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

[Kurve]

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

 

[zedx]

Do you not see the irony in you both vilifying a woman who you both probably didn't know before The Project interview in pursuing a defamation case? You're practically providing evidence!

In addition, that article doesn't state what Reynolds is prepared to accept when she says "remain committed to fully vindicating my reputation". Apology? Costs? The $400K in Higgins' payout that was related to the false conspiracy? The $6 million that Bruce was supposedly getting from his defamation case?

She makes some good points in the SMH article.

View attachment 1961876

I do understand your point BUT if Reynolds had of been more proactive in investigating the incident and as the senior adult (and as a woman) in this situation I would have expected her to immediately report it, regardless of Britany's hesitations. Its a no brainer, a serious incident has possibly occurred in the workplace. I bet if Britany had tripped and alleged she had broken her toe it would have been reported and investigated immediately! So why not an allegation of rape?? Had Reynolds followed the correct workplace (or just common decency) procedure, we may not be here. Whats that saying? 'There's a special place in hell for women who dont support other women' and so here she is.

 

[jason_recliner]

Says a lot about Higgins character that she a) threw Brown under the bus in order to get her own way and b) hasn't publicly apologised to her, especially in light of her being shown to have been very supportive. I predict Higgins will be found to have defamed Reynolds and will rue not settling when she is forced to pay damages and learns how expensive these lawyers actually are.

 

[Festerz]

QFT.

 

[Festerz]

Says a lot about Higgins character that she a) threw Brown under the bus in order to get her own way and b) hasn't publicly apologised to her, especially in light of her being shown to have been very supportive. I predict Higgins will be found to have defamed Reynolds and will rue not settling when she is forced to pay damages and learns how expensive these lawyers actually are.

Brittany Higgins was raped in her boss's office after hours by a fellow staffer and a highly esteemed judge has now confirmed that in a court judgement delivered just 2 days ago.

And your call is for her to publicly apologise to her boss. A boss who the evidence now confirms lied in giving evidence in her rape trial that she was not told about the rape allegations. She was - by her CoS.

How about you and others here let the rape victim absorb the fact that her traumatic truth has finally been confirmed before yet again condemning her.

BTW Has Bruce Lehrmann apologised for raping her? The fecker still denies it. How about you focus on that?

This thread keeps delivering.

 

[jason_recliner]

BTW Has Bruce Lehrmann apologised for raping her? The fecker still denies it. How about you focus on that?

He's highly unlikely to apologise. What a daft suggestion. His raping speaks volumes about his character.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

View attachment 1961876

Oh dear, poor things. Where's the tissue box!

 

[jason_recliner]

Yep.

The Independent Report provides detailed reports from victims of rampant bullying and sexual harassment taking place in Parliamentary workplaces in the years before and during the period Ms Higgins was raped.

A bloody disgrace for which Scott Morrison led a formal apology from Federal Parliament following the release of the Inquiry Report.

House of Representatives Speaker Andrew Wallace delivered the acknowledgement, saying the parliament had failed to serve as a model workplace for the nation."We acknowledge the unacceptable history of workplace bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces," he said.

As Morrison said, the MPs and Ministers of the time are the ones who ultimately bear the responsibility for these failures and the great harm done to staff members.

The damning fact is that there are still deniers who, for political reasons, want to absolve politicians and Ministers of any blame in what has happened here.

Yes, and the fact these clowns need rules/procedures/legislation to tell them not to come to work under the influence while getting paid very generously using public money. The mind BOGGLES. Says a lot about the calibre and character of people (not all I'm sure) working at PH. I'd expect that attitude and level of professionalism by some under-30s on a building site.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Little known fact, Lehrmsn was a lobbyist for British American Tobacco. Further evidence he is a campaigner.

Bruce Lehrmann told employer ‘false allegations’ had not hurt his ability to lobby effectively, documents show

List of ‘friendly’ journalists and other media personalities Lehrmann was ‘outraged’ at also among evidence submitted to the court

www.theguardian.com

 

[MPMonkeys]

I do understand your point BUT if Reynolds had of been more proactive in investigating the incident and as the senior adult (and as a woman) in this situation I would have expected her to immediately report it, regardless of Britany's hesitations. Its a no brainer, a serious incident has possibly occurred in the workplace. I bet if Britany had tripped and alleged she had broken her toe it would have been reported and investigated immediately! So why not an allegation of rape?? Had Reynolds followed the correct workplace (or just common decency) procedure, we may not be here. Whats that saying? 'There's a special place in hell for women who dont support other women' and so here she is.

There was no allegation of rape at the time.
Reynolds and Brown did nothing wrong as has been found comprehensively in Lee's judgement.

 

[BFew]

More legal action related to this case announced today.
This time from ex-Spotlight producer Taylor Auerbach.

https://www.news.com.au/national/exspotlight-producer-taylor-auerbach-drops-new-bomb-on-seven-network/news-story/558a94f571894dd5745f51a18cbd576b

'Ex-Spotlight producer Taylor Auerbach drops new bomb on Seven Network​

Taylor Auerbach has sent a concerns notice naming a number of Seven executives regarding their reported comments over the alleged cocaine and sex scandal.

Samantha Maiden
https://twitter.com/samanthamaiden
April 17, 2024 - 11:20AM
...
The concerns notice names Seven chief executive James Warburton, Kerry Stokes’ longstanding right-hand man Bruce McWilliam and producer and blogger Robert McKnight, and refers to comments it is claimed they made over the cocaine and sex scandal that emerged around the program’s explosive interview with Bruce Lehrmann.
...
Auerbach’s correspondence states he is prepared to resolve the matter if Seven undertakes never to republish the publications or to repeat or republish any of the imputations.

He also wants a non-confidential letter – signed by Mr Warburton – with the following apology:

“On 2 and 4 April 2024, various senior personnel at Seven Network (Operations) Limited (Seven) published a series of false assertions about Mr Auerbach and the evidence he gave in the Bruce Lehrmann defamation proceedings. Seven accepts these assertions were unfair and untrue and therefore unreservedly withdraws them and apologises to Mr Auerbach for the harm he has suffered as a result of Seven’s statements about him.”

Although the publishers have 28 days to serve any offer to make amends, Auerbach’s legal letter states that he is of the view that the apology must be published swiftly and that any delay in publishing it will significantly decrease its effect and potentially render it useless.

“Accordingly, Mr Auerbach’s offer will only remain open for acceptance for a period of 10 days from the date of this letter.”
...'

 

[zedx]

There was no allegation of rape at the time.
Reynolds and Brown did nothing wrong as has been found comprehensively in Lee's judgement.

Do you seriously believe that 8 days later, when Reynolds called Higgins to her office to discuss Higgins' late-night entry into her (Reynolds) office, which Reynolds believed to be a security breach, that Reynolds did not know what had happened? IMO the fact that 3 days after the alleged rape, Lehrmann had been told to pack his things and leave, tells me she knew. Reynolds took another 5 days to speak to Brittany because she was weighing up what was her best course of action. And I believe Reynolds put her own best interests (her career etc) in front of Brittanys best interests. It was not a security breach Reynolds was worried about, it was the fall out from a rape in Parliment house in her office she was worried about.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Because the previous rape trial was aborted without a judgement being delivered and the rape charges against Lehrmann have not been withdrawn or set aside, it is open to the current ACT DPP to re-try the case in the light of new evidence which surfaced during the Lehrmann defamation action.

However, immediately after the Lehrmann rape trial was aborted the previous DPP formally announced that his office would not seek to re-try the case due to the precarious mental health condition of Ms Higgins. I cannot imagine that this situation would have changed.

There are issues stemming from the defamation case relating to possible contempt of court issues in the aborted rape trial relating to false statements under oath and the leaking of confidential information to Network 7 that (I hope) may be the subject of further investigation by the AFP and possible charges down the track.

But after the disastrous experience of the Sofronoff Inquiry I doubt the ACT Government has the stomach to revisit the Lehrmann trial yet again.

The other key issue is the differences in burden of proof in a criminal trial. Justice Lee only had to find that a rape occurred on balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Festerz]

The other key issue is the differences in burden of proof in a criminal trial. Justice Lee only had to find that a rape occurred on balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

True.

That is the legal distinction of the standard of proof between the finding of guilt in a civil trial v a criminal trial. But I do chuckle when it is brought up as an 'obvious' point of distinction on guilty verdicts on social media platforms and it has been mentioned twice in this thread already.

Because, anyone who has been involved in a jury-based criminal trial in any capacity would understand the grave difficulty a lay jury has in understanding the meaning of the legal term 'beyond reasonable doubt' let alone the distinction between that term and the alternative 'balance of probabilities' test as applies in a civil case.

In fact the jury in the original Lehrmann rape trial went back to the Judge during their deliberations seeking clarifications on the meaning of the term 'beyond reasonable doubt' but, like juries before them, would have been dissatisfied with the answer they were given. Put simply, there are no established guidelines under Section 141 of Evidence Act from which that standard of proof is derived to help a jury determine how this threshold could be met. Perhaps the best I have seen is the simple question:

'based on the evidence that has been presented, is there any other reasonable explanation other than that the accused is guilty?'

But more importantly in the defamation case, we have Justice Lee's detailed articulation of the main facts as he saw them from the evidence presented during the trial that led him to the finding that Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins.

These detailed findings are available on line for all to see and I fail to see how a jury, or indeed another judge, would find Lehrmann not guilty after studying them - even under the higher standard of proof applying to a criminal trial.

So knowing what we all know now, the differentiation in relation to the Lehrmann rape matter is moot.

And the real issue imho is about the amount and quality of evidence presented in the defamation trial and its examination that was lacking in the original Lehrmann rape trial.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

There is also the more recent testimony from Scott Moller, the lead detective in the case has stated that he didn't think that there was sufficient evidence to proceed and get a conviction (again, under the criminal conviction standards).

Police did not believe evidence was sufficient to take Bruce Lehrmann to trial, inquiry hears

AFP’s Scott Moller says he charged Lehrmann on advice of DPP despite investigators not thinking Brittany Higgins’s allegations reached threshold for prosecution

www.theguardian.com

Moller is another victim of the omnishambles, but he didn't put a foot wrong.

While I agree he didn't put a foot wrong regarding his actions, let's just say that he wasnt right there was insufficient evidence to get a conviction.

As the deliberations went on, it's apparent that at least one and possibly more jurors thought Lehrmann was guilty indicating it was the right move to bring it to trial.

 

[Lady O]

While I agree he didn't put a foot wrong regarding his actions, let's just say that he wasnt right there was insufficient evidence to get a conviction.

As the deliberations went on, it's apparent that at least one and possibly more jurors thought Lehrmann was guilty indicating it was the right move to bring it to trial.

BBM. "One and possibly more" is a long way from twelve. I think a Prosecutor would need to be more certain than that of a conviction.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

BBM. "One and possibly more" is a long way from twelve. I think a Prosecutor would need to be more certain than that of a conviction.

I dint you quite understand the roles. It wasn't the constables call, it was the prosecutors.

The point is we don't know how many jurors were willing to convict but it wasn't zero.

If prosecutors needed to be certain of a conviction before trying a case, they would never bring one.

 

[GrayRanga]

These detailed findings are available on line for all to see and I fail to see how a jury, or indeed another judge, would find Lehrmann not guilty after studying them - even under the higher standard of proof applying to a criminal trial.

So knowing what we all know now, the differentiation in relation to the Lehrmann rape matter is moot.

And the real issue imho is about the amount and quality of evidence presented in the defamation trial and its examination that was lacking in the original Lehrmann rape trial.

I don't disagree with most of your comments, but you forgot the major difference between a Criminal and Civil trial in this instance

Bruce chose not to testify in the Criminal matter so his claims of "I didn't rape her" and his different reasons to attending for attending Parliament house were not placed under scrutiny.

If he had given evidence under oath and that evidence was tested in Court I'd suggest his Criminal guilt was a lay down Misere.

Probably goes back to the original Police investigation ... they chose not to ask the questions in their original interviews which hampered the prosecution as they had not enough information to complete the narrrative in Court

Sometimes I think that the French Inquestorial system (like a Coronial Inquest} is better that the British adveresial system in Criminal metters

 

[Festerz]

I don't disagree with most of your comments, but you forgot the major difference between a Criminal and Civil trial in this instance

Bruce chose not to testify in the Criminal matter so his claims of "I didn't rape her" and his different reasons to attending for attending Parliament house were not placed under scrutiny.

If he had given evidence under oath and that evidence was tested in Court I'd suggest his Criminal guilt was a lay down Misere.

Probably goes back to the original Police investigation ... they chose not to ask the questions in their original interviews which hampered the prosecution as they had not enough information to complete the narrrative in Court

Sometimes I think that the French Inquestorial system (like a Coronial Inquest} is better that the British adveresial system in Criminal metters

Good points.

His right to silence protected him from his own BS in his criminal trial.

But his narcissism got the better of him and so he decided to 'go back into the lion's den' where his sorry lying ass got handed back to him on a plate with a cherry on top.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Do you seriously believe that 8 days later, when Reynolds called Higgins to her office to discuss Higgins' late-night entry into her (Reynolds) office, which Reynolds believed to be a security breach, that Reynolds did not know what had happened? IMO the fact that 3 days after the alleged rape, Lehrmann had been told to pack his things and leave, tells me she knew. Reynolds took another 5 days to speak to Brittany because she was weighing up what was her best course of action. And I believe Reynolds put her own best interests (her career etc) in front of Brittanys best interests. It was not a security breach Reynolds was worried about, it was the fall out from a rape in Parliment house in her office she was worried about.

Sorry I don’t believe in nonsensical conspiracy theories that have no actual basis in fact.
And neither does Justice Lee.

But you believe what you want to believe. Nothing I say or even a learned judge will say will change your mind.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[zedx]

Sorry I don’t believe in nonsensical conspiracy theories that have no actual basis in fact.
And neither does Justice Lee.

But you believe what you want to believe. Nothing I say or even a learned judge will say will change your mind.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

No need to apologize if you dont agree with me, we all read situations differently. Ive just based my thoughts on the facts available.

 

[Mick F]

Because it seems every pollie has done questionable things and the expectation in Canberra seems to be the same as at the AFL - get the rug out and start sweeping.

There seems to be a disagreement between people about what constitutes a cover-up going on here. For you it needs to be a more deliberate specific thing, not just a general policy of sweeping misbehaviour under the rug that in this case, swept a rape under the rug.

It’s appalling, that it occurred on Commonwealth premises. HTF did junior, pissed staff access a Minister’s office on a weekend beggers belief. WTF did the security staff think their job was?????

 

[Mick F]

Sorry I don’t believe in nonsensical conspiracy theories that have no actual basis in fact.
And neither does Justice Lee.

But you believe what you want to believe. Nothing I say or even a learned judge will say will change your mind.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

You are definitely in the running for DSA of the month.

 

[BFew]

WTF did the security staff think their job was?????

One could say the same for ex PM Morrison in too many instances.

 

[CakeEater]

She was raped in an office by a sexual predator. Admittedly a fancier than average office, but I'm not sure why the sensationalism of it being the "Minister of Defence's office" adds to any payout claim.


We can all make up numbers, but that would put it miles out for claims in Australia for office-based harassment and assaults.

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/details-behind-brittany-higgins-secret-3-million-taxpayer-funded-compensation-payout-finally-revealed/news-story/427b336a6a9be0f17a5d999736a790db

Only the Murdoch press got a hold of this document and reported on it, but it's worth reading and it does prove that a considerable portion of the claim is based on a now proved false cover-up conspiracy theory.

What's concerning there is the naming of ScoMo and Cash. ScoMo is one of the worst PM's in history, but he is a simpleton who had literally nothing to do with Higgins until 2021. Then you've got Cash who was proven to be an encouraging friend, evidenced by Higgins' own recording of her resignation phone call which she recorded without Cash's consent, who was subsequently thrown under a bus by Higgins when it suited her.

I'm fine that Higgins got roughly the money she deserved by sheer dumb luck. But the end doesn't justify the means, particularly given that the cover-up part of her claim was false.

And that she got a rape conviction (of sorts!) against Lehrmann. But the end doesn't justify the means (trial by media), particularly given that the cover-up part of her claim was false.

She essentially got go away money from.the government.

Pretty bog standard in these types probably with a no admission of liability against the Aus government.

 

[FIGJAM]

I do understand your point BUT if Reynolds had of been more proactive in investigating the incident and as the senior adult (and as a woman) in this situation I would have expected her to immediately report it, regardless of Britany's hesitations. Its a no brainer, a serious incident has possibly occurred in the workplace. I bet if Britany had tripped and alleged she had broken her toe it would have been reported and investigated immediately! So why not an allegation of rape?? Had Reynolds followed the correct workplace (or just common decency) procedure, we may not be here. Whats that saying?

You simply need to read the judgement by Justice Lee before posting:


So off the back of the Thursday meeting where there was no allegation of rape yet, Senator Reynolds wanted to report a potential incident to the police immediately.

Then on Monday, Reynolds got Brown to take Higgins to the AFP immediately on the use of the word rape.

'There's a special place in hell for women who don't support other women'

I assume that that would be the same for women in here who consistently throw shade at Fiona Brown and Linda Reynolds despite having been proven in a court of law that they did nothing wrong in 2019?

The men who consistently slag them off are in an even more niche space in hell!