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

 

[Mick F]

Following Mr Lehrmann’s defamation action, Justice Lee also found that a political cover-up involving Senator Reynolds and others was not true, which Senator Reynolds said was vindication of her.

“For three years I have endured intense public scrutiny, vilification, vile trolling and have been demonised as the villain in a story of a political cover-up I have always known to be untrue,” Senator Reynolds said after Justice Lee handed down his judgment.

[snip]

Senator Reynolds indicated her defamation action would continue.

“I welcome Ms Higgins’ olive branch and her commitment to engage with me to reach a resolution,” she said.

“What still lies between us are not different perceptions. It is a fact that Ms Higgins received our support and that there was no cover-up.

“If Ms Higgins does not accept Justice Lee’s findings on the claims of cover-up and mistreatment then, regrettably, it will have to be proved again in our trial set for July this year.”

Shithouse managers always lack self awareness, in addition to concern for others.

 

[CakeEater]

What's that got to do with the price of beef in Perth?

You should ask Twiggy what the price of beef is, he owns a whole bunch of cattle farms

 

[CakeEater]

Bruce is considering an appeal.

Where on earth is he getting the $ from

 

[Kurve]

“What still lies between us are not different perceptions. It is a fact that Ms Higgins received our support and that there was no cover-up.

“If Ms Higgins does not accept Justice Lee’s findings on the claims of cover-up and mistreatment then, regrettably, it will have to be proved again in our trial set for July this year.”

It's been a long time since Higgins made suggestions towards a cover up and lack of support on her perceptions, Justice Lee's findings very recent.

If Higgins had benefit of Lee's findings prior, she probably wouldn't have said what she did.

With that in mind, Reynolds remarks here look like intimidation.

 

[Punt rd end]

2.15 tomorrow

 

[FIGJAM]

It's been a long time since Higgins made suggestions towards a cover up and lack of support on her perceptions, Justice Lee's findings very recent.

The last time those cover-up claims were made were after the criminal trial in the allegedly offending Tweets.

The action by Reynolds (which for the umpteenth time I don't think she should be engaging in) at the very least has had the effect of stopping the barrage of cover-up and mistreatment claims.

Higgins has commendably finally shown some contrition in light of Lee's verdict, albeit in stating that her memory was affected by the trauma and that she didn't agree with all of Lee's findings.

To give a very rough summation of what Lee's verdict found, it would be:

1. That Brittany Higgins was raped by Bruce Lehrmann (within the civil balances of probability framework);
2. The 2021 version of Higgins differed from the 2019 version and she and Sharaz crafted a narrative (again, within the balances of probability framework);
3. Network 10 put in a case study for students as to what not to do in an investigative journalism piece (this wasn't balances of probability, but rather a statement of fact, it was just that bad!).

Mentioning points 2 and 3 brings you much ire and abuse on this forum, despite the fact that it's literally written in the verdict.

Deliberate lies and a ‘vexing’ photograph: Justice Lee’s take on the key players of the Bruce Lehrmann defamation case

A federal court justice dismissed Lehrmann’s claim – but still had critical comments for Brittany Higgins and Lisa Wilkinson in his verdict

www.theguardian.com

If Higgins had benefit of Lee's findings prior, she probably wouldn't have said what she did.

With that in mind, Reynolds remarks here look like intimidation.

I don't see it that Reynolds is trying to "intimidate" Higgins.

The way I read both statements is that Higgins' contrition and olive branch was welcome, but it did come with a caveat about post-trauma memory affectation and a statement that she didn't agree with all of Justice Lee's findings (both very broad IMHO).

In light of point 2 above, I think Reynolds is simply chasing an upgraded olive branch. All Higgins has to do is sharpen the 'apology pencil' with Leon Zwier and get closer to an admission that part of it was fabricated (or imagined or trauma affected or whatever) and that they substantially agree with Lee's forensic findings. She can get Zwier to use some fancy legal terminology that will accept blame but not really accept blame. Reynolds needs to wear a compromise as well.

 

[MPMonkeys]

I'm not sure how Sharaz can pack up his bat and ball and go home with no admissions given he is the one being sued.

Reynolds should press on regardless until he has made full admissions that the cover up claims were false and that he defamed her by suggesting she was part of it.

This bloke needs to be shown no mercy.

I think if Reynolds gets that fromSharaz then she should discontinue her claim against Higgins.

 

[Lady O]

Mentioning points 2 and 3 brings you much ire and abuse on this forum, despite the fact that it's literally written in the verdict.

View attachment 1975733

Deliberate lies and a ‘vexing’ photograph: Justice Lee’s take on the key players of the Bruce Lehrmann defamation case

A federal court justice dismissed Lehrmann’s claim – but still had critical comments for Brittany Higgins and Lisa Wilkinson in his verdict

www.theguardian.com

And "crafting the narrative" has led to a massive compensation payout from the Federal Government, indicating that they believed all that Higgins had to say. I think it's fair to say that Sharaz was clearly behind this and he is now pretending that he has no money to fight a defamation case, which is technically probably correct. What is also probably correct is that he will be sharing in Higgins payout which he helped her to obtain.

 

[jason_recliner]

And "crafting the narrative" has lead to a massive compensation payout from the Federal Government, indicating that they believed all that Higgins had to say. I think it's fair to say that Sharaz was clearly behind this and he is now pretending that he has no money to fight a defamation case, which is technically probably correct. What is also probably correct is that he will be sharing in Higgins payout which he helped her to obtain.

She was paid out for being raped in an unsafe workplace rather than the cover-up lies.

How does suing somebody turn out if they are married to somebody with money? Is the money considered shared? When you divorce the money is split i.e. considered shared. Is that the same when married? Anybody know?

 

[MPMonkeys]

She was paid out for being raped in an unsafe workplace rather than the cover-up lies.

How does suing somebody turn out if they are married to somebody with money? Is the money considered shared? When you divorce the money is split i.e. considered shared. Is that the same when married? Anybody know?

Hmm, I'm not sure if that is exactly true. There was no actual finding of rape at the time of the payout.

To your second point, I think Higgins money is safe as the bulk of the income was derived from an event prior to them both meeting and as far as I know there is no formal partnership between Sharaz and Higgins.

 

[jason_recliner]

Hmm, I'm not sure if that is exactly true. There was no actual finding of rape at the time of the payout.

To your second point, I think Higgins money is safe as the bulk of the income was derived from an event prior to them both meeting and as far as I know there is no formal partnership between Sharaz and Higgins.

They're married, aren't they?

The payout acknowledged she was raped, regardless of the legal standing at the time. If not, what was the $3,000,000 for?

 

[MPMonkeys]

They're married, aren't they?

The payout acknowledged she was raped, regardless of the legal standing at the time. If not, what was the $3,000,000 for?

There was no acknowledgment. The payout was for the Commonwealth breaching its duty of care to one of its employees.
I don;t think they are married. Maybe engaged.

 

[jason_recliner]

There was no acknowledgment. The payout was for the Commonwealth breaching its duty of care to one of its employees.
I don;t think they are married. Maybe engaged.

Exactly. They didn't breach their duty of care unless she was raped.

 

[FIGJAM]

The payout acknowledged she was raped, regardless of the legal standing at the time. If not, what was the $3,000,000 for?

There is a $400,000 payout that was related to hurt, distress and humiliation that I think related directly to her treatment in the office. That's what's up for debate, particularly if it is based on untruths and wasn't investigated by the government.

Brittany Higgins received $2.4m in compensation. Why are some now saying she should pay it back?

Judgment in Bruce Lehrmann defamation case has prompted calls for anti-corruption commission to investigate the payout, but one expert says it’s ‘nonsense’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Lady O]

They're married, aren't they?

The payout acknowledged she was raped, regardless of the legal standing at the time. If not, what was the $3,000,000 for?

FYI

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/114062/Exhibit-59-Deed-of-Settlement-and-Release_Redacted.pdf

 

[jason_recliner]

FYI

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/114062/Exhibit-59-Deed-of-Settlement-and-Release_Redacted.pdf

Thanks, I stand corrected. The ACCC should definitely look into how much she is entitled to keep of the payout, with consideration given to Lee's findings. Looking at section 2.1, you'd have to come to the conclusion of "not much".

 

[Kurve]

The last time those cover-up claims were made were after the criminal trial in the allegedly offending Tweets.

I don't remember seeing that. All I saw was an exchange between Higgins and Sharaz suggesting Reynolds move on, similar on Insta.

Most of the focus re. a cover up was on The Project segment.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Did Linda Reynolds give Bruce a character reference for his next job with the Tobacco company?

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Personally this whole sordid business with Reynolds and the AFP just proves to me that you don't need to have a brain to work in politics or the police force.
That suits me fine, but I don't want to be a politician or police officer.

 

[FIGJAM]

I don't remember seeing that. All I saw was an exchange between Higgins and Sharaz suggesting Reynolds move on, similar on Insta.

Most of the focus re. a cover up was on The Project segment.

I think Festerz did a good breakdown on it and why there were inferences of a cover-up and/or impropriety.

Were it just some idiots arguing on the internet, then there would be no supportable defamation case. If arguing was sufficient for a case, then we'd have about 15 law suites in this thread alone!

 

[Zidane98]

2.15 tomorrow

Thanks for posting this, I might just listen in to see how this plays out.

 

[FIGJAM]

2.15 tomorrow

Hoping for an outcome that sees Bruce bankrupted, but with 10 still having to do some lifting of the costs as a form of penance for their abominable attempt at journalism.

Would also be nice to see Justice Lee deftly correct the record around Quill and Wilkinson's post verdict interviews.

 

[MPMonkeys]

I don't remember seeing that. All I saw was an exchange between Higgins and Sharaz suggesting Reynolds move on, similar on Insta.

Most of the focus re. a cover up was on The Project segment.

You only have to look at the other thread on the SC&P Board to see how the claims of a cover-up have manifested in such a way that people actually think it is true - despite it being completely knocked out of the park by Lee at the trial.

It's a fairly shocking accusation to make of anyone - that they deliberately tried to cover up a sexual assault - let alone a female. It would almost be akin to falsely accusing someone of being a pedophile.

 

[Stickitupthem]

She has been defamed and mud sticks
Irregardless of apologies made she will be forever tai ted with this affair
I’d pursue the matter fully

 

[Kurve]

Only four minutes to go ...