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

 

[jason_recliner]

I have no concerns at all.
That’s how our legal system works and for the most part works very well.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Then you won't understand the significant concerns of many about anonymous donors bankrolling rapists, potentially giving them a huge advantage over less-funded victims in court, but there's nothing trivial or "click-baity" about it.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Then you won't understand the significant concerns of many about anonymous donors bankrolling rapists, potentially giving them a huge advantage over less-funded victims in court, but there's nothing trivial or "click-baity" about it.

You don't have to be funded if you are a victim in court. You have the DPP and its consortium of legal practitioners to support you.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-victoria/robert-farquharson-who-drowned-three-sons-to-launch-new-appeal-against-life-sentence/news-story/38740e7cf430dbb6f3a2437e40a4e3ed

Heinous criminals launching appeals is not a new thing. See the above.
Its been part of our legal process for decades.

I don't know what alternative you are suggesting. If people want to fund appeals then that is their business. It's their money to do with what they want. Nor should they lose the ability to remain anonymous as in this day and age of social media any exposure would lead to placing them in real danger. We have seen time and time again how mobs come after people whose opinions differ from theirs.

 

[jason_recliner]

You don't have to be funded if you are a victim in court. You have the DPP and its consortium of legal practitioners to support you.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-victoria/robert-farquharson-who-drowned-three-sons-to-launch-new-appeal-against-life-sentence/news-story/38740e7cf430dbb6f3a2437e40a4e3ed

Heinous criminals launching appeals is not a new thing. See the above.
Its been part of our legal process for decades.

I don't know what alternative you are suggesting. If people want to fund appeals then that is their business. It's their money to do with what they want. Nor should they lose the ability to remain anonymous as in this day and age of social media any exposure would lead to placing them in real danger. We have seen time and time again how mobs come after people whose opinions differ from theirs.

Yes, you don't understand. I get it.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Yes, you don't understand. I get it.

I don't understand what alternative you are proposing.

All well and good to complain about current state but if you don't have an alternative then complaining is a waste of time.

 

[jason_recliner]

I don't understand what alternative you are proposing.

All well and good to complain about current state but if you don't have an alternative then complaining is a waste of time.

I don't know. Maybe, in cases associated with violent and sexual crime, the court could assess the source and quantum of any defence funding and consider whether the motivation for funding is reasonable and whether a complainant has a reasonable chance of proceeding. e.g. MRAs donate millions to avoid a child abuse victim suing their abuser/institution, or donor gives rapist seemingly endless funds for KCs and SCs to fight prosecution for rape in public institution, and then to prevent complainant seeking any civil damages. But yeah, I don't have the answer - refer to video above - my response was to your comment that interest in the funding is "click-baity", whereas anybody with an interest in the service of justice (as opposed to law) can see it clearly is not.

 

[GrayRanga]

You don't have to be funded if you are a victim in court. You have the DPP and its consortium of legal practitioners to support you.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-victoria/robert-farquharson-who-drowned-three-sons-to-launch-new-appeal-against-life-sentence/news-story/38740e7cf430dbb6f3a2437e40a4e3ed

Heinous criminals launching appeals is not a new thing. See the above.
Its been part of our legal process for decades.

I don't know what alternative you are suggesting. If people want to fund appeals then that is their business. It's their money to do with what they want. Nor should they lose the ability to remain anonymous as in this day and age of social media any exposure would lead to placing them in real danger. We have seen time and time again how mobs come after people whose opinions differ from theirs.

You seem to forget that this was a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

Lehrmann initiated the action and Channel 10 were defending themselves against the allegtions made against them.

If he had not gone back for his hat, history would have recorded this as the alleged rapist whose criminal trial was aborted through juror misconduct. No judgement of his actions would have been recorded in the Court or historical annals

He chose take the stand in this civil trial, which he didn't have to to in his criminal trial and both the Judge and the rest of Australia were able to judge his defence of his actions.

We know in criminal matters the State funds the prosecution, why should we not know who was funding his civil prosecution of Channel 10?

Can Channel 10 request Legal Aid to assist for part payment for their defense to the unproven allegations made against them?

 

[MPMonkeys]

I don't know. Maybe, in cases associated with violent and sexual crime, the court could assess the source and quantum of any defence funding and consider whether the motivation for funding is reasonable and whether a complainant has a reasonable chance of proceeding. e.g. MRAs donate millions to avoid a child abuse victim suing their abuser/institution, or donor gives rapist seemingly endless funds for KCs and SCs to fight prosecution for rape in public institution, and then to prevent complainant seeking any civil damages. But yeah, I don't have the answer, my response was to your comment that interest in the funding is "click-baity", where anybody with an interest in service of justice can see it clearly is not - refer to video above.

But at the time, he was an alleged rapist. Not a formal rapist. Therefore the presumption of innocence applies.

Again, I am not sure what people are complaining about here. Without BL's legal action, there would still have been uncertainty as to what happened to Higgins and there would still be a cloud hanging over Reynolds and Brown regarding a cover-up (although assorted tin foil hattists still cling to this as being valid).

For those wanting the truth, its been Win-Win-Win-Win

• Win 1 - BL exposed as rapist
• Win 2 - Ten and Wilkinson's shoddy 'journalism' exposed
• Win 3 - BH vindicated as to the events of the night
• Win 4 - Reynolds and Brown vindicated

And the losers being

• BL - formally exposed and bankrupted
• Ten & LW - likely having to pay costs (with BL likely being bankrupt someone has to pay) and being exposed as shady operators on this matter
• Sharaz - exposed

I think Lee has gotten to the truth of the matter in a way a criminal case would probably not have.

 

[jason_recliner]

I am not sure what people are complaining about here.

Yep.

 

[FIGJAM]

For those wanting the truth, its been Win-Win-Win-Win

• Win 1 - BL exposed as rapist
• Win 2 - Ten and Wilkinson's shoddy 'journalism' exposed
• Win 3 - BH vindicated as to the events of the night
• Win 4 - Reynolds and Brown vindicated

And the losers being

• BL - formally exposed and bankrupted
• Ten & LW - likely having to pay costs (with BL likely being bankrupt someone has to pay) and being exposed as shady operators on this matter
• Sharaz - exposed

I think Lee has gotten to the truth of the matter in a way a criminal case would probably not have.

Nailed it!!

With regard to Sharaz, it's hard to know just how influential he was on Higgins' mindset and memory.

I often wonder if she 100% believed the "narrative crafted" (as Justice Lee terms it) and then later realised at a later point in time that a lot of what she was saying was incorrect. Deleting a text to Dillaway that suggested that she was looking to not-proceed with the charges the day after she first laid the charges (ie. without a threat to her job) indicates that she was either shocked post-Project interview to find such detail that she by necessity curated it, or worse, she knew much of what what she was saying about the cover-up was untrue.

No mater what happened with the above, Higgins has certainly shouldered a host of negative issues, whether it be abuse or death threats from morons, leaking of information and various stress related health issues. She's both a rape victim and a major victim of the post-The Project omnishambles.

 

[Percel]

omnishambles.

it’s your favourite word now right?

 

[FIGJAM]

it’s your favourite word now right?

I'd go with "cluster-****" personally, but omnishambles references Justice Lee's verdict and reminds people that there is a myriad of layers to this story.

 

[GrayRanga]

But at the time, he was an alleged rapist. Not a formal rapist. Therefore the presumption of innocence applies.

He is still an alleged rapist within the Criminal jurisdition.

He has not been convicted of the allegations of rape put before the Court.

He could quite legitimently fill out a job or visa application and say no to the question "Have you been convicted of a criminal offence?"

Most criminal records checks only show convictions.

Due diligence from a prospective employer (Google Search) will indicate a different answer to the available Criminal Records checks (unless your appying for sensitive Government positions)

He made the decision to get his hat on his own free will and his claims were defended in a Civil jurisdiction by those he accused

He is now considered to be a rapist in the Civil jurisdiction in this matter and the minds of most Australians except of misogenists who believe raping a drunk comotose woman is better than masturbating to his fantasies

 

[spike101]

But at the time, he was an alleged rapist. Not a formal rapist. Therefore the presumption of innocence applies.

Again, I am not sure what people are complaining about here. Without BL's legal action, there would still have been uncertainty as to what happened to Higgins and there would still be a cloud hanging over Reynolds and Brown regarding a cover-up (although assorted tin foil hattists still cling to this as being valid).

For those wanting the truth, its been Win-Win-Win-Win

• Win 1 - BL exposed as rapist
• Win 2 - Ten and Wilkinson's shoddy 'journalism' exposed
• Win 3 - BH vindicated as to the events of the night
• Win 4 - Reynolds and Brown vindicated

And the losers being

• BL - formally exposed and bankrupted
• Ten & LW - likely having to pay costs (with BL likely being bankrupt someone has to pay) and being exposed as shady operators on this matter
• Sharaz - exposed

I think Lee has gotten to the truth of the matter in a way a criminal case would probably not have.

I have consistently posted that the ghastly Sharaz has much of which to be ashamed but apparently I am trolling when I write this. But I will try again; he is a nasty piece of work and is completely unemployable from hence forth, as is Lehrmann and possibly Higgins.

 

[spike101]

If Reynolds is suing Higgins for defamation for having an opinion of her then everyone in BF is in big s**t then because opinions make up a big proportion of the comments.
On the other hand, if Reynolds took a place in public office and couldn't handle a bit of flack then she shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Hopefully the case goes to court and Dreyfus, Gallagher, Wong, and Keneally will appear to be questioned over their shameful attacks on Reynolds, and by implication, Brown. Unless of course, Albanese makes an “offer that can’t be refused” to shut the case down but I hope Reynolds doesn’t accept it.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Linda Reynolds having a Fan Club is quite bizarre.

 

[Festerz]

Police rarely charge sexual offences because they rarely investigate them​

A damning headline about a damning report - which used matters reported to ACT Policing in 2021 as a case study - has revealed a need for a huge overhaul in how police handle sexual assault cases.

This should be essential reading for those in this thread who from day one have repeated the victim blaming bleating about Brittany Higgins reluctance to continue with her initial rape report to ACT Police in 2019 and that she should have put her faith in the criminal justice system.

The report found only one in seven people accused of raping a child will likely even know they were named as a suspect, much less be investigated, charged, prosecuted or convicted.

The number of cases in which police will approach a suspect only rises from 15 to 17 per cent in cases where the victim is over 16.

 

[Lady O]

Police rarely charge sexual offences because they rarely investigate them​

A damning headline about a damning report - which used matters reported to ACT Policing in 2021 as a case study - has revealed a need for a huge overhaul in how police handle sexual assault cases.

This should be essential reading for those in this thread who from day one have repeated the victim blaming bleating about Brittany Higgins reluctance to continue with her initial rape report to ACT Police in 2019 and that she should have put her faith in the criminal justice system.

The report found only one in seven people accused of raping a child will likely even know they were named as a suspect, much less be investigated, charged, prosecuted or convicted.

The number of cases in which police will approach a suspect only rises from 15 to 17 per cent in cases where the victim is over 16.

Doesn't apply in this case, as it was the complainant who decided not to proceed.

 

[Kurve]

Not a good look imo.

 

[BFew]

Not a good look imo.

Looks like Reynolds is trying to actively acquire/hijack both claimed (by Reynolds) assets acquired from a (claimed by Reynolds) crime, which were in fact a crime victims (Higgins) Government employer compensation payments.

In the case where Reynolds was successful in her defamation lawsuit against Higgins, and Reynolds got her hands on all of what's left of Higgins multi-million dollar compensation payments, imagine the outrage if Reynolds refused or was unable to hand back (to the Government) what she was able to get from Higgins compensation payments, to pay her (Reynolds) legal fees, if Higgins was ever court ordered to pay some/all of the payments back to the Government.

 

[Lady O]

Not a good look imo.

She probably wants to get back the money she paid Higgins from her own pocket, considering Justice Lee has found that the accusations against her had no basis in fact.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

She probably wants to get back the money she paid Higgins from her own pocket, considering Justice Lee has found that the accusations against her had no basis in fact.

What money ? What are you even talking about ?

 

[Lady O]

What money ? What are you even talking about ?

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/linda-reynolds-settles-brittany-higgins-defamation-complaint-over-lying-cow-comments/news-story/39d646888633e58246235d55a6a2a81e#:~:text=Defence%20Minister%20Linda%20Reynolds%20has%20settled%20a%20defamation,based%20organisation%20that%20assists%20victims%20of%20sexual%20assault.

 

[FIGJAM]

Doesn't apply in this case, as it was the complainant who decided not to proceed.

*******

It's not like Higgins had access to the stats as posted. She made her call all by herself.

PART 737 LEE VERDICT: Indeed, as noted above, such was the thoroughness of Agent Cleaves that she viewed the CCTV footage in the security room and made notes (T1396.31–36), even though Ms Higgins had made it plain she did not want to proceed.

Hardly the efforts of a half-arsed investigation.

And Higgins had good support, as evidenced by her sending Brown champers and Reynolds flowers.

 

[Kurve]

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/linda-reynolds-settles-brittany-higgins-defamation-complaint-over-lying-cow-comments/news-story/39d646888633e58246235d55a6a2a81e#:~:text=Defence%20Minister%20Linda%20Reynolds%20has%20settled%20a%20defamation,based%20organisation%20that%20assists%20victims%20of%20sexual%20assault.

I thought the government paid the 'lying cow' defamation case which was under the leadership of Morrison and it's Reynolds legal fees after that she's trying to recoup from Higgins. Dreyfus refused to cover her for them.

 

[Kurve]

For this Reynolds got $90k when most of thought her conduct through the first trial absolutely was disturbing.

Reynolds launched the action against the ACT government and former chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold in December over allegations Drumgold made in a letter to the Australian federal police accusing the senator of “disturbing conduct” during the Bruce Lehrmann trial.

Linda Reynolds receives $90,000 defamation settlement over former ACT DPP’s Lehrmann trial comments

Former minister launched legal action after the then DPP accused her of ‘disturbing conduct’ during the Bruce Lehrmann trial

www.theguardian.com