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

 

[BFew]

Stephen Rice has been the co-author of many of Albrechtson's articles but nobody says boo about him on here.

You obviously haven't read when I mentioned Rice, and named him against quotes numerous times in the part 1 thread of this case (this thread is part 2).

 

[FIGJAM]

Taking petty partisan swipes isn't encouraged in here.

The cookers still at it I see. A bit of 'wot about ABC' here, a bit of 'tin foil' there and the usual 'do you trust the govment?'. Not even hiding from their bias now and a wilful ignorance of the facts.

Just that the usual idiots are blinded by their own bias.

It isn't?!

 

[Kurve]

It isn't?!

While there's many references to 'conspiracies' 'tin foil hatters' and 'nutters' that are still standing.

Overt petty swipes at the left or the right isn't encouraged in here.

 

[Festerz]

You obviously haven't read when I mentioned Rice, and named him against quotes numerous times in the part 1 thread of this case (this thread is part 2).

There's also the fact that Sofronoff had 273 interactions (including private meetings after court, lunch dates and exchange of documents) wth Janet Albrechtsen.

It's Albrechtsen whose personal interactions with Sofronoff was the focus of the Supreme Court Board of Inquiry and referenced in yesterday's statement from the ACT Commissioner for Public Integrity in announcing the inquiry into corruption allegations regarding the conduct of the Hon Walter Sofronoff KC.

Bringing up her work colleague Stephen Rice as some sort of gender balance issue is just more of the ignorant 'whatabout' nonsense that a couple of posters substitute for facts.

 

[FIGJAM]

Overt petty swipes at the left or the right isn't encouraged in here.

Ironically that is of a far less of 'message board crime' a than individuals taking overt petty swipes at individuals who disagree with them.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Yeh I reckon it would be implied that Sofronoff had some sort of a crush or an infatuation. It's blatantly obvious in the circumstances, that their relationship through the inquiry was inappropriate and in fact, led to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

On Stephen Rice? You're repeating yourself when we've had this discussion.

Well its not really blatantly obvious to me.

Many people thought it was 'blatantly obvious' that Reynolds and Brown conspired to cover up a rape too. Or that it was 'blatantly obvious' that BL had some sort of mystery backer with many naming Stokes as that person as if it were a fait accompli.

Anyway, lets see what this particular investigation comes up with. I'm not even sure what people are alleging here. That somehow Albrechtson contrived with Sofronoff to come up with a finding that was critical of Drumgold?
It's obviously ridiculous as there is nothing in it for either party and it would be a criminal offence if it were true. Why would both risk potentially jail over this?

The amount of hatred for Albrechtson is reaching absurd levels. She is not a master puppeteer nor is she some sort of femme fatale that corrupts otherwise sane men into doing things they wouldn't normally do.

 

[Kurve]

Well its not really blatantly obvious to me.

It should be

Many people thought it was 'blatantly obvious' that Reynolds and Brown conspired to cover up a rape too. Or that it was 'blatantly obvious' that BL had some sort of mystery backer with many naming Stokes as that person as if it were a fait accompli.

Give it a rest will you? If they hadn't sent the cleaners in for a special out of hours, unscheduled clean, the question wouldn't have hung.

The amount of hatred for Albrechtson is reaching absurd levels. She is not a master puppeteer nor is she some sort of femme fatale that corrupts otherwise sane men into doing things they wouldn't normally do.

Nonsense and stop exaggerating thanks.

There are obvious questions that need answers and that's why we need to have another inquiry.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Well its not really blatantly obvious to me.

Many people thought it was 'blatantly obvious' that Reynolds and Brown conspired to cover up a rape too. Or that it was 'blatantly obvious' that BL had some sort of mystery backer with many naming Stokes as that person as if it were a fait accompli.

Anyway, lets see what this particular investigation comes up with. I'm not even sure what people are alleging here. That somehow Albrechtson contrived with Sofronoff to come up with a finding that was critical of Drumgold?
It's obviously ridiculous as there is nothing in it for either party and it would be a criminal offence if it were true. Why would both risk potentially jail over this?

The amount of hatred for Albrechtson is reaching absurd levels. She is not a master puppeteer nor is she some sort of femme fatale that corrupts otherwise sane men into doing things they wouldn't normally do.

It could be an IPA/LNP/Newscorp psyop.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

It could be an IPA/LNP/Newscorp psyop.

 

[FIGJAM]

Give it a rest will you? If they hadn't sent the cleaners in for a special out of hours, unscheduled clean, the question wouldn't have hung.

Are you saying if the out of hours clean wasn't undertaken, you'd have viewed the other half a dozen now debunked claims through a different lens?

 

[Kurve]

Are you saying if the out of hours clean wasn't undertaken, you'd have viewed the other half a dozen now debunked claims through a different lens?

Yes, I might have viewed the whole thing through a 'slightly' different lens because the extraordinary cleaning up of what we now know was in fact a crime scene, was the start of it and that had a lot of press.

Then we had a royal commission in to Robodebt, which proved the government is quite capable of cover ups.

 

[FIGJAM]

Yes, I might have viewed the whole thing through a 'slightly' different lens because the extraordinary cleaning up of what we now know was in fact a crime scene, was the start of it and that had a lot of press.

I think you're proving Monkey's point about people blowing things up. It was a mundane out of hours clean.

Then we had a royal commission in to Robodebt, which proved the government is quite capable of cover ups.

Robodebt was a disgrace, ScoMo was a fraud and Tudgey and Barnaby evidence of the Canberra Bubble culture, but you still need to take each case on its merits, otherwise you're reverting to "the vibe" argument.

 

[Kurve]

I think you're proving Monkey's point about people blowing things up. It was a mundane out of hours clean.

No it wasn't a mundane out of hours clean.

A naked staffer had been found passed out drunk on the Minister's couch, security sent the matter up the chain.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

I think you're proving Monkey's point about people blowing things up. It was a mundane out of hours clean.



Robodebt was a disgrace, ScoMo was a fraud and Tudgey and Barnaby evidence of the Canberra Bubble culture, but you still need to take each case on its merits, otherwise you're reverting to "the vibe" argument.

The Morrison govt probs more than the Turnbull and Abbott govts had (saying something) - especially after the event / in hindsight, a quite awful reputation for governance with many, many appalling examples - which could give rise for someone to take a suspicious view of just about anything they did from any sort of integrity position.

 

[FIGJAM]

No it wasn't a mundane out of hours clean.

A naked staffer had been found passed out drunk on the Minister's couch, security sent the matter up the chain.

They send cleaners in when there are after hours drinks.

Carlos Ramos the cleaner was told to look for signs of a "party".

654 First, is cleaning. On Monday, 25 March, notably before Ms Brown or anyone other than Mr Lehrmann and Ms Higgins working for the Minister knew of the incident, the Ministerial private office was cleaned. As is evident from the contemporaneous records, this occurred by reason of actions commenced as early as 12:40pm on 23 March, involving the Chief of Staff of DPS (who had initially been called while Ms Higgins was still in the Ministerial Suite), as “someone may have vomited in there” (MC (at 13, 19, 22)). Ms Brown gave the cleaning no thought at the time, but when she later became aware that there had been unauthorised after-hours access to the Minister’s office, she called “MinWing Support” to make enquires as to the details. Mr Stephen Frost, part of MinWing Support, saw Ms Brown and during this conversation, she discovered the Ministerial private office had also been cleaned on the previous Saturday, after Ms Higgins had left it. Ms Brown was initially concerned by hearing this, but Mr Frost advised her that it was “standard procedure for an office to be cleaned following after-hours access”, and further explained there had been incidences over many years where offices had been left in a mess. There is no reason to doubt the evidence of what Mr Frost said to Ms Brown, which is supported by the contemporaneous record.

Ultimately, it's issues like these, plus things like when Brown or Reynolds knew or didn't know, that people seem to be clutching on to to provide plausible deniability to the cover-up claims.

I don't know if people feel that it disempowers that part of Higgins' story that wasn't made up, or if there are perennial political motives, but it is evidence of how people can curate their own narrative based on limited information.

 

[FIGJAM]

The Morrison govt probs more than the Turnbull and Abbott govts had (saying something) - especially after the event / in hindsight has a quite awful reputation for governance with many, many appalling examples - which could give rise for someone to take a suspicious view of just about anything they did from any sort of integrity position.

I don't disagree, but if I were a journalist, I wouldn't be publishing an article that accused the government of a cover up without doing a thorough investigation.

And if they were so universally dodgy, then you'll get all the evidence that you want....easy!

Of course, if the info doesn't exist, then you can avoid looking like rank amateurs like Wilkinson and Network 10.

 

[MPMonkeys]

It could be an IPA/LNP/Newscorp psyop.

Brilliant contribution as always.

 

[Kurve]

Ultimately, it's issues like these, plus things like when Brown or Reynolds knew or didn't know, that people seem to be clutching on to to provide plausible deniability to the cover-up claims.

I don't know if people feel that it disempowers that part of Higgins' story that wasn't made up, or if there are perennial political motives, but it is evidence of how people can curate their own narrative based on limited information.

Who's clutching? It seems to be you hanging on to this issue of a cover up when it's really a side issue to the fact someone was raped in the ministers office, as if that's of lesser importance.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

If there was no cover up, why was all that cctv footage that ch7 got a hold of not released earlier?

 

[MPMonkeys]

If there was no cover up, why was all that cctv footage that ch7 got a hold of not released earlier?

There was a small matter of a criminal trial to consider.

Believe it or not, the public don’t have a right to view any CCTV footage that is taken.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[MPMonkeys]

If there was no cover up, why was all that cctv footage that ch7 got a hold of not released earlier?

There was a small matter of a criminal trial to consider.

Believe it or not, the public don’t have a right to view any CCTV footage that is taken.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Kurve]

Ultimately, it's issues like these, plus things like when Brown or Reynolds knew or didn't know, that people seem to be clutching on to to provide plausible deniability to the cover-up claims.

Reynolds lied to the Supreme Court on a key issue.

 

[jason_recliner]

Reynolds lied to the Supreme Court on a key issue.

Isn't that a crime? Why were there no repercussions for doing so?

 

[Kurve]

Isn't that a crime? Why were there no repercussions for doing so?

Many asking the same thing. My understanding is that she recanted after realising what she'd done on the Spotlight interview in contradicting herself.

If there's any cover ups going on, it's to protect the high office of the government.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Many asking the same thing. My understanding is that she recanted after realising what she'd done on the Spotlight interview in contradicting herself.

If there's any cover ups going on, it's to protect the high office of the government.

There is no cover up.
Why do people continue to propogate this when Justice Lee totally discounted this in his findings?

There never was a cover up and it truly blows my mind that people still cling on to this when every facet of this was thoroughly investigated by Lee who found there was no substance to it whatsoever.