Updated The Bruce Lehrmann Trials Pt2 * Justice Lee - "Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins."

[Kurve]

Here is PART 1

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

 

[FIGJAM]

1. The CCTV footage wasn't available during the investigation.

There wasn't really a full blown investigation in 2019, but yes, the CCTV footage was not available for viewing in the very early stages of the complaint.

As stated ad nauseum, Higgins is not permitted to view the footage until she has completed an Evidence in Chief Interview (EICI). From Lee's verdict:

From the Sofronoff report:

An online publication of an article about the subject was imminent. Mr Sharaz said that he and Ms Higgins ‘wanted to ensure the sexual assault investigation would be “active” should the AFP receive media inquiries’ before publication. Police advised Ms Higgins that ‘any media coverage may jeopardise any subsequent evidence sought’.19 However, Ms Higgins insisted that she wanted ‘the media release to “play out first”’ before participating in an Evidence in Chief Interview.

So Higgins herself delayed the ability for her to view the CCTV footage by not engaging in the EICI interview.

Higgins eventually watched the CCTV footage on 26 May 2021 during her second EICI interview.

A part of the reason to not show CCTV footage is to protect the complainant from the defence attacking them as having reconstructed the events from the CCTV footage. From the Sofronoff report:

2. It was made difficult to access.

Not intentionally. We're dealing with the government; not retrieving CCTV footage from your home cameras.

3. And it wasn't all made available for the criminal trial.
4. And 7's Spotlight special did have access to more CCTV in making their show, than the prosecution did during the criminal trial.

With the criminal case being a closed book, I don't know what footage was available to be shown in the criminal trial, or if the above is true or not.

What we do know for certain from the Sofronoff report is that Drumgold thought there was missing CCTV footage from his initial viewing with police that was on a USB drive. The police believe this not to be the case.

As an aside, I don't believe that Drumgold has claimed that the "missing footage" was footage shown on Spotlight that was aired not long after his claim to the Sofronoff report.

In addition to the claims from Drumgold, we do have the subpoenas that were reported on by two articles linked to by Kurve above:

CCTV from day of Higgins’ alleged rape automatically wiped, court told

Attempts to get footage from different camera angles from Parliament House CCTV have failed, the Federal Court has heard.

www.smh.com.au

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/crucial-cctv-in-bruce-lehrmann-defamation-case-disclosed-to-court/news-story/a86aa8a4e2d96c2c022325e506ffd2f6

Basically the Department of Parliamentary Services were subpoenaed to provide footage from their servers and it wasn't there.

I don't know if the footage quarantined by Agent Rebecca Cleaves matched that available at trial, or if that obtained by Spotlight matched the Cleaves quarantined footage, or if it had more on it.

Ultimately though, I'm trying to work out why it matters:

1. There was footage available at the criminal trial that showed that Higgins entering Parliament (Source: Sofronoff report that pre-dated the Spotlight interview);
2. While she wasn't “falling all over the place, I fell over at Parliament, I couldn’t sign my own name” (Source: Lee verdict), it was obvious that at 1.40am after having drunk since at least 7.19pm the day before, that she was clearly tanked and was also obviously more drunk than Lehrmann;
3. I would agree that this would all matter and be a conspiracy if there was deliberate editing of the footage by the police/AFP/ASIO to extract more damning footage as to Higgins' lack of sobriety, but I think that this is the stuff of fantasy (Drumgold also stated that he did not believe that there was malfeasance);
4 Given that malfeasance is improbable, then if there are two differing sets of CCTV footage, then I'd argue that it would most likely be through copying errors;
5. This all happened years after the event and after the Maiden and Wilkinson articles, so would have no bearing on the initial cover-up narrative.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Thank you FIGJAM.

I think its been 3 pages or more since Ghost Patrol made his initial claim about 'missing footage'. Since then, nobody has been able to tell us exactly what this missing footage was - instead hiding behind weasally words or telling people 'its there you just have to find it'.

Unfortunately most on this thread will not read or understand what you have written - people these days are used to the 280 character limit on X and seldom do they have the ability to read content that exceeds that.

 

[CM86]

There wasn't really a full blown investigation in 2019, but yes, the CCTV footage was not available for viewing in the very early stages of the complaint.

As stated ad nauseum, Higgins is not permitted to view the footage until she has completed an Evidence in Chief Interview (EICI). From Lee's verdict:



From the Sofronoff report:



So Higgins herself delayed the ability for her to view the CCTV footage by not engaging in the EICI interview.

Higgins eventually watched the CCTV footage on 26 May 2021 during her second EICI interview.

A part of the reason to not show CCTV footage is to protect the complainant from the defence attacking them as having reconstructed the events from the CCTV footage. From the Sofronoff report:






Not intentionally. We're dealing with the government; not retrieving CCTV footage from your home cameras.





With the criminal case being a closed book, I don't know what footage was available to be shown in the criminal trial, or if the above is true or not.

What we do know for certain from the Sofronoff report is that Drumgold thought there was missing CCTV footage from his initial viewing with police that was on a USB drive. The police believe this not to be the case.

As an aside, I don't believe that Drumgold has claimed that the "missing footage" was footage shown on Spotlight that was aired not long after his claim to the Sofronoff report.

In addition to the claims from Drumgold, we do have the subpoenas that were reported on by two articles linked to by Kurve above:

CCTV from day of Higgins’ alleged rape automatically wiped, court told

Attempts to get footage from different camera angles from Parliament House CCTV have failed, the Federal Court has heard.

www.smh.com.au

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/crucial-cctv-in-bruce-lehrmann-defamation-case-disclosed-to-court/news-story/a86aa8a4e2d96c2c022325e506ffd2f6

Basically the Department of Parliamentary Services were subpoenaed to provide footage from their servers and it wasn't there.

I don't know if the footage quarantined by Agent Rebecca Cleaves matched that available at trial, or if that obtained by Spotlight matched the Cleaves quarantined footage, or if it had more on it.

Ultimately though, I'm trying to work out why it matters:

1. There was footage available at the criminal trial that showed that Higgins entering Parliament (Source: Sofronoff report that pre-dated the Spotlight interview);
2. While she wasn't “falling all over the place, I fell over at Parliament, I couldn’t sign my own name” (Source: Lee verdict), it was obvious that at 1.40am after having drunk since at least 7.19pm the day before, that she was clearly tanked and was also obviously more drunk than Lehrmann;
3. I would agree that this would all matter and be a conspiracy if there was deliberate editing of the footage by the police/AFP/ASIO to extract more damning footage as to Higgins' lack of sobriety, but I think that this is the stuff of fantasy (Drumgold also stated that he did not believe that there was malfeasance);
4 Given that malfeasance is improbable, then if there are two differing sets of CCTV footage, then I'd argue that it would most likely be through copying errors;
5. This all happened years after the event and after the Maiden and Wilkinson articles, so would have no bearing on the initial cover-up narrative.

The timeline.​

23//03 Higgins was Raped. The cleaner was called after a woman was found naked in Reynolds office.​

26/03 Bruce is fired.​

01/04 Higgins is called into the room she was raped, to discuss her reason for being there that night.​

08/04 Higgins is taken "to Winchester Police Centre to speak with Police".​

10/04 CCTV footage still not available.​

13/04 Almost a month after being raped and having to just continue on with life as is, Higgins emailed to say she didn't wish to proceed at this time. (Far too many people can understand choice from Higgins).​

​

18/09 CCTV footage still not available to investigating officer.​

​

20/10 A media enquiry about this incident may be raised in Senate Estimates.​

​

​

Ms HIGGINS returned my phone call. I notified her of the Information I had been told. She became increasing distressed and very upset via the telephone, she was unable to speak.​

​

The CCTV footage was not released to the investigation officer (Harmon).
You're pointing out yourself, that the AFP already had the CCTV footage.

If the AFP had the CCTV footage, why couldn't AFP Investigation officer Harmon receive it?


Footage that was not available to the prosecution, or the investigating officer, was shown on 7's Spotlight special.

Higgins had said she was happy for police to collect CCTV, and was ALSO given the OPTION to PARTICIPATE in the ECIC.




So no, it wasn't the VICTIMS fault...

And we aren't talking about Higgins viewing the footage.
We are talking about the Investigating officer.
You were the one who started talking about the Investigating officer.
And ad nauseum repeated your narrative that the lack of CCTV access is just a big conspiracy lie.



You are looking for information that confirms your position, and manipulating it so it fits. You think you're being objective.

 

[FIGJAM]

The timeline.​

23//03 Higgins was Raped. The cleaner was called after a woman was found naked in Reynolds office.​

26/03 Bruce is fired.​

01/04 Higgins is called into the room she was raped, to discuss her reason for being there that night.​

08/04 Higgins is taken "to Winchester Police Centre to speak with Police".​

10/04 CCTV footage still not available.​

13/04 Almost a month after being raped and having to just continue on with life as is, Higgins emailed to say she didn't wish to proceed at this time. (Far too many people can understand choice from Higgins).​

​

18/09 CCTV footage still not available to investigating officer.​

​

20/10 A media enquiry about this incident may be raised in Senate Estimates.​

​

​

Ms HIGGINS returned my phone call. I notified her of the Information I had been told. She became increasing distressed and very upset via the telephone, she was unable to speak.​

​

The CCTV footage was not released to the investigation officer (Harmon).
You're pointing out yourself, that the AFP already had the CCTV footage.

If the AFP had the CCTV footage, why couldn't AFP Investigation officer Harmon receive it?


Footage that was not available to the prosecution, or the investigating officer, was shown on 7's Spotlight special.

Higgins had said she was happy for police to collect CCTV, and was ALSO given the OPTION to PARTICIPATE in the ECIC.

View attachment 1990126


So no, it wasn't the VICTIMS fault...

And we aren't talking about Higgins viewing the footage.
We are talking about the Investigating officer.
You were the one who started talking about the Investigating officer.
And ad nauseum repeated your narrative that the lack of CCTV access is just a big conspiracy lie.



You are looking for information that confirms your position, and manipulating it so it fits. You think you're being objective.

Before I respond CM86, can you please provide links for what you keep quoting and cutting and pasting from. From this post and the one from 5.34pm yesterday?

Thanks.

 

[jason_recliner]

The timeline.​

23//03 Higgins was Raped. The cleaner was called after a woman was found naked in Reynolds office.​

26/03 Bruce is fired.​

01/04 Higgins is called into the room she was raped, to discuss her reason for being there that night.​

08/04 Higgins is taken "to Winchester Police Centre to speak with Police".​

10/04 CCTV footage still not available.​

13/04 Almost a month after being raped and having to just continue on with life as is, Higgins emailed to say she didn't wish to proceed at this time. (Far too many people can understand choice from Higgins).​

​

18/09 CCTV footage still not available to investigating officer.​

​

20/10 A media enquiry about this incident may be raised in Senate Estimates.​

​

​

Ms HIGGINS returned my phone call. I notified her of the Information I had been told. She became increasing distressed and very upset via the telephone, she was unable to speak.​

​

The CCTV footage was not released to the investigation officer (Harmon).
You're pointing out yourself, that the AFP already had the CCTV footage.

If the AFP had the CCTV footage, why couldn't AFP Investigation officer Harmon receive it?


Footage that was not available to the prosecution, or the investigating officer, was shown on 7's Spotlight special.

Higgins had said she was happy for police to collect CCTV, and was ALSO given the OPTION to PARTICIPATE in the ECIC.

View attachment 1990126


So no, it wasn't the VICTIMS fault...

And we aren't talking about Higgins viewing the footage.
We are talking about the Investigating officer.
You were the one who started talking about the Investigating officer.
And ad nauseum repeated your narrative that the lack of CCTV access is just a big conspiracy lie.



You are looking for information that confirms your position, and manipulating it so it fits. You think you're being objective.

He's very thoroughly, clearly and patiently explained why the CCTV isn't a conspiracy. You are implying Lee and Sofronoff missed something or that they are also part of the conspiracy. Why not contact your local MP with your new information and see if they can initiate some kind of enquiry?

 

[FIGJAM]

I think its been 3 pages or more since Ghost Patrol made his initial claim about 'missing footage'. Since then, nobody has been able to tell us exactly what this missing footage was - instead hiding behind weasally words or telling people 'its there you just have to find it'.

No problem!

This is taken from reporting at the time of the criminal trial in 2022 and we can see that the CCTV footage presented to the criminal trial at the very least was substantially in line with what we (the public) saw on the infamous Spotlight interview.

'Weirdest phone call in my life': Brittany Higgins secretly recorded Michaelia Cash, court hears

The trial of Bruce Lehrmann — who has pleaded not guilty to a charge of raping his then-colleague Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in 2019 — continues in the Australian Capital Territory.

www.abc.net.au

For mine, the going through security was enough to footage establish how drunk Higgins was and was the most damning IMHO of any footage that has been shown. Not sure what "missing footage" would add to that. I know Drumgold mentioned "swaying". As I said though, she was both observably and logically very drunk.

 

[CM86]

Before I respond CM86, can you please provide links for what you keep quoting and cutting and pasting from. From this post and the one from 5.34pm yesterday?

Thanks.

Link to a 211 page document

 

[CM86]

He's very thoroughly, clearly and patiently explained why the CCTV isn't a conspiracy. You are implying Lee and Sofronoff missed something or that they are also part of the conspiracy. Why not contact your local MP with your new information and see if they can initiate some kind of enquiry?

Maybe I'm not explaining my points very well, or putting my position across.

What do you think my position is?

 

[jason_recliner]

Maybe I'm not explaining my points very well, or putting my position across.

What do you think my position is?

That PH CCTV footage was not made available to investigators and/or Higgins.

 

[CD Xbow]

It just keeps going........

Former ACT prosecutor sued for defamation by AFP officers over allegations of interference in Bruce Lehrmann case

A group of Australian Federal Police officers file a case against the ACT government and former ACT top prosecutor Shane Drumgold over comments he made after the trial of Mr Lehrmann collapsed.

www.abc.net.au

 

[FIGJAM]

Link to a 211 page document

Thanks!

DSC Harman's notes do make an interesting read.

Like I said, both AFP Agent Cleaves and DSC Harman both carried on some investigations after the case was dropped on 13 April 2019.

Cleaves secured the CCTV footage, made notes on it and preserved it should the investigation ever proceed on 16 April 2019.

Harman liaised with Cleaves about getting the CCTV footage on the 15 April, then appeared to followed up on 4 May and then on 9 May, where she was given a written summary of what was in the CCTV.

She then chipped away periodically for months to get a hold of it. Why exactly, I am not sure, as there was no case currently being investigated.

The need for a 'live case' for police powers is somewhat obvious in my view, but you can see it in the attempt to get the Uber records.

It was decided that Uber records could not be requested for the defendant as no offence was currently being investigated and therefore I could not lawfully request the information.

Ultimately though, the footage was safely secured. It had already been viewed by the AFP and had notes made on them.

The Department of Parliamentary Services offered an alternative to handing over the footage (which was redacted, so unknown).

When the case went 'live' again in 2021, the CCTV was immediately available to the police and prosecution.

I think it's commendable that Harman kept the cold case lukewarm to some degree, but the to-and-fro of it all is largely an irrelevance due to their being no live case.

 

[CM86]

That PH CCTV footage was not made available to investigators and/or Higgins.

I'll try and write it out properly at some point, if you're interested?

 

[jason_recliner]

I'll try and write it out properly at some point, if you're interested?

It's up to you. I agree with Lee and Sofronoff that there's no conspiracy, that the PH CCTV was made available as required by investigators, and doubt anything you say will change that unless you have evidence other than what you've posted above. I do think that if you're certain there's a conspiracy and you can show that CCTV footage was kept away from the investigation for nefarious purposes - you seem to be implying it's because of an election - you should take it to the police or your MP; you don't seem to be accepting any of the information posted here.

 

[FIGJAM]

I do think that if you're certain there's a conspiracy and you can show that CCTV footage was kept away from the investigation for nefarious purposes - you seem to be implying it's because of an election - you should take it to the police or your MP; you don't seem to be accepting any of the information posted here.

The only reference I've seen about the election is in this snippet from DSC Harman's notes:

For context, the election was on 18 March 2019, just over a week from this communication.

For mine, the reference to the election by Agent Cleaves was an obviously important reference point in time for a federal agent based in Parliament House, given that it was probably busy as **** there, in caretaker mode and with a high chance of a new government (or not as it happened).

Agent Cleaves gave her a written copy of the CCTV depiction.

The extension that the reference to "the election" was to somehow protect the existing government is in my view illogical. The footage, if released, it would have been in DSC Harmon's confidential possession and it's not like it was going to be onforwarded to the media. The footage, if permitted to have been viewed by Harmon, would have been for her eyes only.

Even if the footage gave Harman cause to give Higgins a buzz to try to reactivate the case and it was reactivated, it took 2 weeks from Higgins reactivating the case in 2021 to her first Evidence in Chief Interview and over 2 months to charge Lehrmann. The election would have naturally been and gone, so a motive of 'protection from controversy' is extremely tenuous in my view.

This all must be digested on the backdrop of there being no live case. Further to that, it is worth reminding that whilst Justice Lee was referring to the initial accumulation of the CCTV footage, it also has a high relevance for Harman's attempts to view the footage:

738 Secondly, even leaving aside the fact that some AFP officers could not obtain the CCTV footage as promptly as they would have liked, this is wholly unsurprising when one understands basic aspects of our Constitutional structure and the contemporaneous records. Despite the apparent incredulity of Ms Higgins, Mr Sharaz and the Project team in 2021 (each of whom variously referred to the AFP as having its “own weird little sovereign state” in Parliament or being the equivalent of the Vatican City) (Ex 36 (at 0:20:24–0:21:16)), there are important justifications for the legal separation of power between the Parliament and the Executive Government, which are unnecessary to canvass in these reasons. Parliament has asserted these rights as inheritors of a tradition going back to the 17th century. There are important Constitutional reasons why the Parliamentary precincts area is managed by the Presiding Officers, and the Parliamentary Precincts Act 1988 (Cth) formalises the authority of the Presiding Officers to manage and control the Parliamentary precincts. Agent Cleaves explained that generally she was able to get CCTV quickly, but this request seemed to take longer, and she was required to make a few phone calls to ensure the CCTV could be viewed and she felt frustrated (T1399.1–19; Ex 78). For over 450 years, agents of the Executive have had to confront the realities of Parliamentary privilege; a privilege which is of fundamental importance to our system of government. Agent Cleaves is one in a very long line.

Harman is another in a very long line too.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

The Age - just now .......

"
12.51pm

‘Admit you got it wrong’: Reynolds’ message ahead of Higgins peace talks​

By Jesinta Burton​

Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds has just arrived at the WA Supreme Court in Perth for a second round of peace talks with former staffer Brittany Higgins and her partner David Sharaz.

Outside court, Reynolds told journalists she had just one message: “It’s time that all parties accept all of his [Justice Michael Lee] judgments, and that includes the Finance Minister and the Attorney General.

“It’s time for them to admit they got it wrong.”


Senator Linda Reynolds arriving in court on Tuesday morning.CREDIT: JESINTA BURTON

The former defence minister has been pursuing Higgins and Sharaz for damages and aggravated damages for more than a year over several social media posts she claims were defamatory of her.

Both had been defending the defamation case until almost a fortnight ago when Sharaz took to social media saying he could no longer afford to fight the action.

The trio will undertake a second round of peace talks today, with Higgins and Sharaz beaming in via videolink from their home in France.

It comes just months after a nine-hour marathon mediation failed to reach a resolution, prompting the parties to prepare for a six-week trial on July 24.

It also comes after Federal Court justice Michael Lee found, to the civil standard, that – on the balance of probabilities – Higgins’ then-colleague, Bruce Lehrmann, raped her in then-cabinet minister Reynolds’ parliamentary office in 2019.

Lehrmann has maintained his innocence.

Reynolds, the former boss of Lehrmann and his accuser Higgins, has faced years of criticism over her handling of Higgins’ rape allegation.

While not central to the case, Justice Lee said Higgins and Sharaz “from the first moment” had pushed a narrative of a political cover-up to journalists in 2021, which he found no evidence for.

 

[campbell]

What is wrong with this lady?

Did she go into mediation in good faith?mmmmmm.

Linda Reynolds says failed mediation with Brittany Higgins disappointing for those ‘damaged and wounded by this saga’

Defamation case now likely to head to trial, with the former defence minister saying it’s time for ‘us all to find a way to move on’

www.theguardian.com

 

[FIGJAM]

What is wrong with this lady?

Did she go into mediation in good faith?

Higgins or Reynolds?

Hard to say without any information whatsoever!

Reynolds has made clear that contrition on the "political conspiracy" bullshit is what she's after. What steps has the other side undertaken to address this?

 

[Kurve]

Outside court, Reynolds told journalists she had just one message: “It’s time that all parties accept all of his [Justice Michael Lee] judgments, and that includes the Finance Minister and the Attorney General.

“It’s time for them to admit they got it wrong.”

Is Reynolds suing the Finance Minister and the Attorney General?

 

[Brian Oblivion]

Is Reynolds suing the Finance Minister and the Attorney General?

Nope.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Nope.

Reynolds is just trying to get her name in print so that if someone google's her name in the future it will come as as tho she did something when she was a politician.

 

[Kurve]

Linda Reynolds, the real victim in all this.

 

[FIGJAM]

Linda Reynolds, the real victim in all this.

Why do you and others keep pedalling the myth that just because Reynolds wasn't the victim of rape, that she's not a victim of something else?

And further to that, the false equivalence between rape and being falsely accused of something.

Same goes for Fiona Brown.

 

[Kurve]

Why do you and others keep pedalling the myth that just because Reynolds wasn't the victim of rape, that she's not a victim of something else?

And further to that, the false equivalence between rape and being falsely accused of something.

Same goes for Fiona Brown.

There is no equivalence, Reynolds is not a victim of a crime.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

There is no equivalence, Reynolds is not a victim of a crime.

A couple of Insta posts hurt her feelings. Boo hoo.

 

[DapperDon]

Why do you and others keep pedalling the myth that just because Reynolds wasn't the victim of rape, that she's not a victim of something else?

And further to that, the false equivalence between rape and being falsely accused of something.

Same goes for Fiona Brown.

Why is she suing a rape victim and not the 'vile trolls' that are making her feel look bad?