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

 

[Kwality]

'Court reconvened at 3.40pm and Justice McCallum sent the jury home.

The eight women and four men will resume their deliberations at 10am tomorrow.'

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/verdict-imminent-in-bruce-lehrmann-rape-trial/news-story/b9dfed1fb865759aa1d9596235e720c1

 

[Kwality]

Didn't Higgins confirm she wasn't wearing underwear? Her reasoning was that she was wearing a tight dress and didn't want to show underwear lines.

Would be interesting to hear from women if this is common or not but I agree though, I'm not sure that fact she was or was not wearing underwear has any regard to if she was r*ped or not though.

Lisa Wilkinson Interview​

Ms Higgins was cross-examined about whether she told Lisa Wilkinson on 21 January 2021 that Lehrmann removed her underwear.

“I didn’t wear underwear that night with the dress on the basis that it had lines. I know that’s salacious … But I didn’t wear underwear with that dress on the basis that it had lines. I’m a 20-year-old girl, we care about stuff like that.”

Ms Higgins was shown that interview where she told Wilkinson that Lehrmann removed her underwear. She agreed she said that but claimed that she said it because she was embarrassed.

It was also revealed that Lisa Wilkinson was “quite angry” when her interview with Ms Higgins aired on The Project on a day she was not on the show.

From a criminal lawyer:

Criminal Lawyer Explains Bruce Lehrmann & Brittany Higgins Trial | Astor Legal

A complete breakdown of the Bruce Lehrmann and Brittany Higgins trial including the possible verdicts the jury may reach

astorlegal.com.au

All the issues get an airing.

 

[Kurve]

Would be interesting to hear from women if this is common or not but I agree though, I'm not sure that fact she was or was not wearing underwear has any regard to if she was r*ped or not though.

It's common enough but there's an Aunt Lydia type in every crowd who would like to frame the idea of wearing no knickers under a dress, as immoral or slutty or asking for it and which of course is false, ugly smear that no woman needs.

That Higgins was wearing no knickers under her dress has nothing to do with whether she was r*ped or not.

 

[BigPond101]

There would be a few members of the jury who decided he was guilty and needed to hang before the trial started. I hope the ones looking at evidence are strong enough to not cave in just to get it over with and back to their lives

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

There would be a few members of the jury who decided he was guilty and needed to hang before the trial started. I hope the ones looking at evidence are strong enough to not cave in just to get it over with and back to their lives

And of course there'd be nobody on the jury who decided he was innocent before the trial started?

 

[BigPond101]

And of course there'd be nobody on the jury who decided he was innocent before the trial started?

Possible but if there were evidence he's guilty they should change their minds unless they are just mentally deranged

On the other side it's more problematic because of things like the believe all women movement an extremist would say there is no need for a trial at all, he's guilty as soon as the woman says so and anything that comes after that is not worthy of their consideration

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

And of course there'd be nobody on the jury who decided he was innocent before the trial started?

I think most, including me, leant towards guilt rather than innocence prior to the trial commencing.

 

[Wooden Robot]

It's common enough but there's an Aunt Lydia type in every crowd who would like to frame the idea of wearing no knickers under a dress, as immoral or slutty or asking for it and which of course is false, ugly smear that no woman needs.

That Higgins was wearing no knickers under her dress has nothing to do with whether she was r*ped or not.

Whether she was wearing them or not, as you say, doesn't matter.
And I, like most people, aren't judging.
But if you tell two different versions of whether you did have them on or not, it's significant and plants doubt.
A number of inconsistencies, however small or large, and whether you deem them irrelevant, add up.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

It's common enough but there's an Aunt Lydia type in every crowd who would like to frame the idea of wearing no knickers under a dress, as immoral or slutty or asking for it and which of course is false, ugly smear that no woman needs.

That Higgins was wearing no knickers under her dress has nothing to do with whether she was r*ped or not.

It’s not a line of questioning that would be allowed but for the inconsistency in her own public statements.

 

[Wooden Robot]

They'll reach a decision faster without possible influences of social media and in the house around the dinner table. Lock them up, they need a good sequestering.

You are assuming they are all trawling through social media.
I'm tipping they are taking their directions seriously.

 

[Kurve]

You are assuming they are all trawling through social media.
I'm tipping they are taking their directions seriously.

Chris Murphy is usually right, knows what he's talking about.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

I think most, including me, leant towards guilt rather than innocence prior to the trial commencing.

Me too, but certainly not all. My boss is a perfect example. He’s thought Lehrmann not guilty from day one.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

It’s not a line of questioning that would be allowed but for the inconsistency in her own public statements.

You seem to be coming with some legal knowledge/background so I’d be interested to know when courts started clamping down on that sort of questioning. Reasonably recently? Or am I completely out of touch?

 

[spike101]

Me too, but certainly not all. My boss is a perfect example. He’s thought Lehrmann not guilty from day one.

Trial by tabloid tv is as bad.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Possible but if there were evidence he's guilty they should change their minds unless they are just mentally deranged

On the other side it's more problematic because of things like the believe all women movement an extremist would say there is no need for a trial at all, he's guilty as soon as the woman says so and anything that comes after that is not worthy of their consideration

Yeah, ok. Can see that point of view but still wouldn’t fall into the trap of assuming everybody just believes her. I did and still do but can see issues with her story, specifically around the dress. The underwear piece I put down to protecting her modesty. Whether I could find him guilty if on the jury, well I don’t know.

Whomever suggested she speak to muckraker and village idiot Lisa Wilkinson should be strung up.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You seem to be coming with some legal knowledge/background so I’d be interested to know when courts started clamping down on that sort of questioning. Reasonably recently? Or am I completely out of touch?

Define recent.

It’s been a gradual evolution.

But certainly in the early 90s there was a change in the judicial process where **** shaming became frowned upon in rape cases.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Define recent.

It’s been a gradual evolution.

But certainly in the early 90s there was a change in the judicial process where **** shaming became frowned upon in rape cases.

Cheers.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Cheers.

You’ve heard “no means no”. That, from my recollection, had its foundation from County Court Judge John Bland remarking that “no often subsequently means yes”. That was April 1993.

There was absolute uproar over that comment. There were a couple of other cases at around the same time where judges had said respectively that rape was less serious if perpetrated against a prostitute, in one of them, or a wife, in the other.

Arising out of all three, there was some parliamentary reform of the judicial acts.

 

[metic]

Wonder if BH consumed something like valium that night? pity drug tests weren't done, not only could Bruce have given her some but also she herself may have had some drug. alcohol and benzo mix - recipe for disaster especially passing out and not remembering, flashbacks & feeling ashamed etc following.
This comment got me thinking;
"She said she “wasn’t functioning as a human being” and coped by taking large amounts of Valium. During that period, her partner had decided to send the brief to several journalists, the court heard. It was subsequently shared throughout the press gallery in what Higgins described as a breach of trust."

Brittany Higgins says alleged rape became ‘not about me’ as top journalists vied for story, court told

Higgins tells court she came forward to media to make cultural change but felt tension between Samantha Maiden and Lisa Wilkinson

www.theguardian.com

"coped by taking large amounts of Valium"
hope she doesn't go too far down that path

Sent from my SM-A226B using Tapatalk

 

[Lebbo73]

Me too, but certainly not all. My boss is a perfect example. He’s thought Lehrmann not guilty from day one.

How’s that any different from you having him guilty since day dot?

 

[Kurve]

How’s that any different from you having him guilty since day dot?

I don't think anybody in this thread had him guilty from day dot but even some of his hardcore defenders think he probably did it, the issue be whether it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

While I still can't say exactly what really happened in there, I know he's lied about it and his story of turning left in to the ministers offices when she turned right and not seeing Higgins again before he left, is complete and utter BS.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

How’s that any different from you having him guilty since day dot?

Ignorant assumption. As recently as yesterday I said in here that if I was on the jury I am not sure I could find him guilty.

Feel free to educate yourself. It saves you from looking like a goose.

 

[Lebbo73]

Ignorant assumption. As recently as yesterday I said in here that if I was on the jury I am not sure I could find him guilty.

Feel free to educate yourself. It saves you from looking like a goose.

You’ve been replying to everyone in this thread who thinks he’s not guilty according to the evidence. Nearly as bad as AP in The Greens thread calling everyone a racist.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

You’ve been replying to everyone in this thread who thinks he’s not guilty according to the evidence. Nearly as bad as AP in The Greens thread calling everyone a racist.

I know you aren't very bright and are a bit of a troll. You have a very long record of shithousery on here.

This really isn't the thread for that.

 

[Kurve]

On the other side it's more problematic because of things like the believe all women movement an extremist would say there is no need for a trial at all, he's guilty as soon as the woman says so and anything that comes after that is not worthy of their consideration

Why are you so threatened by this?

Women don't hold rapists and abusers to account, the law does. 'Believe all women' isn't a call to dispense with the law, it's a call for a culture shift that isn't directed exclusively at men.

Of course women can lie but they very, very rarely lie about intimate partner and sexual violence.