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]

No, I do not.

But we all know how the defence operates in these cases. Victims of sexual abuse very rarely get to see the perpetrator brought to justice as every minor error in their recollection is amplified beyond it's real value. We saw that with your mate George Pell who oversaw the systematic rape of little boys for decades yet somehow is a free man.

Irrelevant here. You could check the High Court decision in the relevant thread.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

In a sense, though, her credibility is. The prosecution case relies entirely on it.

As a spectator, my inclination initially (when first reported) was that it likely happened. Incrementally, I am beginning to harbour doubts. And that's mostly, though not entirely, down to Higgins herself.

Ok, fair enough...but then how do you propose that a case should proceed?

What burden of proof should be on the alleged victim in these sorts of cases? Given most rapes occur with no witnesses what hope does a victim have? Higgins is being ripped apart for everything from forgetting how long she stored a dress under her bed to the legality of recording a phone call. How the hell is a victim supposed to build a case?

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

George Pell wasn't on trial for "overseeing the systematic rape of little boys for decades". I think it is this kind of discourse that Kurve is trying to discourage. Rightly.

Ok, again fair enough.

Cheap shot and apologies.

 

[Kwality]

Oh BS.

Wilkinsons and Maiden have already got a mention and Higgins has testified as to her frame of mind when she went to the press which was workplace culture.

It was big news, have you forgotten what happened?

View attachment 1529093

Big political news indeed.
The relevance to the criminal case that is bein heard right now?
The political decision was delivered a couple of months ago.

BS is your description.

 

[Kwality]

More:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/bruce-lehrmann-trial-live-updates-brittany-higgins-crossexamination-to-continue-on-day-4-of-rape-trial/live-coverage/ea609bd122cd9e6fb2e4a5c5c37c7bf4

'When Mr Whybrow asked Ms Higgins if she deleted a message sent to her former boyfriend Ben Dillaway on April 9 where she said she was not interested in pursuing charges over the alleged rape but the situation was "beyond strange".

Mr Whybrow said the text appeared in a chain found when Mr Dillaway handed his phone over to the police.

When he asked Ms Higgins if she agreed that she deleted the text, she replied "Evidently".

 

[Kurve]

Higgins has testified as to her frame of mind when she went to the press which was workplace culture.

The relevance to the criminal case that is bein heard right now?

Obviously relevant.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Ok, fair enough...but then how do you propose that a case should proceed?

What burden of proof should be on the alleged victim in these sorts of cases? Given most rapes occur with no witnesses what hope does a victim have? Higgins is being ripped apart for everything from forgetting how long she stored a dress under her bed to the legality of recording a phone call. How the hell is a victim supposed to build a case?

1. Bring the complaint to police at the first opportunity (and yes I acknowledge that there are all sorts of reasons why this is often not the case but it would certainly assist in prosecution).

2. A complete media ban on reporting these types of matters until they are concluded. Neither party gets a fair hearing when the details have already been aired. I don't like these kinds of laws generally, but the public commentary on this and other like cases has risked real harm to achieving justice (and I specifically include Scott Morrison in this).

3. If you're the accuser, don't make up stories to "bolster" your case. I'm not across the Cash phone call, but the dress story is just a stupid embellishment which, in a case that relies entirely on credibility, is absolutely fair game for the defence. If the Prosecution had done their job, that testimony would never have been given.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Ok, fair enough...but then how do you propose that a case should proceed?

What burden of proof should be on the alleged victim in these sorts of cases? Given most rapes occur with no witnesses what hope does a victim have? Higgins is being ripped apart for everything from forgetting how long she stored a dress under her bed to the legality of recording a phone call. How the hell is a victim supposed to build a case?

Go to the police straight away and get a rape kit done.

Going to the media without going through the proper process will IMO be her downfall.

Whilst it's never easy for victims' cases such as this require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is an extremely high burden of proof. Not going through the proper process has essentially meant this proof won't be known. This case will be entirely circumstantial and that is why i think it will fail.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

1. Bring the complaint to police at the first opportunity (and yes I acknowledge that there are all sorts of reasons why this is often not the case but it would certainly assist in prosecution).

2. A complete media ban on reporting these types of matters until they are concluded. Neither party gets a fair hearing when the details have already been aired. I don't like these kinds of laws generally, but the public commentary on this and other like cases has risked real harm to achieving justice (and I specifically include Scott Morrison in this).

3. If you're the accuser, don't make up stories to "bolster" your case. I'm not across the Cash phone call, but the dress story is just a stupid embellishment which, in a case that relies entirely on credibility, is absolutely fair game for the defence. If the Prosecution had done their job, that testimony would never have been given.

Point 2 is good in theory but will never happen. I am not sure what the answer is.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Go to the police straight away and get a rape kit done.

Going to the media without going through the proper process will IMO be her downfall.

Whilst it's never easy for victims' cases such as this require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is an extremely high burden of proof. Not going through the proper process has essentially meant this proof won't be known. This case will be entirely circumstantial and that is why i think it will fail.

Again, good in theory but I'll agree with BruceFromBalnarring on this. There are plenty of reasons why this doesn't always happen. Remember that we are dealing with highly a highly traumatised person at this stage and getting a rape kit done is a further unpleasant (albeit necessary) violation.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Again, good in theory but I'll agree with BruceFromBalnarring on this. There are plenty of reasons why this doesn't always happen. Remember that we are dealing with highly a highly traumatised person at this stage and getting a rape kit done is a further unpleasant (albeit necessary) violation.

Thats fine and i understand the trauma that would be involved, but the absence of getting a rape kit done means that the physical proof is not established.

No one's arguing she is not in a shit position, of course she is (if she was indeed r*ped) but the proof needs to be established.

The defence in this case is arguing that they didn't even have any type of sexual interaction. Had she done the rape kit it would have at least confirmed she had sex that night, no condom and even possible DNA matching.

if they were able to prove at a minimum they had sex, then it's an argument of consent, which the prosecution has a far better case against seeing as though how drunk she was.

There is no easy answer, but the education moment for people is, if you are in her positon. GO TO THE POLICE STRAIGHT AWAY.

I can't confirm what would be more traumatic apart from the assault itself....

A) going through the rape kit process
B) going through an unsuccessful highly public rape prosecution

it isn't easy, but it is an education moment.

 

[Sphynx]

Getting absolutely pasted in the cross examination based on everything reported.

This is only going one way.

 

[CodyRose]

Ok, fair enough...but then how do you propose that a case should proceed?

What burden of proof should be on the alleged victim in these sorts of cases? Given most rapes occur with no witnesses what hope does a victim have? Higgins is being ripped apart for everything from forgetting how long she stored a dress under her bed to the legality of recording a phone call. How the hell is a victim supposed to build a case?

From my research about the night of the alleged rape Brittany imo was not in any legal shape to give consent. She had been drinking a huge amount of alcohol, couldn't walk in shoes, definitely not able to walk a straight line. Not compus mentus to give consent. She needed at that time to be looked after and kept safe. No consent is no consent imo

 

[spike101]

Inappropriately? One person’s “inappropriately” is another person’s “flirting” or “making a pass”.
Is it a pattern of behaviour? The prosecution have to try. But Inappropriately doesn’t equal assault.

When I wrote inappropriately I was being circumspect; if you check they have alleged much more serious behaviour.

Fourth woman alleges to have been sexually assaulted by ex-Liberal staffer

www.9news.com.au

 

[spike101]

From my research about the night of the alleged rape Brittany imo was not in any legal shape to give consent. She had been drinking a huge amount of alcohol, couldn't walk in shoes, definitely not able to walk a straight line. Not compus mentus to give consent. She needed at that time to be looked after and kept safe. No consent is no consent imo

I would have thought that security staff should not admit anyone to the offices if they are obviously completely drunk. There are marked differences between the two major mastheads in the way they are covering the evidence You could think The Age and The Australian are hearing two different accounts of what occured.

 

[Kwality]

I would have thought that security staff should not admit anyone to the offices if they are obviously completely drunk. There are marked differences between the two major mastheads in the way they are covering the evidence You could think The Age and The Australian are hearing two different accounts of what occured.

For example ?

 

[spike101]

Thats fine and i understand the trauma that would be involved, but the absence of getting a rape kit done means that the physical proof is not established.

No one's arguing she is not in a s**t position, of course she is (if she was indeed r*ped) but the proof needs to be established.

The defence in this case is arguing that they didn't even have any type of sexual interaction. Had she done the rape kit it would have at least confirmed she had sex that night, no condom and even possible DNA matching.

if they were able to prove at a minimum they had sex, then it's an argument of consent, which the prosecution has a far better case against seeing as though how drunk she was.

There is no easy answer, but the education moment for people is, if you are in her positon. GO TO THE POLICE STRAIGHT AWAY.

I can't confirm what would be more traumatic apart from the assault itself....

A) going through the rape kit process
B) going through an unsuccessful highly public rape prosecution

it isn't easy, but it is an education moment.

I know someone who was r*ped by Mr Stinky; she reported it at the time and followed the recommended protocols. The police were terrific throughout the process and kept in touch with her up until the verdict but it was not a pleasant experience throughout. A magnum of champagne will be consumed when he dies.

 

[Marlo]

Say they had consensual sex, he would have to lie about that or he'd be done, right?

Did she wear the dress of the night of the alleged rape, 3 weeks later in public? But she said she had it in a bag under her bed? She forgot about wearing it in public 3 weeks later?

Something about this seems off

 

[spike101]

For example ?

“Peter Dutton came out and said he had a baseline outline of my case before I even gave an evidence-in-chief interview. I know how information flows within the ministerial wing. I know that it’s not siloed. I was very scared, so I was seeking legal advice to know my rights because I was terrified.” The Age

"Ms Higgins said she was "terrified" the moment she reengaged with police and after then Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton said he was aware of her allegations.

"I was seeking legal advice to know my rights because I was terrified," she said through tears.

She said information wasn't "siloed" between departments". The Australian.

IMO One mastehad 'supports" the Higgins version and the other doesn't.

 

[Kurve]

From the Guardian.

On why there were deletes in her phone before she handed it to the police.

Whybrow asked her whether she was concerned police would try to “suppress” what was on her phone.

She said she was concerned that information might be passed to the office of the then home affairs minister, Peter Dutton.

Dutton, she told the court, had already publicly revealed “baseline information” about her case, well before she gave her evidence in chief interview to police.

Brittany Higgins feared information about alleged rape could flow to Peter Dutton, court hears

Higgins tells court she shared audio files before deleting them from her phone because she was worried about what the police might do with the contents

www.theguardian.com

 

[hawkman]

I would have thought that security staff should not admit anyone to the offices if they are obviously completely drunk. There are marked differences between the two major mastheads in the way they are covering the evidence You could think The Age and The Australian are hearing two different accounts of what occured.

Plenty of politicians would never be allowed in

 

[Kurve]

I would have thought that security staff should not admit anyone to the offices if they are obviously completely drunk. There are marked differences between the two major mastheads in the way they are covering the evidence You could think The Age and The Australian are hearing two different accounts of what occured.

The inquiry labelled Parliament House as a 'drinking culture'. I recall through the Choppergate scandal seeing Bronwyn Bishop's eye popping alcohol expenses, in to the tens of thousands. Can't find it now, they might have wiped it.

The review conducted by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins was released on Tuesday and launched in the wake of the alleged rape of former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins.

The report identified “significant alcohol use” and a “drinking culture” to be one of the risk factors that can contribute to the prevalence of workplace bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault.

Another recalled a time when they were “drunk on free booze” in a parliamentarian’s office: “You’ve got this room of 20-year-olds with a 60-year-old man … plying them all with alcohol in an enclosed room, in a professional office building. It’s not a recipe for good professional behaviour. "

Booze in parliament: 'drinking culture' under microscope in major workplace review

A review by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins has taken aim at the drinking culture at Parliament House, joining a chorus of others calling for greater regulation.

www.sbs.com.au

 

[Wooden Robot]

1. Bring the complaint to police at the first opportunity (and yes I acknowledge that there are all sorts of reasons why this is often not the case but it would certainly assist in prosecution).

2. A complete media ban on reporting these types of matters until they are concluded. Neither party gets a fair hearing when the details have already been aired. I don't like these kinds of laws generally, but the public commentary on this and other like cases has risked real harm to achieving justice (and I specifically include Scott Morrison in this).

3. If you're the accuser, don't make up stories to "bolster" your case. I'm not across the Cash phone call, but the dress story is just a stupid embellishment which, in a case that relies entirely on credibility, is absolutely fair game for the defence. If the Prosecution had done their job, that testimony would never have been given.

The dress story has for all intents and purposes pretty much sunk her case and would undoubtedly plant the seed in the mind of jurors about how much else is wrong or untruthful (mind you
I think the attempt to backtrack on the Wilkinson/maiden stuff this morning - they didn't care/they did care) - was another blow.
The prosecution as a whole seem pretty ill-prepared, despite the delay in getting this to court.
She couldn't have been more wrong when it should have been a pretty simple recollection.
I was pretty much staggered reading about it.

As for 2 .. agree wholeheartedly. There should be a complete media ban on reporting these matters. It's dangerous territory.
Interesting Pell was mentioned earlier. Total trial by media.
Don't know if he's guitly or not, but reading deeper, court transcripts etc., it was a stark contrast to much of the media reporting.

 

[jason_recliner]

Say they had consensual sex, he would have to lie about that or he'd be done, right?

How could they have had consensual sex?

 

[hawkman]

Get the feeling it probably happened but going to be impossible to prove. Prosecution case needed to be watertight but had some poor misses. Thought Higgins would have been prepared better than she has been