont think he was suggesting every proposed victim needs a coroner's findings to substantiate that a crime actually occurred.

labelling someone a victim, implies that someone committed a crime. I dont really have issued with believing victims who say they were assaulted, actually were. But the same respect should be shown for someone who is alleged of a crime, who said they didn't do it.

That doesn't make sense. Lehrmann has had and continues to have 'the presumption of innocence'. He had a team of really good lawyers by his side throughout fighting for and giving him best advice from the very beginning.

While I can acknowledge that this case is really unusual and Higgins doesn't conform in most people's view, to deny victims of crime, alleged or not, support from the agency would be a cruel backwards step.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top