Updated Bruce Lehrmann * Justice Lee - "Mr Lehrmann r*ped Ms Higgins."

[Kurve]

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

 

[CM86]

Timetable update:

Monday, April 8
* Ms Higgins meets with AFP at Belconnen police station.

Tuesday, April 9
* Ms Higgins texts Mr Dillaway stating that she did not want to pursue the complaint. She deleted this text from her phone before handing it over to the police.

Thursday, April 11
* Former prime minister Scott Morrison calls the federal election.

Saturday, April 13
* Ms Higgins tells police she won't continue with her complaint, citing her current workplace demands.


So she knowingly deleted a text that she knew would expose her interactions with Brown, Reynolds and others as lies as to why she dropped the charge. Seems more calculated to me than an evolving embellishment of the truth over almost 2 years.

So she's lying about the 'workplace demands'.
But Brown, Cash, Dutton, Morrison and Reynolds are all being honest with forgetfulness, or we just accept their blatant incompetence?



Your standard for the actions of a young adult who was r*ped... are so much higher than the people who were literally running the country.

It's harmful to anyone who is trying to build up the courage to report abuse from family/workplace et al.
I cannot for the life of me understand how you can't even sympathise with that.

 

[FIGJAM]

What was comprehensively stated was that Higgins was a victim of rape.
That's the single most important statement of fact from Justice Lee.

It was a very important fact, as the verdict as to rape rendered the second component of the trial redundant from a defamation purpose. But the second component of this case remains extremely important.

You and the media have latched onto this as Justice Lee's 'mike drop' moment:

620 Mr Lehrmann r*ped Ms Higgins.

But his last 3 paragraphs of his verdict were not at Ol Brucey Boy, but targeted at the 'Ground Zero' of the "omnishambles" that followed, which were caused by the false allegations of a cover-up and a trial by media set up:

1095 Mr Lehrmann is not entitled to the vindication of his reputation. The respondents, however, are entitled to vindication by the entry of judgment on the statement of claim.

1096 But even though the respondents have legally justified their imputation of rape, this does not mean their conduct was justified in any broader or colloquial sense. The contemporaneous documents and the broadcast itself demonstrate the allegation of rape was the minor theme, and the allegation of cover-up was the major motif.

1097 The publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice won the Project team, like Ms Maiden, a glittering prize; but when the accusation is examined properly, it was supposition without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact; its dissemination caused a brume of confusion, and did much collateral damage – including to the fair and orderly progress of the underlying allegation of sexual assault through the criminal justice system. To the extent there were perceived systemic issues as to avenues of complaint and support services in Parliament, this may have merited a form of fact-based critique, not the publication of insufficiently scrutinised and factually misconceived conjecture.

That is when he chose to drop his mike!

 

[CM86]

Would they have named the alleged rapist and victim?

No.


Do you understand the current conversation?


Murdoch media has never held back out of concern for the victims.
Look at the phone hacking scandal, to the release of assault that the victim had requested she not be named.

They could have reported on the Prayer Room as well. But still haven't.


I've read your posts in other threads. Stop making me interact with you, like you're an idiot.

 

[FIGJAM]

Don't cut the quote, and then ask me for more information.

Lets just both be honest with each other for a little while. Because I've been desperately honest with you to try and engage/connect.

And I'm sick of you spitting in my face.

WTF???!!!

I'm legit asking about your claim that anyone in the Murdoch press knew about the rape in 2019.

Everyone edits quotes to pick out what they are responding to. Jesus!!

 

[CM86]

Who lied and what did they lie about?

What are your thoughts on MPs lying in a criminal trial?
What are your thoughts on the spouse of an MP connected to a criminal trial being part of the court?

That was reported on.
Another coincidence?

 

[CM86]

WTF???!!!

I'm legit asking about your claim that anyone in the Murdoch press knew about the rape in 2019.

Everyone edits quotes to pick out what they are responding to. Jesus!!

No problem. Then I'll just ask again, without stating that you don't need to respond.

They've broken many stories that have done more harm to the actual victims, than they've ever informed the public.​

​

Why didn't they first break this story when they would have known about it years previously??​

​

​

Why did the ABC instantly payout to Lehrmann the rapist, while hiring international lawyers to defend against Lattouf?​

 

[jason_recliner]

No.


Do you understand the current conversation?


Murdoch media has never held back out of concern for the victims.
Look at the phone hacking scandal, to the release of assault that the victim had requested she not be named.

They could have reported on the Prayer Room as well. But still haven't.


I've read your posts in other threads. Stop making me interact with you, like you're an idiot.

You're stating media should have reported on the rape of a young woman who communicated that she didn't want to pursue the matter. I disagree and I think many others would.

Why wasn't any media instead reporting on the lack of modern WHS at PH that in part enabled this crime (i.e. security being allowed to let drunk personnel in, personnel allowed to be drinking/drunk at work)? The media is as much a part of the 'Canberra bubble' disgrace as anyone else, not just Murdoch, and especially the ABC. Where were any of them?

Is drinking in PH banned even now?

 

[jason_recliner]

What are your thoughts on MPs lying in a criminal trial?

Who lied and what did they lie about?

 

[rank and file]

The Dennis Denuto "It's the vibe!" argument is a classic moment in Australian comedy, but you can't apply it to an actual legal case!

Doesn't stop them trying it on.
Was on jury duty a few years ago and the judge pulled up the prosecutor.
"You're getting dangerously close to the vibe."
Did lol

 

[CakeEater]

Not sure we should be stating that where a rape alledgly occurs in a workplace then it should be reported in the media/ reported to police. The agency of the person whom was allededgly r*ped should be respected and it should be their choice.
As well as the procedural fairness owed to all parties should also be respected, especially in a place where laws are made.

 

[CM86]

It was a very important fact, as the verdict as to rape rendered the second component of the trial redundant from a defamation purpose. But the second component of this case remains extremely important.

You and the media have latched onto this as Justice Lee's 'mike drop' moment:



But his last 3 paragraphs of his verdict were not at Ol Brucey Boy, but targeted at the 'Ground Zero' of the "omnishambles" that followed, which were caused by the false allegations of a cover-up and a trial by media set up:


That is when he chose to drop his mike!

Yes. I understand that when you read this, you view it from your perspective.

But if you read it again, can you see how it isn't stating that there was no coverup before or after the Project episode. But that it purely wasn't substantiated enough at the time?




Even just from the quote you provided as evidence that any coverup has been totally disproven... Read it again from a position that picks apart your 'side'.

1097 The publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice won the Project team, like Ms Maiden, a glittering prize; but when the accusation is examined properly, it was supposition without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact; its dissemination caused a brume of confusion, and did much collateral damage – including to the fair and orderly progress of the underlying allegation of sexual assault through the criminal justice system. To the extent there were perceived systemic issues as to avenues of complaint and support services in Parliament, this may have merited a form of fact-based critique, not the publication of insufficiently scrutinised and factually misconceived conjecture.​

Do you understand that Justice Lee has specifically stated that Higgins was r*ped. And Lehrmann r*ped her.
But he's pointed out that the media has not done enough to support the theory of a coverup. Not that there was no coverup.


This has been explained to you on another forum that you didn't reply to.
So I'm not sure why you keep repeating the lie that it's been 'proven' that there is 'no coverup'...

 

[FIGJAM]

So she's lying about the 'workplace demands'.
But Brown, Cash, Dutton, Morrison and Reynolds are all being honest with forgetfulness, or we just accept their blatant incompetence?



Your standard for the actions of a young adult who was r*ped... are so much higher than the people who were literally running the country.

It's harmful to anyone who is trying to build up the courage to report abuse from family/workplace et al.
I cannot for the life of me understand how you can't even sympathise with that.

I don't care about the workplace demands stuff.

Or that she forgot shit almost 2 years old, just as Reynolds did. That's all reasonable! And her 2019 testimony seemed kosher.

What I care about is if 2 years on the memory of that time is so bad, or soe embellished in one's mond, that an entire story line is fabricated. Because at that point, it's fair to argue that there is a high possibility of the cover-up component to the story line is completely fabricated by choice!

When closely analysed, Ms Higgins’ out-of-court representations in 2019 are of a different character than those out-of-court representations from 2021 and in court thereafter.

When you're deleting texts that put your story in a bad light, it's a terrible look. And Justice Lee agreed that this is the case and that there was no cover up.

If you agree with Lee's probable rape verdict (and I do), then you must agree with his other incredibly well considered verdicts.

 

[CM86]

You're stating media should have reported on the rape of a young woman who communicated that she didn't want to pursue the matter. I disagree and I think many others would.

No. I'm stating that the media should have reported that a person was r*ped in Parliament house.
And then there should have been an independent investigation, without the media revealing any of the personal details about the victim.

Why wasn't any media instead reporting on the lack of modern WHS at PH that in part enabled this crime (i.e. security being allowed to let drunk personnel in, personnel allowed to be drinking/drunk at work)? The media is as much a part of the 'Canberra bubble' disgrace as anyone else, not just Murdoch, and especially the ABC. Where were any of them?

It partially was.
And a tiny segment of media reported on the MP/Journo shindig that happened not long after, and how it influences news coverage.
Great question, where is the media coverage around any of that?

What do you think about the media coverage around Joyce for the last 10 years?

 

[CM86]

I don't care about the workplace demands stuff.

Or that she forgot s**t almost 2 years old, just as Reynolds did. That's all reasonable! And her 2019 testimony seemed kosher.

What I care about is if 2 years on the memory of that time is so bad, or soe embellished in one's mond, that an entire story line is fabricated. Because at that point, it's fair to argue that there is a high possibility of the cover-up component to the story line is completely fabricated by choice!

So it's impossible that Higgins suffered trauma from being r*ped. And it's all her choice to cause conflict.


But Reynolds lying under oath, requesting transcripts from defence, her husband sitting in during trial, and chasing Higgins around the world to sue for bs reasons... That's totally reasonable.



Please explain which parts of the above that I have wrong. Don't just ignore or dismiss them.

 

[jason_recliner]

No. I'm stating that the media should have reported that a person was r*ped in Parliament house.
And then there should have been an independent investigation, without the media revealing any of the personal details about the victim.

But she said she didn't want to pursue the matter and it's likely many people knew about the incident. She probably wouldn't have wanted to see it in the media and for her colleagues to see it, and I can understand that. I wouldn't have reported on it unless she expressly told me she wanted me to.

It partially was.
And a tiny segment of media reported on the MP/Journo shindig that happened not long after, and how it influences news coverage.
Great question, where is the media coverage around any of that?

What do you think about the media coverage around Joyce for the last 10 years?

Maybe I saw that reporting, I don't know, 5 years ago is a long time, but it didn't go anywhere.

I don't know much about Joyce other than he had an affair when he was the Minister for Families or something IIRC, he's an alcoholic, and he's been drunk at work while getting paid with my taxes. Not sure how such has been reported on him the last decade. He's an assclown, a disgrace, a joke, and my mind boggles that people keep voting for him. Not sure how that's relevant but feels great to have a rant

 

[jason_recliner]

...Reynolds lying under oath, ...

What did she lie about? Can you reference it please?

 

[FIGJAM]

Yes. I understand that when you read this, you view it from your perspective.

But if you read it again, can you see how it isn't stating that there was no coverup before or after the Project episode. But that it purely wasn't substantiated enough at the time?




Even just from the quote you provided as evidence that any coverup has been totally disproven... Read it again from a position that picks apart your 'side'.

1097 The publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice won the Project team, like Ms Maiden, a glittering prize; but when the accusation is examined properly, it was supposition without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact; its dissemination caused a brume of confusion, and did much collateral damage – including to the fair and orderly progress of the underlying allegation of sexual assault through the criminal justice system. To the extent there were perceived systemic issues as to avenues of complaint and support services in Parliament, this may have merited a form of fact-based critique, not the publication of insufficiently scrutinised and factually misconceived conjecture.​

Do you understand that Justice Lee has specifically stated that Higgins was r*ped. And Lehrmann r*ped her.
But he's pointed out that the media has not done enough to support the theory of a coverup. Not that there was no coverup.


This has been explained to you on another forum that you didn't reply to.
So I'm not sure why you keep repeating the lie that it's been 'proven' that there is 'no coverup'...

As previously stated, I do have a job and a life outside of this message board and case!

I have stated elsewhere though, that we've been through two unbelievably rigorous trials and there hasn't been even a skerrick of information supporting Higgins on the threat to her job claim and indeed, with Lee slamming Higgins evidence on this specific issue and supporting Reynolds and Brown's account. I dunno how you need much more than that!

A "fact-based critique" of the systems in the walls of parliament would be very broad, to the point that it would be too boring to put to air. As Lee said:

The contemporaneous documents and the broadcast itself demonstrate the allegation of rape was the minor theme, and the allegation of cover-up was the major motif.

The story was the cover up and the omnishambles that has exploded from the Maiden and Project pieces has caused carnage to almost all who goes anywhere near this peculiar karmic hurricane!

 

[jason_recliner]

If you agree with Lee's probable rape verdict (and I do), then you must agree with his other incredibly well considered verdicts.

One can agree with part of an opinion or judgement but not all of it.

 

[CM86]

Not sure we should be stating that where a rape alledgly occurs in a workplace then it should be reported in the media/ reported to police. The agency of the person whom was allededgly r*ped should be respected and it should be their choice.
As well as the procedural fairness owed to all parties should also be respected, especially in a place where laws are made.

No.

If a person believes that they were r*ped or SA in Parliament house, it should be reported.
If doesn't need to name the person, the attacker, the office et al.
But no one can justify a reason that the Australian public shouldn't know that such reports have occurred.
Take the pressure off the victims, and create pressure for actual investigations.


What's your argument against this??

 

[CM86]

But she said she didn't want to pursue the matter and it's likely many people knew about the incident. She probably wouldn't have wanted to see it in the media and for her colleagues to see it, and I can understand that. I wouldn't have reported on it unless she expressly told me she wanted me to.

Yes... exactly.

And every fear a victim has of reporting what happened to them has been confirmed by the highest level of authority in the land.

My point is that the tabloid media has frequently reported on people and issues against their explicit or implied request.
Which means it isn't an excuse in this case.

I don't know much about Joyce other than he had an affair when he was the Minister for Families or something IIRC, he's an alcoholic, and he's been drunk at work while getting paid with my taxes. Not sure how such has been reported on him the last decade. He's an assclown, a disgrace, a joke, and my mind boggles that people keep voting for him. Not sure how that's relevant but feels great to have a rant

Look at how he's reported on vs Higgins, Thorpe, Sarah Hanson-Young.

 

[jason_recliner]

But no one can justify a reason that the Australian public shouldn't know that such reports have occurred.

Are you sure it's in the public interest to know an alleged rape has occurred in PH? How does that benefit you and me? It's in my interest to know a rape has been found to occur and policies and procedures have been changed to reduce the risk of this reoccurring.

 

[CM86]

What did she lie about? Can you reference it please?

Sure.
I've read your posts in the Hamas attack thread. And I've seen how well you deal with disinformation and deception.

So I really hope that me showing this to you will make you pause to reflect in some way. Even if it doesn't change your position.

But I'm literally just trying top put an honest position across. Regardless of how hostile I often am.
https://www.news.com.au/national/po...e/news-story/72c0a93be9acde540cf267ab453ecb45
Former Defence Minister Linda Reynolds has recanted her Supreme Court evidence that she was never told by a chief of staff that Brittany Higgins had disclosed “I remember him on top of me”.
In a statement to news.com.au, Senator Reynolds has revealed for the first time that she now accepts that her chief of staff Fiona Brown‘s evidence at the trial was correct and she did inform her of the alarming comment before meeting with the young staffer.

 

[jason_recliner]

My point is that the tabloid media has frequently reported on people and issues against their explicit or implied request.
Which means it isn't an excuse in this case.

Nup, definitely don't agree that because some other reporting is poor, this alleged rape should have been reported on. Gonna have to agree to disagree.

Look at how he's reported on vs Higgins, Thorpe, Sarah Hanson-Young.

Don't know what you mean by this or how it's relevant but now you've referenced THREE of the worst politicians IMO

 

[CM86]

Are you sure it's in the public interest to know an alleged rape has occurred in PH? How does that benefit you and me? It's in my interest to know a rape has been found to occur and policies and procedures have been changed to reduce the risk of this reoccurring.

Because I'm of the opinion and position that all forms of SA are massively under-reported.
And that more often than not, when they are reported, they are kept internally and force the victim to back out of their statement. And that then nothing comes of it outside of more victims.


What do you think should happen?

 

[jason_recliner]

Sure.
I've read your posts in the Hamas attack thread. And I've seen how well you deal with disinformation and deception.

So I really hope that me showing this to you will make you pause to reflect in some way. Even if it doesn't change your position.

But I'm literally just trying top put an honest position across. Regardless of how hostile I often am.
https://www.news.com.au/national/po...e/news-story/72c0a93be9acde540cf267ab453ecb45
Former Defence Minister Linda Reynolds has recanted her Supreme Court evidence that she was never told by a chief of staff that Brittany Higgins had disclosed “I remember him on top of me”.
In a statement to news.com.au, Senator Reynolds has revealed for the first time that she now accepts that her chief of staff Fiona Brown‘s evidence at the trial was correct and she did inform her of the alarming comment before meeting with the young staffer.

Thanks, I had forgotten that, this has been dragging on for a long time now! That's a disgrace. I don't believe Reynolds would forget that, I believe somebody as successful as her would have made a note of that at the time unless it was in her interests not to do so, and I think her lying in court was self-serving. I also think if she wasn't caught out she wouldn't have come clean.