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

 

[the_interloper]

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

It's not even that really, it's just grubby details like "was she wearing panties" or whatever, unfortunately it seems to be relevant given it's a discrepancy with what Higgins has said, but yeah not great to delve into.

I saw a vid discussing the Mike Tyson rape trial and the defence case from memory was based around if she was wearing panty liners, was menstruating etc etc, yeah that's not a great thing for anyone to discuss.

 

[Kurve]

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 Wilkinson interview imo should not have been used or that information suppressed, particularly since Wilkinson was taken off the witness list. It wasn't sworn evidence and was a question probably asked in front of Higgins current partner, we know he was there. I wouldn't have liked to say I wasn't wearing any, to either of them.

The wearing of no knickers is supposed to be a secret cheat, nobody knows, nobody notices anything which is the whole point. We don't go around advertising that we're not wearing any undies.

 

[Big_Birdy]

The Wilkinson interview imo should not have been used or that information suppressed, particularly since Wilkinson was taken off the witness list. It wasn't sworn evidence and was a question probably asked in front of Higgins current partner, we know he was there. I wouldn't have liked to say I wasn't wearing any, to either of them.

The wearing of no knickers is supposed to be a secret cheat, nobody knows, nobody notices anything which is the whole point. We don't go around advertising that we're not wearing any undies.

I can't think of any grounds to have suppressed the interview. Lehrmann's police interview wasn't sworn evidence either and that was admitted.

Regardless, the prosecution are the ones who submitted it aren't they? They would have submitted it with the assumption that what she stated in it was an accurate account.

 

[Kurve]

I can't think of any grounds to have suppressed the interview. Lehrmann's police interview wasn't sworn evidence either and that was admitted.

Regardless, the prosecution are the ones who submitted it aren't they? They would have submitted it with the assumption that what she stated in it was an accurate account.

Lehrmann's presumably signed off his statement and knew that the police would retain a copy for any future proceedings, there are also consequences for making a false statement to the police.

There's a world of difference between that and a six hour chat with a journalist and in company.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

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.

The lesson is don’t make public statements.

It’s unpleasant but it was absolutely fair game to highlight the inconsistency.

 

[Big_Birdy]

Lehrmann's presumably signed off his statement and knew that the police would retain a copy for any future proceedings, there are also consequences for making a false statement to the police.

There's a world of difference between that and a six hour chat with a journalist and in company.

It was a voluntary interview. Not sure if that makes it a statement which needs signing. I am pretty sure it doesn't but stand to be corrected.

Regardless, I was just making the point that being sworn evidence or not isn't relevant.

And there may be a difference between the two regarding specific legislation and consequences of breach (for the police mostly), but not a whole lot regarding the question of whether or not the recollection has always been consistent.

 

[Kurve]

Not specific enough, and certainly not if not associated with a conviction.

If there was two or more accounts that ended in an alleged sexual assault, it might be imo but I'm not arguing with you all day about it. I accept it isn't part of the proceedings at this trial.

 

[Lady O]

Lehrmann's presumably signed off his statement and knew that the police would retain a copy for any future proceedings, there are also consequences for making a false statement to the police.

There's a world of difference between that and a six hour chat with a journalist and in company.

Yes, but she can't say she wasn't aware she was being recorded. I think if you submit voluntarily to a video recording in order to put your side of a case, you can't really complain if, at the trial, the defence uses statements you made there, as well as to the Police and at the trial, to demonstrate inconsistency.

 

[Kurve]

Yes, but she can't say she wasn't aware she was being recorded. I think if you submit voluntarily to a video recording in order to put your side of a case, you can't really complain if, at the trial, the defence uses statements you made there, as well as to the Police and at the trial, to demonstrate inconsistency.

It was sleazy to use it, it's still sleazy and given the jury's clearly conflicted the defence's tactics might not have been as appreciated or as effective as some think.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

It was sleazy to use it, it's still sleazy and given the jury's clearly conflicted the defence's tactics might not have been as appreciated or as effective as some think.

Not sure how you have drawn that bow.

I'll ignore the assertion about it being sleazy - i wasn't in the courtroom, I don't know how appropriate or otherwise it was to the overall evidence.

However if it had the impact of forming only one person's mind as ot provide doubt - then it is highly effective. Perhaps that is why they are deadlocked - one person thinks there is doubt. That sweeping statement that it wasn't effective just doesn't hold any weight.

And just to be clear - Ms Higgins is well within her rights to wear what she wants - in fact I'd argue she'd be in the majority for ladies of her age to worry about fashion and look. In no way would I approve of any shame being labelled because of it.

 

[Kurve]

Not sure how you have drawn that bow.

I'll ignore the assertion about it being sleazy - i wasn't in the courtroom, I don't know how appropriate or otherwise it was to the overall evidence.

However if it had the impact of forming only one person's mind as ot provide doubt - then it is highly effective. Perhaps that is why they are deadlocked - one person thinks there is doubt. That sweeping statement that it wasn't effective just doesn't hold any weight.

Given most in this thread, including myself early in thought a conviction would be almost impossible, I think it might hold weight. Even if it's speculative at this point.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Not sure how you have drawn that bow.

I'll ignore the assertion about it being sleazy - i wasn't in the courtroom, I don't know how appropriate or otherwise it was to the overall evidence.

However if it had the impact of forming only one person's mind as ot provide doubt - then it is highly effective. Perhaps that is why they are deadlocked - one person thinks there is doubt. That sweeping statement that it wasn't effective just doesn't hold any weight.

And just to be clear - Ms Higgins is well within her rights to wear what she wants - in fact I'd argue she'd be in the majority for ladies of her age to worry about fashion and look. In no way would I approve of any shame being labelled because of it.

It's a tactic as old as time. No panties and she looks easy. Yes, I know it is 2022 but plenty of people still think that way.

I fully believe Higgins was only trying to preserve her dignity. And you'd have to be pretty naive to think that the Defence was only trying to uncover an untruth. Lehrmann's lawyer knew exactly what he was doing. Hence the judge clipped him for it. But it's to late by then, he'd planted the seed with the jury.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

It's a tactic as old as time. No panties and she looks easy. Yes, I know it is 2022 but plenty of people still think that way.

I fully believe Higgins was only trying to preserve her dignity. And you'd have to be pretty naive to think that the Defence was only trying to uncover an untruth. Lehrmann's lawyer knew exactly what he was doing. Hence the judge clipped him for it. But it's to late by then, he'd planted the seed with the jury.

I'm just thankful we have you who is following the court transcript word for word knowing exactly what is going on and in no way having a pre-conceived view prior to the court case.

 

[Kurve]

Because she said her panties were pulled down by Lehrmann but at court said she wasn't actually wearing any?

Higgins didn't say that specifically. The judge interupted through this then said, 'there comes a limit' and I can understand why.

“I am asking you, do you agree that Ms Wilkinson – You agree that Ms Wilkinson asked you, ‘So he had removed your panties?’ and you said, ‘Yeah’?,’’ Mr Whybrow had asked Ms Higgins.

“What I am suggesting to you is at that point in time when you said that, you were informing Ms Wilkinson that Mr Lehrmann had taken your underwear off you?” Mr Whybrow said.

“And you indicated to her that Mr Lehrmann had removed your underwear?” Mr Whybrow said.

“No, I never – I’ve never asserted that. I didn’t wear underwear that night," Ms Higgins replied.

During the cross examination, Mr Whybrow asked Ms Higgins to read a transcript of her original interview with Ms Wilkinson.

“Were you aware that there was a transcript prepared of the first audio one?’’ Mr Whybrow said.

“No,’’ Ms Higgins replied.

Mr Whybrow asked her to read the transcript.

“But it was wrong. I didn’t wear underwear. I was clearly embarrassed, but that wasn’t the actual interview itself and I didn’t sign a stat dec on this,’’ Ms Higgins said.

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/key-points-from-cross-examination-of-brittany-higgins/news-story/9917c1f232199e4d89c0809d6c833732

 

[Big_Birdy]

Higgins didn't say that specifically. The judge interupted through this then said, 'there comes a limit' and I can understand why.

“I am asking you, do you agree that Ms Wilkinson – You agree that Ms Wilkinson asked you, ‘So he had removed your panties?’ and you said, ‘Yeah’?,’’ Mr Whybrow had asked Ms Higgins.

“What I am suggesting to you is at that point in time when you said that, you were informing Ms Wilkinson that Mr Lehrmann had taken your underwear off you?” Mr Whybrow said.

“And you indicated to her that Mr Lehrmann had removed your underwear?” Mr Whybrow said.

“No, I never – I’ve never asserted that. I didn’t wear underwear that night," Ms Higgins replied.

During the cross examination, Mr Whybrow asked Ms Higgins to read a transcript of her original interview with Ms Wilkinson.

“Were you aware that there was a transcript prepared of the first audio one?’’ Mr Whybrow said.

“No,’’ Ms Higgins replied.

Mr Whybrow asked her to read the transcript.

“But it was wrong. I didn’t wear underwear. I was clearly embarrassed, but that wasn’t the actual interview itself and I didn’t sign a stat dec on this,’’ Ms Higgins said.

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/key-points-from-cross-examination-of-brittany-higgins/news-story/9917c1f232199e4d89c0809d6c833732

But it appears from the transcript she did say that. So she can say on the stand that she didn't, but that's in conflict with the transcript. As she says later in her testimony "But I was wrong", implying she did tell Lisa Wilkinson he had.

The first thought I had when reading about the interruption was " I wonder if that will come up in an appeal". The line of questioning is relevant, I'm not sure what legal grounds the justice had to stop it. But I'm no expert.

 

[Kwality]

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.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

I'm just thankful we have you who is following the court transcript word for word knowing exactly what is going on and in no way having a pre-conceived view prior to the court case.

Why do you think the judge shut that line of questioning down?

I think I have been pretty balanced in here. Clearly you'd prefer to hurl shit from the cheap seats.

Grow up child.

 

[NSWCROW]

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Hardly unexpected.

 

[Kurve]

Now they just want to go home.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Why do you think the judge shut that line of questioning down?

I think I have been pretty balanced in here. Clearly you'd prefer to hurl s**t from the cheap seats.

Grow up child.

No problems fan of Bob Hawke

 

[HirdsTheWord]

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.

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.

 

[freofc1994]

What happens if the jury remains deadlocked? Another trial?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

What happens if the jury remains deadlocked? Another trial?

hung jury

up to prosecution if they want to go again. If not, he remains innocent.

 

[Kwality]

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

'Justice McCallum said judges are usually reluctant to discharge a jury because experience has shown that juries can often agree if given more time to consider and discuss the issues.

“But if after calmly considering the evidence and listening to the opinions of other jurors, you cannot honestly agree with the conclusions of other jurors, you must give effect to your own view of the evidence,” she said.

“Each of you has taken an oath or affirmation to give a true verdict according to the evidence. And as I told you yesterday morning, that is ultimately the only expectation of you and it’s an important responsibility. You must fulfil it to the best of your ability.

“You each take into the jury room; your individual experience and wisdom and you’re expected to judge the evidence fairly and impartially in that light.

“You also have a duty to listen carefully and objectively to the views of each and every one of your fellow jurors. You are all equals in the jury room. You should calmly weigh up one another’s opinions about the evidence and test them by discussion.”

Justice McCallum said calm and objective discussion of the evidence “often leads to a better understanding of the differences of opinion which you may have, and may convince you that your original opinion was wrong”.