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

 

[MPMonkeys]

Parliament House. The stuff that LNP wouldnt release to ACT police, but later turned up on channel 7.

This was already explained to you.

Can you stop talking in riddles please.
What specific footage are you referring to?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Can you stop talking in riddles please.
What specific footage are you referring to?

The footage that Ms Higgins had not even seen until Ch7 aired it.

Perhaps you should do some research.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Which CCTV footage are you talking about?

Of him raping Higgins but Spotlight decided not to show it.

 

[CM86]

Can you stop talking in riddles please.
What specific footage are you referring to?

I feel that this shows you have so little knowledge and understanding of any of these events, and that you seem completely unwilling to spend any time trying to find information that is readily available.

To me, that shows that you are purely here to attack Higgins, and victims of rape in general.
And to defend Lehrmann, the rapist who raped Higgins.


If that's the case, I don't think you should have access to these threads.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

I feel that this shows you have so little knowledge and understanding of any of these events, and that you seem completely unwilling to spend any time trying to find information that is readily available.

To me, that shows that you are purely here to attack Higgins, the victim of rape.
And to defend Lehrmann, the rapist who raped Higgins.


If that's the case, I don't think you should have access to these threads.

I wonder what MP would be like if Lee found in Lehrmann's favour - intolerable I would think.

 

[Festerz]

Can you stop talking in riddles please.
What specific footage are you referring to?

Can you stop the sea-lioning?

This issue has been gone through many times in this thread and was the subject of in-court discussion in the Lehrmann defamation trial that you constantly refer to but just cherry pick for the sections that suit your narrative.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I wonder what MP would be like if Lee found in Lehrmann's favour - intolerable I would think.

Coke and Thai massages, probably.

 

[MPMonkeys]

I’m not sure how to dumb it down any further. Everyone else seems to be aware.

Nobody is aware because nobody can specifically point out what you are referring to.
Its quite simple - refer to the footage in question. This is not rocket science.

It can be Parliament House video (entry or exit) or bar video or whatever you want to choose.

 

[FIGJAM]

Parliament House. The stuff that LNP wouldnt release to ACT police, but later turned up on channel 7.

I think Monkeys might be confused, because of your statement that there was the Parliament House CCTV footage that the "LNP wouldn't release", but there was never CCTV footage in the LNP's possession to release.

The AFP have been found to have gathered the CCTV footage and retained it:

739 Thirdly, the whole issue is a furphy in any event, as the reality is that the CCTV footage was, by reason of the prudent steps taken by the AFP, obtained for initial viewing and then preserved notwithstanding there was no extant complaint. It is, of course, to be expected that complainants may change their mind and hence the course of preserving the relevant CCTV footage was sensible and allowed it to be able to be played both at the criminal trial and in this proceeding. The implicit and sometimes express notion that there was something conspiratorial or improper about the way the CCTV footage was dealt with in 2019 does not bear scrutiny.

Drumgold has made allegations that there was extra CCTV footage that went missing that showed Higgins in an even more drunk state, but the police claim that it never existed and the footage that was presented at court was all that there was.

The footage that Ms Higgins had not even seen until Ch7 aired it.

As above, the CCTV footage was presented at the criminal trial, which was well before the Spotlight article.

Higgins would have been permitted to have viewed it after she provided her Evidence-in-Chief interview in the 2021 investigation, as is standard protocol.

 

[CM86]

I think Monkeys might be confused, because of your statement that there was the Parliament House CCTV footage that the "LNP wouldn't release", but there was never CCTV footage in the LNP's possession to release.

The AFP have been found to have gathered the CCTV footage and retained it:



Drumgold has made allegations that there was extra CCTV footage that went missing that showed Higgins in an even more drunk state, but the police claim that it never existed and the footage that was presented at court was all that there was.



As above, the CCTV footage was presented at the criminal trial, which was well before the Spotlight article.

Higgins would have been permitted to have viewed it after she provided her Evidence-in-Chief interview in the 2021 investigation, as is standard protocol.

At what point did the AFP become involved in the Lehrmann rape case?

Did Higgins report her rape to the AFP or the ACT police?
When did the ACT police investigating the rape get access to the CCTV footage?


When was the CCTV footage released to the investigating officer?

 

[Kurve]

I think Monkeys might be confused, because of your statement that there was the Parliament House CCTV footage that the "LNP wouldn't release", but there was never CCTV footage in the LNP's possession to release.

The AFP have been found to have gathered the CCTV footage and retained it:



Drumgold has made allegations that there was extra CCTV footage that went missing that showed Higgins in an even more drunk state, but the police claim that it never existed and the footage that was presented at court was all that there was.



As above, the CCTV footage was presented at the criminal trial, which was well before the Spotlight article.

Higgins would have been permitted to have viewed it after she provided her Evidence-in-Chief interview in the 2021 investigation, as is standard protocol.

If it was the case, then Ten wouldn't have needed to subponae Parliament House for the 'missing' footage, some of which was deleted, they could have simply got whatever the AFP had from theirs or the prosecutors files.

Start here:

• #5,083

 

[FIGJAM]

At what point did the AFP become involved in the Lehrmann rape case?

Fiona Brown took Higgins to the AFP unit at Parliament House on 1 April 2019, so this was their first involvement.

Did Higgins report her rape to the AFP or the ACT police?

In 2019, I don't believe that Higgins reported her rape at all, but her case was transitioned from the AFP to officers from the SACAT (Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Team) which is the ACT police from 4 April 2019 and spoke to Higgins on 8 April 2019, in what the police call a 'Meet and Greet'. Higgins had stated that she did not want to proceed with an investigation at that stage, but wanted further information about her options.

After texting Dillaway on 9 April that she didn't want to proceed, she stated that she didn't want to go any further on 13 April 2019 and the police concluded the case, including securing the CCTV footage and making notes after this date.

The ACT police investigated the case in 2021 when Higgins decided to formally make a complaint of rape to the police.

When did the ACT police investigating the rape get access to the CCTV footage?

When was the CCTV footage released to the investigating officer?

Fair to say that the AFP and the ACT police investigated the initial claim hand in glove. The footage was available to any investigating officer as early as 16 April 2019 and it was secured.

 

[CM86]

Fiona Brown took Higgins to the AFP unit at Parliament House on 1 April 2019, so this was their first involvement.



In 2019, I don't believe that Higgins reported her rape at all, but her case was transitioned from the AFP to officers from the SACAT (Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Team) which is the ACT police from 4 April 2019 and spoke to Higgins on 8 April 2019, in what the police call a 'Meet and Greet'. Higgins had stated that she did not want to proceed with an investigation at that stage, but wanted further information about her options.

After texting Dillaway on 9 April that she didn't want to proceed, she stated that she didn't want to go any further on 13 April 2019 and the police concluded the case, including securing the CCTV footage and making notes after this date.

The ACT police investigated the case in 2021 when Higgins decided to formally make a complaint of rape to the police.





Fair to say that the AFP and the ACT police investigated the initial claim hand in glove. The footage was available to any investigating officer as early as 16 April 2019 and it was secured.

At Parliament House there Is footage everywhere but the suites, which Is run by security guards from a company not by Protective Services Officers /PSO).

About 10:05am, Monday 15 April 2019, spoke with FA and provided an update, She state that she would continue to retrieve CCTV from Parliament House.


10 April 2019
FA called me, An update was provided and she stated she was still following up the CCTV at Parliament House In relation to the Investigation




15 April 2019, spoke with FA and provided an update, She stated that she would continue to retrieve CCTV from Parliament House.




4 May 2019, I sent an email to FA to follow up on Parliament House CCTV availability.




9 May 201.9, I spoke with FA who stated the CCTV footage from Parliament House would not be released until after the election, nor would It be able to be viewed again.



Requests are




4 December 2019, I received email correspondence from Departmentof Parliamentary Services, regarding the CCTV footage from Parliament House. The email stated that the CCTV would not be provided to police.







Saturday 13 April 2019, I received an email whilst not on shift from Ms HIGGINS. This email stated that she did not wish to proceed with an Investigation at this time. (I wonder why...)
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.










Including a link so the information is all available.

 

[jason_recliner]

Australian Federal Police officers sue former ACT top prosecutor for defamation​

• In short: A group of five Australian Federal Police officers has filed a defamation claim in the Federal Court against the ACT's former Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold.
• The officers are seeking almost $1.5 million and claim Mr Drumgold defamed them by alleging they pressured him not to pursue the prosecution of former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann.
• In their statement of claim, the officers say Mr Drumgold made eight defamatory claims about them, including that they bullied Brittany Higgins and interfered in the prosecution.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05...er-lehrmann-prosecution-allegations/103781372

 

[Brian Oblivion]

Australian Federal Police officers sue former ACT top prosecutor for defamation​

• In short: A group of five Australian Federal Police officers has filed a defamation claim in the Federal Court against the ACT's former Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold.
• The officers are seeking almost $1.5 million and claim Mr Drumgold defamed them by alleging they pressured him not to pursue the prosecution of former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann.
• In their statement of claim, the officers say Mr Drumgold made eight defamatory claims about them, including that they bullied Brittany Higgins and interfered in the prosecution.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05...er-lehrmann-prosecution-allegations/103781372

 

[jason_recliner]

View attachment 1989697

Is Dumbgold the "boy who needs a friend"?

 

[Kurve]

Like sharks that can smell blood in the water.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

Is Dumbgold the "boy who needs a friend"?

BL as per JA et al.

Neverending Story refers to these AFP officers diving in for their "cut".

 

[FIGJAM]

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

Including a link so the information is all available.

What is this link and how does it relate to all of you snippets above? Is it the wrong link?

It's nice that Cleaves (AFP) and Harman (ACT Pol) were still helping, but there is no "investigating officer" with no active case.

 

[Festerz]

Like sharks that can smell blood in the water.

It's my view that a letter of complaint from a DPP to the head of Police regarding policing behaviour should not be something that should be the subject of civil litigation - public servants should expect to have their behaviour scrutinised, criticised and held up to the highest standard even if those allegations are subsequently held to be false.

But what has happened here, with Drumgold over-riding his own Department's FOI Officers authority, and effectively releasing his letter of allegation to the press without it having being properly considered and responded to by tthe officers concerned and without redacting names etc. on his own volition, is another thing entirely. That was effectively the second 'publication' of the letter under Australian defamation laws and was the act that was (IMHO), at best, political miscalculation and, at worst an orchestrated and appalling personal attack on the reputation of fellow law officers.

In my view, by allowing that letter to be published Drumgold effectively denied natural justice to the officers who he accused. And while the actions and behaviours of some of the officers during the trial and subsequent inquiry deserved greater scrutiny, the claims made against them in Drumgold's letter was spurious at best and later retracted.

 

[CM86]

What is this link and how does it relate to all of you snippets above? Is it the wrong link?

Wait, so when you posted this.

The footage was available to any investigating officer as early as 16 April 2019 and it was secured.

You knew you were being deceptive, as Higgins had said she did not wish to proceed on the 13th? So there wouldn't be any "Investigation officers"?

Or are you just focusing on this to sidestep the lack of access to the CCTV footage?

 

[FIGJAM]

Wait, so when you posted this.

View attachment 1989756

You knew you were being deceptive, as Higgins had said she did not wish to proceed on the 13th? So there wouldn't be any "Investigation officers"?

Or are you just focusing on this to sidestep the lack of access to the CCTV footage?

I consider Rebecca Cleaves from the AFP as an investigative officer (of sorts). She secured the CCTV footage after the 13th and wound up reviews pertaining to the withdrawn complaint.

695 On 15 April, Agent Cleaves had left a message to arrange to view the CCTV footage and recorded a conversation she had with the SACAT that Ms Higgins did not want to proceed and had not called the CRCC (T1397.19–32). And again, even though there was no investigation on foot, on the following day (16 April), Agent Cleaves viewed the CCTV footage in the security room and made notes (T1396.31–36). She also followed up, obtained, and then reviewed an outstanding security report from the DPS (T1394.24; T1396.24–29).

Harmon chipped away at the case a bit too over 2019, but you're restricted on what you can do (or demand evidentially) without an active case, which is logically understandable.

Thank you for deleting your final para.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

"9 May 201.9, I spoke with FA who stated the CCTV footage from Parliament House would not be released until after the election, nor would It be able to be viewed again."

CM86, Could you or someone else explain what is the meaning of this comment.
To me, that would mean the footage is being covered up. Is that correct?

 

[CM86]

I consider Rebecca Cleaves from the AFP as an investigative officer (of sorts). She secured the CCTV footage after the 13th and wound up reviews pertaining to the withdrawn complaint.



Harmon chipped away at the case a bit too over 2019, but you're restricted on what you can do (or demand evidentially) without an active case, which is logically understandable.

Thank you for deleting your final para.

So
1. The CCTV footage wasn't available during the investigation.
2. It was made difficult to access.
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.


So can you please stop saying the opposite when presenting a narrative?

 

[CM86]

"9 May 201.9, I spoke with FA who stated the CCTV footage from Parliament House would not be released until after the election, nor would It be able to be viewed again."

CM86, Could you or someone else explain what is the meaning of this comment.
To me, that would mean the footage is being covered up. Is that correct?

I believe the excuse about "until after the election" is about actions from the Government in the final weeks before the election.


I'm not sure what the excuse is for it not being able to be viewed again.