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

 

[Kurve]

 

[FIGJAM]

I think he will credit Auerbach who hasn't hidden his frustrations or his motivations, which doesn't mean he's being dishonest and which I think Lee also alluded to.

He did allude to that, but then Auerbach didn’t provide proof of a point of source for any of the documents. Not even from his own WhatsApp! feed, which is strange.

I appreciate Richardson not pressing about the WhatsApp! feed to test if he is lying, because it would have been an easy proof of source that linked back to Lehrmann and maybe Richardsons simply didn't want to press on that if indeed he could present it. I can only assume that 10's lawyers asked for it, but might have got the old "Ahhh....I deleted that account / block of messages!" that we've heard elsewhere in this case.

As I've said before, I reckon Bruce probably gave them the docs. At the end of the day though, the only 'value add' that Auerbach brings is a subtraction to Lehrmann's credit and not a Harmen undertaking violation that can be looked at in another court setting. Richardson himself pointed out that his honour had already said both Lehrmann and Higgins have credit issues in this case (to varying and different degrees of course), so "What's another lie?" is poignant, as Richardson is actually focussing on the case at hand and it's two main issues that need addressing by Justice Lee. And just because Lehrmann has lied through his teeth, doesn't mean that the story that Higgins told The Project was true either.

 

[BFew]

2 more docs uploaded to the Fed Court Lehrmann cases site today.

With the media finally raising the issue of the possibility that Higgins might have been drugged, triggered by what's in the Higgins submission linked below.

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/117001/Submissons-of-Auerbach-dated-9-April-2024.pdf

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/116998/Submissions-on-behalf-of-Brittany-Higgins-9-April-2024.pdf

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/brittany-higgins-raises-the-question-of-whether-she-was-drugged-on-night-of-alleged-rape/news-story/bed943b3a8bc9cae1491a879515bf39c

'Brittany Higgins raises the question of whether she was drugged on night of alleged rape​

Samantha Maiden
https://twitter.com/samanthamaiden
April 9, 2024 - 4:51PM
...
The final submissions, published by the Federal Court on Tuesday, flag a number of issues Ms Higgins now says she would have raised if she had been a party to the case and not a witness.

They include material raised in a master chronology prepared by Mr Lehrmann’s legal team regarding April 4, 2019, a few days after Ms Higgins first spoke to police.

“The trial judge noted the reception into evidence of a document entitled, ‘master chronology’ which is an annexure to the affidavit of Taylor Auerbach,” Ms Higgins’ submission states.

“There is an entry that appears to be a record made by a senior AFP officer (Leanne Cross) of a meeting with the Minister (Linda) Reynolds and Fiona Brown on the 4th of April 2019.

“That record states, ‘I also have concerns from info I heard that this may have happened before and it could happen again.’ (I was referring to info that the alleged victim may have been drugged.)”

The Assistant Commissioner Leanne Close records in her notes, “we need to speak to a range of people. Security staff cleaners may have info.”

“As far as (Brittany Higgins) is aware the potential that Ms Higgins was drugged is not an issue that has been raised or explored in these proceedings,’’ her legal submission states.

“And while there is evidence now that there was ‘info’ that Ms Higgins was drugged, and that the concerns expressed in that note...the basis upon which the concerns were held was not explored.

“In the context of a serious challenge to the honesty and accuracy of Ms Higgins’ account of the events of the night in question, the potential that her perceptive and recollective abilities may have been affected other than by alcohol and trauma is an issue that she would have wished to explore.”

News.com.au does not suggest that Ms Higgins was drugged, only that the concern was raised by the AFP and her legal team claim that she would have raised it as an issue if she was a party to the case.

Justice Lee invited Ms Higgins to respond to attacks on her “credit” in the case on April 5, with Ms Higgins’ legal team, led by Nicholas Owens SC, lodging a five-page response with the Federal Court.

The master chronology document was prepared by Mr Lehrmann’s legal team to assist in the criminal trial. It has now been admitted into evidence in the defamation trial.

The document refers to Assistant Commissioner Leanne Close, and her notes that Defence Minister Linda Reynolds met with her on April 4, 2019, advising Minister Reynolds “of allegations of sexual assault”.

“I also have concerns from info I heard that this may have happened before or could happen again (referring to information that alleged victim may have been drugged),” Assistant Commissioner Close wrote.

“Paul – we need to speak to a range of people. Security staff cleaners may have info.”
...'

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I've done the sums, and Bruce should get 7 dollars for defamation.

 

[Lady O]

Is this one of he documents referred to in that tweet?

 

[Kurve]

Is this one of he documents referred to in that tweet?

View attachment 1954671

But how is that relevant?

 

[Lady O]

But how is that relevant?

Is this one of the documents people are saying proves Lehrmann provided Ch 7 with Harman evidence?

 

[MrsBlueSky]

I've done the sums, and Bruce should get 7 dollars for defamation.

My sums see it the other way, that Bruce will be paying off court costs at the rate of $1000 a month for 1000 years to give Ch10 the $12m they ask for.

 

[FIGJAM]

I've done the sums, and Bruce should get 7 dollars for defamation.

I'm still hoping for him to get the "lowest coin in the realm" and have said so for a very long time.

My personal interest is not to do with the compensation, but rather the determination on the veracity of Higgins' story, which in my view based on the evidence was not properly checked by Network 10 or Sam Maiden (who's employer has obviously settled FWIW). Because there is an infinitely wider fallout from the articles than Bruce's petty defamation claim...

 

[BFew]

My personal interest is not to do with the compensation, but rather the determination on the veracity of Higgins' story, which in my view based on the evidence was not properly checked by Network 10 or Sam Maiden (who's employer has obviously settled FWIW). Because there is an infinitely wider fallout from the articles than Bruce's petty defamation claim...

Make sure you read the following just released today then.

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/116998/Submissions-on-behalf-of-Brittany-Higgins-9-April-2024.pdf

 

[Festerz]

I think he will credit Auerbach who hasn't hidden his frustrations or his motivations, which doesn't mean he's being dishonest and which I think Lee also alluded to.

Correct. And Lee's comments to that effect are repeated by Paul Barry in the Media Watch video I linked above.

That while there can be no doubt Auerbach was determined to damage his former employer, the indisputable fact is that he was intricately involved in negotiations to secure the Lehrmann Spotlight interview, had documented evidence to back many of his most damaging claims about payments/arrangements made to Lehrmann.

There can be no doubt Auerbach was in a position to observe Lehrmann's behaviours and actions in preparation for the interview and so his allegations about Lehrmann being the source of leaked confidential court documents from his previous rape trial cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Edit: Also impt to recall what Justice Lee has said throughout this defamation trial given his observation that the main witnesses have been caught out multiple times in being....'loose with the truth' to put it kindly.

And that is the fallacy of the once accepted legal maxim 'Falsus in uno, falso in omnibus'

i.e. that a witness who falsely testifies about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter.

It's Lee's role to sort the wheat from the chaff - to examine all the evidence from multiple sources to find the underlying most credible and probable path to truth in matters that go to heart of this trial from the raft of multiple lies told by various witnesses in relation to other matters.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

I don't see how Justice Lee can hand down his decision so quickly in light of all the additional evidence and by doing so could lay the way open for an appeal. There's probably a lot of things BH would want to clarify in an appeal, going by her submission today.

 

[Lebbo73]

Disturbingly interesting that the below involved the QLD CCC in relation to the leaking of the Police Brief in the alleged Lehrmann sexual assault in Toowoomba.

If Lehrmann was the leaker, why involve the QLD CCC?

The Harman Undertaking - The AIM Network

A most disturbing revelation, with profound repercussions for victims of rape and sexual assault, was made by former Channel Seven Spotlight producer Taylor Auerbach in his evidence in the defamation action brought by Bruce Lehrmann against Channel Ten and Lisa Wilkinson. Lehrmann is alleged to...

theaimn.com

The Harman Undertaking​

• April 8, 2024
• Written by: Dr Jennifer Wilson

...
The individual who obtained the Toowoomba police brief relayed chunks of information from the brief to two other individuals, who, without knowledge of the other’s involvement, passed on the information to me. Both parties named the same individual as their source.

I have of course no evidence of who leaked the brief, and no knowledge of the intentions of the individual who benefitted from the leak. However, I was and remain sufficiently horrified by this breach occurring for the second time in two separate matters concerning the same accused person, that I decided to take whatever action I could.

On September 14, 2023, I lodged a complaint with the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission about the leak of the Toowoomba police brief to the individual.
...
On 2 November 2023, I updated my complaint to the Queensland CCC to include these three articles.

Several weeks later, the Queensland CCC advised me that they would not be pursuing my complaint.

I’ve now decided to make the complaint again, in the light of current evidence provided by Mr Auerbach and concerns expressed by Dr Collins at the breaching of the Harman Undertaking in Lehrmann’s first trial. It appears that the Undertaking may have already been breached in the Toowoomba matter, before it has even come to trial.

We are talking about what is supposed to be a fundamental protection for victims of rape and sexual assault who choose to make a complaint to police, being used by the perpetrator, or someone who has privileged access to the police brief, to intimidate, harass, and humiliate complainants. It is astounding that this abuse of the legal system has not received anything like the attention it deserves. It is one more obstacle in a field filled with obstacles that can and do deter women from seeking justice after enduring rape and sexual assault.

Why are authorities such as the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission, and the relevant body in the ACT, failing to investigate these leaks?'

Because these massive bureaucratic bodies that a lot of Bigfooty posters want become either corrupt or toothless. They aren’t going to bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[FIGJAM]

Make sure you read the following just released today then.

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/116998/Submissions-on-behalf-of-Brittany-Higgins-9-April-2024.pdf

Thanks for that, BFew.

I've read all of 10, Wilkinson and Lehrmann's lawyers' submissions over time and now the above submission.

It's interesting that the above article is strongly focussed on the rape allegation within the broader case and even goes so far as to say:

In all cases, the subject matter of the asserted inconsistency is peripheral to the one thing that matters in this case: namely, whether Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins.

Whilst this is no doubt the primary issue, it is not the only issue.

There is in effect two Brittany's on the 'credit' front:

• The testimony of the alleged rape victim;
• The testimony of the alleged victim of a conspiracy by her employer to suppress her pursuit of the rape claim through legal channels (obstruction of justice).

On the "alleged rape victim" front, despite a number of inconsistencies, she has been pretty steadfast in her assertions and behaviours. The alternative of her throwing a man under a bus to protect her job would make her a psychopath and any other alternative like a lucid dreaming experience is even more unlikely. I think she carries good credit on this front.

Then there is the secondary issue of credit for "the the alleged victim of a conspiracy by her employer to suppress her pursuit of the rape claim through legal channels". Many will ask why does this matter? Isn't a finding of rape probably occurring the only issue? Well, it's important to understand that just because you're the victim of a crime, doesn't mean that you can go to the media and say whatever the hell you want, particularly where there is evidence that your claims are to a significant extent demonstrably false.

And ultimately, without the conspiracy to obstruct Higgins' right to justice and in the absence of a live criminal charge, there is no story for Maiden and The Project to publish. As such, credit on this front is also very important, as the wider fallout from these claims has been unparalleled.

On this front, I am of the view the credit of Higgins in her post-Sharaz world regarding her supposed obstruction of justice claim is particularly poor. Despite Network 10's bizarre claims recently that they have no ethical framework to adhere to, they are and were duty bound to attempt fact check to an extremely high standard, give everyone ample opportunity to respond, were distorted in their view and shouldn't have given away as much information as they did with respect to providing the ability to identify someone. They failed on this front and will hopefully have to cough up 5 cents in damages.

 

[FIGJAM]

I don't see how Justice Lee can hand down his decision so quickly in light of all the additional evidence and by doing so could lay the way open for an appeal. There's probably a lot of things BH would want to clarify in an appeal, going by her submission today.

The additional evidence was only to do with further sullying Lehrmann's credibility. If Lee (correctly IMHO) thought he had none in the first place, then the Auerbach evidence was just a sideshow.

Irrespective, he will have had 11 days within which to further digest this evidence and to alter his findings that were already prepared, which seems reasonable.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

The additional evidence was only to do with further sullying Lehrmann's credibility. If Lee (correctly IMHO) thought he had none in the first place, then the Auerbach evidence was just a sideshow.

Irrespective, he will have had 11 days within which to further digest this evidence and to alter his findings that were already prepared, which seems reasonable.

If Lee had something else to work on as well as delivering his findings on this matter, it doesn't give him much time and judges like to get things right to minimise the chance of an appeal. If Lee always had it in mind to award damages to Lehrmann then the Auerbach evidence may have reduced that amount to $7 which is what someone else thought it was worth.

 

[Lady O]

If Lee had something else to work on as well as delivering his findings on this matter, it doesn't give him much time and judges like to get things right to minimise the chance of an appeal. If Lee always had it in mind to award damages to Lehrmann then the Auerbach evidence may have reduced that amount to $7 which is what someone else thought it was worth.

Do you believe there is any substance to the Auerbach "evidence" that would reduce Ch 10's liability for damages?

 

[FIGJAM]

If Lee had something else to work on as well as delivering his findings on this matter, it doesn't give him much time and judges like to get things right to minimise the chance of an appeal. If Lee always had it in mind to award damages to Lehrmann then the Auerbach evidence may have reduced that amount to $7 which is what someone else thought it was worth.

It will be a small addendum to the original finding and I don't see why delaying a case finding for optics is logical and from a legal perspective, I don't know if any appeals tribunal would consider the time to be relevant.

Lee has conducted a meticulously transparent trial and worked his arse off on it. Whatever the decision on Monday, I reckon all parties should just ******* wear it!

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Lawyers can always find something to appeal about - just have a look at the Ben Roberts-Smith saga and that was also a case where trial judge Besanko was meticulous.

 

[FIGJAM]

Lawyers can always find something to appeal about - just have a look at the Ben Roberts-Smith saga and that was also a case where trial judge Besanko was meticulous.

I have no doubt that any of the three parties could find a way to spin an appeal, but I think Britany (and Australia generally!) needs this to end and hopefully Bruce will be out of money / backers if he is the one that feels aggrieved.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

I have no doubt that any of the three parties could find a way to spin an appeal, but I think Britany (and Australia generally!) needs this to end and hopefully Bruce will be out of money / backers if he is the one that feels aggrieved.

I'm the opposite. I don't think Brittany has anything to lose by having this matter go an ad nauseam. I have met people who thought she was making it all up. The longer this goes on the more we are finding out about Bruce. So if she has to give him $7 after Monday's verdict, I would like to see her and Ch10 appeal. She said in her last-minute submission yesterday that there were things she would have countered if she knew they were going to be brought up in the case and that may have led to a different conclusion.

 

[BFew]

So if she has to give him $7 after Monday's verdict, I would like to see her and Ch10 appeal. She said in her last-minute submission yesterday that there were things she would have countered if she knew they were going to be brought up in the case and that may have led to a different conclusion.

Higgins can't appeal this defamation case (Lehrmann the alleged defamed) as she is not a party to it.
Neither will Higgins be ordered to pay anything to Lehrmann in this defamation case.

I think you are getting the Lehrmann and Reynolds defamation cases mixed up here.

 

[CM86]

Higgins can't appeal this defamation case (Lehrmann the alleged defamed) as she is not a party to it.
Neither will be Higgins be ordered to pay anything to Lehrmann in this defamation case.

I think you are getting the Lehrmann and Reynolds defamation cases mixed up here.

I think they meant more in terms of the current suit. Where Higgins was called as a witness for Ch10.

 

[CM86]

I'm the opposite. I don't think Brittany has anything to lose by having this matter go an ad nauseam. I have met people who thought she was making it all up. The longer this goes on the more we are finding out about Bruce. So if she has to give him $7 after Monday's verdict, I would like to see her and Ch10 appeal. She said in her last-minute submission yesterday that there were things she would have countered if she knew they were going to be brought up in the case and that may have led to a different conclusion.

The legal system will always have its flaws. And a judge can only go on evidence provided.

As we've seen, there has been cover-up after cover-up.
But Lee can't judge on obviousness, he may only judge on available evidence.
It's why so much has been blocked/hidden/deleted/etc. Specifically to prevent legal findings.
As has been repeatedly presented.
Justice Lee repeated, sardonically, the statement from Whybrow that "this is the cover-up where everyone wanted to tell the police.”
Because of how often he's heard the same bs through his time in court.
Everyone just wanted to do the right thing, but somehow it all went awry!??!
Naturally he made this comment after he'd heard about the CCTV footage being blocked from Higgins and the police, and then lost until 7's Spolight program...

At the end of the day Higgins was allegedly rapped in Parliament house. And it was never going to be reported to to the Australian public.

As soon as she did, serious money was put in to attacking her and all aspects of her story.
Then investigation into who knew about the assault, was covered-up.
The investigation into the Higgins/Sharaz attack file spread through the media, was covered-up.
Her rape was covered-up and minimised.
The police request for CCTV footage was stonewalled and then the footage was lost. (Amazingly the 7 Spotlight coke4comment had more access to the footage than the justice system).
The investigation into if Higgins received a fair trail, was covered-up.
The investigation into the investigation of if Higgins received a fair trail is ongoing... and has no time frame...
The leaks of Higgins private information (as the victim) taken forcefully by the AFP, and spread through the media, was covered-up.
The investigation into the AFP cover-up was covered-up.
The 7's Spotlight program that spread hateful and harmful lies about Higgins, Sharaz, Wilkinson, Ch10 et al... based on known lies from a known alleged repeat rapist was covered-up.
That 7 paid Lehrmann, was covered-up.
That he was also being enticed with sex and drugs on his request to 7, was covered-up.
His connection to the Chairman of the IPA, Albrechtsen, was covered up.
Sofronoff (the person investigating the fairness of the Higgins trial) connection to Albrechtsen was covered-up.
It's been pointed out that the reason there is little evidence available of 7's Spotlight program and correspondence with Lehrmann. Apart from the evidence showing that all correspondence was to be deleted. -Covered-up.
Even the fact that 7's legal rep told them to delete all correspondence, has attempted to be covered up...



But... There is no actual substance or statement saying that there is to be, or that there should be a cover-up, therefore it's very hard to legally claim beyond 'reasonable doubt' that there was a cover-up.



Of course, that's not to mention the fact that Lehrmann's suit isn't about if there was or wasn't a Governmental cover-up, but purely on defamation.

 

[BFew]

Bruce Lehrmann mistrial leads to new jury laws in ACT

Laws that passed the ACT Legislative Assembly today mean jurors who do their own research will face criminal penalties of up to two years in jail.

www.abc.net.au

'ACT government changes jury laws after Bruce Lehrmann mistrial exposes gaps​

Posted 15h ago, updated 13h ago
...
The Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, which passed the ACT Legislative Assembly today, means jurors who do their own research during a trial will face jail times of up to two years.

A second change means courts may be able to accept a majority verdict if 11 out of 12 jurors agree after six hours of deliberation.

The court also has to be satisfied the jury will not reach a unanimous verdict after more deliberation.
...'