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

 

[FRUMPY]

surely if a verdict comes back either guilty or innocent, those in disagreement have just said 'ah bugger it, ill go with the majority so we can get out of here'

 

[BigPond101]

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.

What? The jury decides innocent or guilty. "Believe all women" the clue is in the name, any jury member who follows this extremist view already believes the woman before the trial and has already decided guilty

And no it's definitely not just women, it could easily be a male member of the jury who see himself as a white knight "protector of innocent women" type. All my post said was that if 1 of the 12 jurers is a Believe All Women extremist I hope the others have the strength not to cave in just to get back to their lives

 

[Kurve]

What? The jury decides innocent or guilty. "Believe all women" the clue is in the name, any jury member who follows this extremist view already believes the woman before the trial and has already decided guilty

And no it's definitely not just women, it could easily be a male member of the jury who see himself as a white knight "protector of innocent women" type. All my post said was that if 1 of the 12 jurers is a Believe All Women extremist I hope the others have the strength not to cave in just to get back to their lives

It's hard not to really let you have it so I'm going to get off here for a bit.

Have you noticed that Brittany Higgins was on the stand for five days and do you have any understanding of what she's going through to be believed? Have you noticed the savage social media commentary and the army of vicious misogynists and their crumb maidens that have risen against her?

Have no fear, you're probably safe.

 

[the_interloper]

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.

I think "Believe All Women" was not a well thought out catch cry, maybe "listen to all women" might be a better one in this context.

 

[the_interloper]

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.

From what I've read The Cryptkeeper has been pretty reasonable in this thread, saying he believes he's guilty but can't be found as such based on the evidence, I don't really see the problem with holding this view.

 

[Big_Birdy]

I'd be interested to know the statistics of how many defendant's are found guilty in a case involving only 2 charges (which are pretty extrinsically linked) when they have deliberated for this long.

Taking 5 days to find a majority guilty verdict would seem counter-intuitive to finding them guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt', although it is of course more complicated than that.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

surely if a verdict comes back either guilty or innocent, those in disagreement have just said 'ah bugger it, ill go with the majority so we can get out of here'

That's now the concern, either way.

 

[BFew]

The media is reporting the jury has not gone home and will reconvene tomorrow.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Million to one they get to a unanimous verdict now.

 

[Kurve]

Million to one they get to a unanimous verdict now.

They could try selecting four at random to toss out and send the other four they let go back in.

 

[annawinter608]

FWIW, I don’t think a unanimous verdict is out of the question. I was surprised that they’ll be deliberating again tomorrow - I’d expected them to come back today and say positions were too entrenched.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cameron_Jezza]

People are allowed to disagree, In this case their was incentive to lie after being found naked in your bosses office so I think those jurors saying there is reasonable doubt have a right to have that view.
However I am not saying for one second I believe what Bruce is saying either or that Brittany is lying.

 

[tandino]

I wonder if the DPP will have another go?

 

[Truth34]

98 percent of me is thinking that he did rape her. The other 2 percent is thinking that he was about to rape her but for some reason, like maybe he got spooked or something, ran out and left her there.

So if I was on the jury I definitely would be voting guilty. The testimony from the security guard who found Brittany would have convinced me of his guilt.

 

[Cameron_Jezza]

98 percent of me is thinking that he did rape her. The other 2 percent is thinking that he was about to rape her but for some reason, like maybe he got spooked or something, ran out and left her there.

So if I was on the jury I definitely would be voting guilty. The testimony from the security guard who found Brittany would have convinced me of his guilt.

There are other possibilities. Like she consented, then fell asleep and woke up, had changed her mind.
This is not behaviour I would condone or ever do myself by the way.
Do we know how many/ when Bruce stopped drinking alcohol. If he was quite sober, he should definitely not have taken her to parliament house.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

There are other possibilities. Like she consented, then fell asleep and woke up, had changed her mind.
This is not behaviour I would condone or ever do myself by the way.
Do we know how many/ when Bruce stopped drinking alcohol. If he was quite sober, he should definitely not have taken her to parliament house.

And then it comes down to degrees. Was she too drunk to give legitimate consent? Maybe, maybe not. I suspect so.

 

[Truth34]

There are other possibilities. Like she consented, then fell asleep and woke up, had changed her mind.
This is not behaviour I would condone or ever do myself by the way.
Do we know how many/ when Bruce stopped drinking alcohol. If he was quite sober, he should definitely not have taken her to parliament house.

Bruce Lehrmann told police he ‘wouldn’t dream’ of entering minister’s office where he allegedly raped Brittany Higgins, court told

Court hears former Liberal staffer, who has pleaded not guilty, told police neither he nor Higgins was very drunk when they went to Parliament House in the early hours of the morning

www.theguardian.com

Bruce reckons he and Brittany weren't that drunk.

 

[Rob R]

FWIW, I don’t think a unanimous verdict is out of the question. I was surprised that they’ll be deliberating again tomorrow - I’d expected them to come back today and say positions were too entrenched.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect the jury wants to say but judge is going to keep pressure on for a verdict.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[annawinter608]

I may be placing too much reliance on the jury using their words precisely in the note, but the text of that note suggests to me that the majority is voting guilty. The only circumstances in which a jury reach an agreement beyond reasonable doubt is where they find a person guilty. A verdict of not guilty is the opposite - reasonable doubt in everyone’s mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BFew]

Wouldn't have put it beyond team Morrison to have deliberately attempted to derail Lehrmann's trial.

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/how-scott-morrison-nearly-derailed-bruce-lehrmann-rape-trial/news-story/181cbb8ae68740bc89eb94ebca18014f

'How Scott Morrison nearly derailed Bruce Lehrmann rape trial'​

'October 26, 2022 - 7:06PM'

'Chief Justice Lucy McCallum today lifted a non-publication order over her judgment and the court confirmed the reasons could be published.'

'At the time, Mr Lehrmann was represented by high-profile barrister John Korn.'

'The chief justice said she was “not satisfied” with Mr Lehrmann’s argument for a permanent stay.

“I am not persuaded that the matter is beyond rescue, certainly not to the extent required to be established in order to obtain a stay.”

In the April application, Mr Korn also applied for a take-down order to be imposed on media outlets which had run coverage about the case.

The defence also wanted the media to be banned from publishing any material about the accused of the complainant.

In her judgment, Ms McCallum rejected the argument the court was “condoning a media ‘free for all’ should they not agree.

“To seek instead to regulate media discussion of criminal proceedings by the inexact tool of suppression and non-publication orders is a pious hope, particularly since the advent of the internet and social media,” she said.'

 

[Wooden Robot]

And then it comes down to degrees. Was she too drunk to give legitimate consent? Maybe, maybe not. I suspect so.

I suspect she was … as in give consent, if that’s what went sown, but a security guard says she wasn’t drunk at all. So you can see why doubt creeps in.

 

[Wooden Robot]

They could try selecting four at random to toss out and send the other four they let go back in.

If you were Scott Morrison or Dan Andrews you’d pull that move.
Stuff rules and convention and process, let’s manufacture an outcome.
I’ll make myself health and finance minister and treasurer as well.
Or in Dan’s case, I’m licking you down on ‘the best’ health advice even though the CHO and his department had no say.
Process must be adhered to.

 

[BFew]

How about a new trial rule where if the Jury can't decide, then the Judge gets to decide?

 

[spike101]

If you were Scott Morrison or Dan Andrews you’d pull that move.
Stuff rules and convention and process, let’s manufacture an outcome.
I’ll make myself health and finance minister and treasurer as well.
Or in Dan’s case, I’m licking you down on ‘the best’ health advice even though the CHO and his department had no say.
Process must be adhered to.

Why don’t we wait until the verdict; the speculation is pointless?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

How about a new trial rule where if the Jury can't decide, then the Judge gets to decide?

that not how the legal system works lol. Thats the point of having 12 different people.

might As well not have a jury in the first place and just rely on the judge