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

 

[Lady O]

It's a grey area to me (the law agrees with you). If somebody has previously murdered somebody, and other evidence makes them a suspect in a different murder, I think the previous murder adds to cumulative weight of evidence against that person. I don't fully understand why the law doesn't admit that evidence but I get that's the way it is.

It isn't permitted until the guilty verdict is arrived at. Then the Judge will take this into account in sentencing. I doubt that accusations of wrong doing would be taken into account.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

I was under the impression they wait for the verdict and then consider criminal record when they are sentencing, they don't read out the record until then. (I may be wrong about this)

Yep.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

It isn't permitted until the guilty verdict is arrived at. Then the Judge will take this into account in sentencing. I doubt that accusations of wrong doing would be taken into account.

Nah, you can't take into account the times when somebody is found not guilty or charges are dropped.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Can only assume jurors have dug their heels in and are going in circles.

Assume it ends up a hung jury?

Lehrmann remaining an innocent man and Higgins being honest are not mutually exclusive.

As the judge has pointed out - the only thing I hope the jury are discussing are the facts of the case.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I know this opinion has been shared a few times, but where I stand on it is:

• I personally think that the alleged rape actually happened
• But based on what I've read of the case, I think there is reasonable doubt
• If I was in the jury (and only had access to the info I currently have), I think I would determine "Not guilty"
• The jury obviously has access to a lot more (and a lot more detailed) info than I've read
• I'm not going to be unhappy with either verdict, as I think it's an incredibly nuanced system in these sorts of cases

Pretty good summary - Your last line isn't where the loudest voices will fall though.

I don't have a clue either - i trust the jurors

 

[Kurve]

I think so he can be tried without prejudice.

Each case must be prosecuted on it's merits.

Some similar fact or propensity evidence can be admissable if it passes the tests on relevance and probative force which needs to outweigh or transcend prejudicial effect.

 

[Lady O]

Some similar fact or propensity evidence can be admissable if it passes the tests on relevance and probative force which needs to outweigh or transcend prejudicial effect.

"Current NSW Law​

As stated, juries are not normally told of about a defendant’s prior criminal history, and judges are not allowed to take it into account when determining criminal liability. However, a person’s criminal record – or lack thereof – can be highly relevant during the sentencing process; which is when the magistrate or judge decides the appropriate penalty.

There are further exceptions to the rule against being told about prior character. One is where a defendant with a criminal record testifies that they are of good character. For example, if a defendant who is charged with assault testifies that “I would never assault someone” or “I am not a violent person”, then the prosecution can raise evidence of past offences of violence.

Another exception is found in the “tendency rule”, which is contained in section 97 of the Evidence Act 1995. That section says that evidence of person’s past character is not admissible unless:

1. The prosecution has given reasonable notice to the defence about producing it;
2. The proposed evidence has significant probative value (ie is significantly relevant to the facts in issue), and
3. That value substantially outweighs any unfair prejudice that may be caused to the defendant by its admission.

An example of something that could meet this test is evidence of a unique ‘modus operandi’; for instance, evidence that the defendant was previously convicted of a murder where he tied the victim up in an unusual way, when the victim of the present case was also tied up in that way.

In practice, however, it is rare for a defendant’s criminal record to be disclosed to the fact-finder before a finding of guilt."

However, in the case of Lehrmann, I don't know if he has even been charged with a similar offence, let alone convicted.

 

[Kurve]

Wouldn't the jury need to have heard evidence from a witness or complainant?

I don't think we know yet who all the witnesses were and what they testified to, there were over twenty one four and I could only name a few of them. It will be interesting to find out if we ever do, all the names on the original witness list and who was removed and why, outside of the usual suspects.

 

[BFew]

I don't think we know yet who all the witnesses were and what they testified to, there were twenty one and I could only name a few of them.

'Of the 51 witnesses who had been scheduled to give evidence, only 21 appeared. The defence did not call any witnesses.

The 21 figure I've quoted above came from an article in the Australian newspaper on 19 October.

It equals the 21 witnesses named in the article below. Which was prior to Cash and Reynolds giving evidence. Which makes 23 witnesses we know of.
What each of these 21 witness roles/jobs were and some of the evidence they gave was detailed in the lengthy below article.

Far below is a screenshot from p4 of the Australian on 15 October, with a brief summary of 14 of the these 21 witness evidence.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/lehrmann-trial-witness-accounts-in-alleged-rape-of-brittany-higgins-revealed/news-story/d7809e29060a8c44cc9659305822164e

'Suppression lifted: what trial heard behind closed doors​

More than 20 testimonies, ranging from Brittany Higgins’ mother to parliament security staff, have not been reported until now
READ THE WITNESS ACCOUNTS'

'October 14, 2022'

'LAUREN GAIN ...
NIKOLA ANDERSON ...
FIONA BROWN ...
NICOLE HAMER ...
AUSTIN WENKE ...
ALEXANDRA HUMPHREYS ...
CHRISTOPHER PAYNE ...
CARLOS RAMOS ...
KELLY HIGGINS ...
REG CHAMBERLAIN ...
NIKITA IRVINE ...
KRISTINE BRENTON ...
MARK FAIRWEATHER ...
KATIE THELNING ...
REBECCA CLEAVES ...
JENNIFER STONE ...
EMMA FRIZZELL ...
REGINA CAMARA ...
ROBERT BOWER ...
STEVEN RUKAVINA ...
WAYNE SHEILDS'

 

[BFew]

The 21 figure I've quoted above came from an article in the Australian newspaper on 19 October.

It equals the 21 witnesses named in the article below. Which was prior to Cash and Reynolds giving evidence. Which makes 23 witnesses we know of.
What each of these 21 witness roles/jobs were and some of the evidence they gave was detailed in the lengthy below article.

Interestingly, The Guardian has the 22 witnesses during that week of suppression.

A suppression order has been lifted in the Parliament House rape trial. Here’s what you need to know

The court has heard from more than 20 witnesses in the past four days, including Parliament House security guards, cleaners, political staffers, and, for the first time, Bruce Lehrmann himself.

www.sbs.com.au

The Daily Mail also reported 22 witnesses (+ Reynolds + Cash)
Brittany Higgins: Five key moments from the rape trial

I wonder who the 22nd witness was (assuming there was a 22nd + Reynolds and Cash)?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Some here are conflating the terms “propensity” and “tendency”. Early in the thread I mentioned that tendency wasn’t an issue in this case and it’s a rabbit hole the discussion shouldn’t go down.

In simple terms, tendency refers not to the commission of the crime itself, but the manner in which the crime was committed. It’s a kind of signature.

A serial killer might carve a swastika on the chest of a victim, for instance, or a Parliament House rapist might regularly spike the drinks of a workmate and take her back to Parliament House to commit the offence.

There is no such alleged pattern here.

 

[Lady O]

Interestingly, The Guardian has the 22 witnesses during that week of suppression.

A suppression order has been lifted in the Parliament House rape trial. Here’s what you need to know

The court has heard from more than 20 witnesses in the past four days, including Parliament House security guards, cleaners, political staffers, and, for the first time, Bruce Lehrmann himself.

www.sbs.com.au

The Daily Mail also reported 22 witnesses (+ Reynolds + Cash)
Brittany Higgins: Five key moments from the rape trial

I wonder who the 22nd witness was (assuming there was a 22nd + Reynolds and Cash)?

Higgins?

 

[Kurve]

Some here are conflating the terms “propensity” and “tendency”. Early in the thread I mentioned that tendency wasn’t an issue in this case and it’s a rabbit hole the discussion shouldn’t go down.

In simple terms, tendency refers not to the commission of the crime itself, but the manner in which the crime was committed. It’s a kind of signature.

A serial killer might carve a swastika on the chest of a victim, for instance, or a Parliament House rapist might regularly spike the drinks of a workmate and take her back to Parliament House to commit the offence.

There is no such alleged pattern here.

 

[Kurve]

Some here are conflating the terms “propensity” and “tendency”. Early in the thread I mentioned that tendency wasn’t an issue in this case and it’s a rabbit hole the discussion shouldn’t go down.

In simple terms, tendency refers not to the commission of the crime itself, but the manner in which the crime was committed. It’s a kind of signature.

A serial killer might carve a swastika on the chest of a victim, for instance, or a Parliament House rapist might regularly spike the drinks of a workmate and take her back to Parliament House to commit the offence.

There is no such alleged pattern here.

Yes I forgot the prosecution stated they wern't claiming Lehrmann was deliberately getting young women drunk to rape them. If they were, I think we might have seen similar fact evidence of multiple acts with a similarity to multiple allegations and that may have been where they were going before dropping over twenty witnesses.

Anyway, I hope it's settled today whatever way it goes.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Yes I forgot the prosecution stated they wern't claiming Lehrmann was deliberately getting young women drunk to rape them. If they were, I think we might have seen similar fact evidence of multiple acts with a similarity to multiple allegations and that may have been where they were going before dropping over twenty witnesses.

Anyway, I hope it's settled today whatever way it goes.

It's a slippery slope and to my untrained eye at least it does appear that the Defense (what they were allowed to get away with in questioning Higgins was terrible IMO) in these cases is often given far more latitude than the Prosecution.

But BruceFromBalnarring's point holds.

And yeah, hopefully this doesn't drag on too much longer.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Yes I forgot the prosecution stated they wern't claiming Lehrmann was deliberately getting young women drunk to rape them. If they were, I think we might have seen similar fact evidence of multiple acts with a similarity to multiple allegations and that may have been where they were going before dropping over twenty witnesses.

Anyway, I hope it's settled today whatever way it goes.

Nup. That wouldn’t have got close. The pattern needs to be really specific.

 

[Big_Birdy]

It's a slippery slope and to my untrained eye at least it does appear that the Defense (what they were allowed to get away with in questioning Higgins was terrible IMO) in these cases is often given far more latitude than the Prosecution.

But BruceFromBalnarring's point holds.

And yeah, hopefully this doesn't drag on too much longer.

I am curious as to what you are referring to here?

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

I am curious as to what you are referring to here?

Whether she was wearing panties or not...FFS that is deplorable. And the sort of questioning that scumbag defence attorneys have been allowed to get away with for decades.

If you were a victim of sexual assault, would you come forward given what the media and the system have put Higgins through?

 

[Lady O]

Whether she was wearing panties or not...FFS that is deplorable. And the sort of questioning that scumbag defence attorneys have been allowed to get away with for decades.

If you were a victim of sexual assault, would you come forward given what the media and the system have put Higgins through?

I think it had relevance, due to her being found by the security guard naked. I think she said she wore a bra but no knickers.

 

[Big_Birdy]

Whether she was wearing panties or not...FFS that is deplorable. And the sort of questioning that scumbag defence attorneys have been allowed to get away with for decades.

If you were a victim of sexual assault, would you come forward given what the media and the system have put Higgins through?

That was due to her interview with Wilkinson though wasn't it? Because she said her panties were pulled down by Lehrmann but at court said she wasn't actually wearing any?

To be frank the defence counsel would have been shockingly remiss if they were not to raise such a glaring inconsistency. It is not at all the same as simply asking an alleged victim "what were you wearing" with the inference they were "asking for it".

I'm not going to downplay the trauma that would be apparent for a victim to have to retell their story, but that doesn't mean it does not need scrutiny. The accused has rights also.

I have heard nothing which would amount to anything excessive in regard to how the defence has scrutinised Ms Higgins version of events.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

That was due to her interview with Wilkinson though wasn't it? Because she said her panties were pulled down by Lehrmann but at court said she wasn't actually wearing any?

To be frank the defence counsel would have been shockingly remiss if they were not to raise such a glaring inconsistency. It is not at all the same as simply asking an alleged victim "what were you wearing" with the inference they were "asking for it".

I'm not going to downplay the trauma that would be apparent for a victim to have to retell their story, but that doesn't mean it does not need scrutiny. The accused has rights also.

I have heard nothing which would amount to anything excessive in regard to how the defence has scrutinised Ms Higgins version of events.

Fair enough, we'll agree to disagree.

It is human nature to have false memories yet this seems to only really benefit Lehrmann in this case. He's given at least three different versions of why he was at Parliament House yet Higgins either recalls incorrectly or more likely tries to protect whatever fraction of her dignity is left and she is branded a liar (not directed at you).

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

I think it had relevance, due to her being found by the security guard naked. I think she said she wore a bra but no knickers.

Yet it is entirely possible to be r*ped if the rapist just pulls the knickers aside. He wouldn't have to remove them necessarily. So whether she was wearing knickers or not when found is an entirely moot point in terms of the actual alleged offence.

The knickers line of questioning was only used to discredit Higgins. There is plenty of other stuff they could have used. Like it or not, in the minds of some whether Higgins was wearing underwear or not alters their thinking...you know, the Neanderthals out there who still think no knickers = she was asking for it.

And you only need one of them on your jury.

 

[Lady O]

Yet it is entirely possible to be r*ped if the rapist just pulls the knickers aside. He wouldn't have to remove them necessarily. So whether she was wearing knickers or not when found is an entirely moot point in terms of the actual alleged offence.

The knickers line of questioning was only used to discredit Higgins. There is plenty of other stuff they could have used. Like it or not, in the minds of some whether Higgins was wearing underwear or not alters their thinking...you know, the Neanderthals out there who still think no knickers = she was asking for it.

And you only need one of them on your jury.

Yeah, not really, as she had already given evidence. I guess he needed to clarify as she said she had woken to her dress pulled up and the security guard said she was totally naked with the dress on the floor. There is no doubt that for some, questions asked of the complainant in a rape case would be distasteful, but those details are necessary to establish fact from fiction.

 

[the_interloper]

Yeah, not really, as she had already given evidence. I guess he needed to clarify as she said she had woken to her dress pulled up and the security guard said she was totally naked with the dress on the floor. There is no doubt that for some, questions asked of the complainant in a rape case would be distasteful, but those details are necessary to establish fact from fiction.

This is why I hope if I ever get called up for a jury it's some white collar crime type thing, I'd hate to sit through a rape trial.

 

[Lady O]

This is why I hope if I ever get called up for a jury it's some white collar crime type thing, I'd hate to sit through a rape trial.

Yes, it is a bit confronting to discuss lady bits with 11 perfect strangers!