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

 

[FIGJAM]

But... There is no actual substance or statement saying that there is to be, or that there should be a cover-up, therefore it's very hard to legally claim beyond 'reasonable doubt' that there was a cover-up.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the high standard for a criminal charge.

The civil standard is on the balance of probabilities, which is a lower standard of proof / justification and Justice Lee will apply that to both the allegation of rape and the allegation of a cover-up.

The rest of your post is interesting, as it appears no matter what Justice Lee says after weeks of court time and months of consideration, that you will completely disregard his opinion. It's a shame that this case might not bring some resolution and understanding of different viewpoints, because I think it's one of the few advantages of this trial (otherwise it's been mostly complete and utter carnage!).

 

[jason_recliner]

The legal system will always have its flaws. And a judge can only go on evidence provided.

As we've seen, there has been cover-up after cover-up.
But Lee can't judge on obviousness, he may only judge on available evidence.
It's why so much has been blocked/hidden/deleted/etc. Specifically to prevent legal findings.
As has been repeatedly presented.
Justice Lee repeated, sardonically, the statement from Whybrow that "this is the cover-up where everyone wanted to tell the police.”
Because of how often he's heard the same bs through his time in court.
Everyone just wanted to do the right thing, but somehow it all went awry!??!
Naturally he made this comment after he'd heard about the CCTV footage being blocked from Higgins and the police, and then lost until 7's Spolight program...

At the end of the day Higgins was allegedly rapped in Parliament house. And it was never going to be reported to to the Australian public.

As soon as she did, serious money was put in to attacking her and all aspects of her story.
Then investigation into who knew about the assault, was covered-up.
The investigation into the Higgins/Sharaz attack file spread through the media, was covered-up.
Her rape was covered-up and minimised.
The police request for CCTV footage was stonewalled and then the footage was lost. (Amazingly the 7 Spotlight coke4comment had more access to the footage than the justice system).
The investigation into if Higgins received a fair trail, was covered-up.
The investigation into the investigation of if Higgins received a fair trail is ongoing... and has no time frame...
The leaks of Higgins private information (as the victim) taken forcefully by the AFP, and spread through the media, was covered-up.
The investigation into the AFP cover-up was covered-up.
The 7's Spotlight program that spread hateful and harmful lies about Higgins, Sharaz, Wilkinson, Ch10 et al... based on known lies from a known alleged repeat rapist was covered-up.
That 7 paid Lehrmann, was covered-up.
That he was also being enticed with sex and drugs on his request to 7, was covered-up.
His connection to the Chairman of the IPA, Albrechtsen, was covered up.
Sofronoff (the person investigating the fairness of the Higgins trial) connection to Albrechtsen was covered-up.
It's been pointed out that the reason there is little evidence available of 7's Spotlight program and correspondence with Lehrmann. Apart from the evidence showing that all correspondence was to be deleted. -Covered-up.
Even the fact that 7's legal rep told them to delete all correspondence, has attempted to be covered up...



But... There is no actual substance or statement saying that there is to be, or that there should be a cover-up, therefore it's very hard to legally claim beyond 'reasonable doubt' that there was a cover-up.



Of course, that's not to mention the fact that Lehrmann's suit isn't about if there was or wasn't a Governmental cover-up, but purely on defamation.

There's very little evidence of a cover-up and substantial evidence that no cover-up occurred. On the balance of probabilities you'd have to say there was no cover-up.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

There's very little evidence of a cover-up and substantial evidence that no cover-up occurred. On the balance of probabilities you'd have to say there was no cover-up.

Are you saying there was no cover up because it was never mentioned and if it was it was denied?

 

[jason_recliner]

Are you saying there was no cover up because it was never mentioned and if it was it was denied?

I'm saying there's very little evidence of a cover-up and substantial evidence that no cover-up occurred.

 

[CM86]

There's very little evidence of a cover-up and substantial evidence that no cover-up occurred. On the balance of probabilities you'd have to say there was no cover-up.

Yes.

You're repeating my point. Apart from the fact that your statement of "substantial evidence that no cover-up occurred" is based on the fact that there wouldn't be substantial evidence... if there had been a cover up.

 

[CM86]

Are you saying there was no cover up because it was never mentioned and if it was it was denied?

If you clean up a crime scene, there was no crime.

 

[jason_recliner]

Yes.

You're repeating my point. Apart from the fact that your statement of "substantial evidence that no cover-up occurred" is based on the fact that there wouldn't be substantial evidence... if there had been a cover up.

No, Lee determined that there were numerous actions that explictly show a cover-up was unlikely to have occurred. That's the evidence - the actions.

 

[FIGJAM]

Naturally it's the only part you quoted and misrepresented, in order to actively avoid engaging with the entirety of my post.

I've got work to do CM86, so no need to get narky about things!

I'm now well versed on your ' parentheses, so I'll not make the same error of judgement again.

 

[FIGJAM]

No, Lee determined that there were numerous actions that explictly show a cover-up was unlikely to have occurred. That's the evidence - the actions.

We will see what he determines on Monday, but the contemporaneous evidence noted by Brown and on certain dated email chains would evidence that they did things by the book.

The Libs getting in a forensic version of The Wolf from Pulp Fiction in to clean the documents up of all things that would pointing to an alternate reality of "Make this disappear!", is deep in tin foil hat territory (IMHO of course!).

 

[CM86]

I've got work to do CM86, so no need to get narky about things!

I'm now well versed on your ' parentheses, so I'll not make the same error of judgement again.

Sorry, I let things get to me sometimes, and attribute aspects from others broadly and unfairly onto individuals.

 

[jason_recliner]

We will see what he determines on Monday, but the contemporaneous evidence noted by Brown and on certain dated email chains would evidence that they did things by the book.

The Libs getting in a forensic version of The Wolf from Pulp Fiction in to clean the documents up of all things that would pointing to an alternate reality of "Make this disappear!", is deep in tin foil hat territory (IMHO of course!).

Yeah, 'observed' or 'noted' would have been better terminology. I'm trying to do two jobs over here!

 

[CM86]

No, Lee determined that there were numerous actions that explictly show a cover-up was unlikely to have occurred. That's the evidence - the actions.

When did Justice Lee determine that?

 

[CM86]

We will see what he determines on Monday, but the contemporaneous evidence noted by Brown and on certain dated email chains would evidence that they did things by the book. #1

The Libs getting in a forensic version of The Wolf from Pulp Fiction#2 in to clean the documents up of all things that would pointing to an alternate reality of "Make this disappear!", is deep in tin foil hat territory (IMHO of course!).

Do you think it's possible that there is anything in between those two points?

 

[jason_recliner]

When did Justice Lee determine that?

You'll have to go back over the last 370+ pages, I don't have time.

... 'observed' or 'noted' would have been better terminology. I'm trying to do two jobs over here!

 

[CM86]

Yeah, 'observed' or 'noted' would have been better terminology. I'm trying to do two jobs over here!

That's OK.

People make mistakes and mis-state things sometimes.

Maybe Higgins was trying to do more than one thing as well, during parts of her life that you are able to nit-pick through due to leaks...?

 

[jason_recliner]

That's OK.

People make mistakes and mis-state things sometimes.

Maybe Higgins was trying to do more than one thing as well, during parts of her life that you are able to nit-pick through due to leaks...?

Thanks for your understanding.

Fortunately I've managed to stay across the pertinent details when accusing others of a crime, or being accused of a crime

 

[CM86]

Thanks for your understanding.

Fortunately I've managed to stay across the pertinent details when accusing others of a crime, or being accused of a crime

Who's that fortunate for?

It's semantics now, but;

1. You claimed the wrong thing.
2. You've pointed out you were wrong.
3. You're pretending that I'm the one who isn't across the detail because I corrected you.

 

[jason_recliner]

1. You're pretending that I'm the one who isn't across the detail because I corrected you.

Where'd I do that?

 

[CM86]

Where'd I do that?

You'll have to go back over the last 370+ pages, I don't have time.

?!?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

How'd you like this bloke living next door

Bruce Lehrmann’s karaoke is killing the neighbourhood

The former political staffer’s partying is bringing epic levels of irritation to his new neighbours in North Sydney. The man who offered to put him up for a few days says he’s “ropeable”.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Kurve]

Another casualty ..

The Australian and Sydney Morning Herald have reported that Llewellyn had engaged a lawyer to negotiate his exit from the network.

He is reported to have handed in his security pass on Wednesday and will not be returning to the building.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/spotlights-mark-llewellyn-has-left-seven-after-the-scandal-over-the-bruce-lehrmann-interview/news-story/4a66d45a61ba28829f10eba847abdf4e

 

[ms finch]

Bruce Lehrmann mistrial leads to new jury laws in ACT

Laws that passed the ACT Legislative Assembly today mean jurors who do their own research will face criminal penalties of up to two years in jail.

www.abc.net.au

'ACT government changes jury laws after Bruce Lehrmann mistrial exposes gaps​

Posted 15h ago, updated 13h ago
...
The Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, which passed the ACT Legislative Assembly today, means jurors who do their own research during a trial will face jail times of up to two years.

A second change means courts may be able to accept a majority verdict if 11 out of 12 jurors agree after six hours of deliberation.

The court also has to be satisfied the jury will not reach a unanimous verdict after more deliberation.
...'

I can’t say I agree with the decision to criminalise the behaviour of jurors who do their own research.

Don’t get me wrong - I agree that it is absolutely wrong for a juror to do that and mechanisms such as a mistrial are necessary to protect against miscarriages of justice. But we ask laypeople without any formal training to perform a service as a requirement to the community. To have a threat of criminal penalty over their heads for misbehaviour is, to me, morally problematic.

Moreover, I see practical problems with this. The first is that it is likely to discourage people from doing jury duty, and it is not altogether that difficult to get out of if someone wants to. We already know that the jury pool is somewhat skewed because it is comprised of people who want to be involved. I don’t think we want the limit that pool further.

The second, and more important one, is that this just encourages people to conceal any external research. I would rather people own up to it to protect from a miscarriage of justice than conceal it and potentially harm the process without anyone knowing. It would be pretty easy to conceal independent research.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Another casualty ..

The Australian and Sydney Morning Herald have reported that Llewellyn had engaged a lawyer to negotiate his exit from the network.

He is reported to have handed in his security pass on Wednesday and will not be returning to the building.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/spotlights-mark-llewellyn-has-left-seven-after-the-scandal-over-the-bruce-lehrmann-interview/news-story/4a66d45a61ba28829f10eba847abdf4e

Wow, this saga is a killing field for everyone involved...

 

[FIGJAM]

I can’t say I agree with the decision to criminalise the behaviour of jurors who do their own research.

Don’t get me wrong - I agree that it is absolutely wrong for a juror to do that and mechanisms such as a mistrial are necessary to protect against miscarriages of justice. But we ask laypeople without any formal training to perform a service as a requirement to the community. To have a threat of criminal penalty over their heads for misbehaviour is, to me, morally problematic.

Moreover, I see practical problems with this. The first is that it is likely to discourage people from doing jury duty, and it is not altogether that difficult to get out of if someone wants to. We already know that the jury pool is somewhat skewed because it is comprised of people who want to be involved. I don’t think we want the limit that pool further.

The second, and more important one, is that this just encourages people to conceal any external research. I would rather people own up to it to protect from a miscarriage of justice than conceal it and potentially harm the process without anyone knowing. It would be pretty easy to conceal independent research.

For mine, despite the ACT's knee-jerk reactions resulting from this trial, namely the Board of Inquiry and the above measures, regarding jury numbers and personal research, are just putting Band Aids on a gaping flesh wound.

I personally think that there should be an inquisitorial system for sexual assault claims.

 

[geeeyejo]

Is Mark Llewellyn from Chanel 7 a relation to Angus Llewellyn from chanel 10 who gave evidence in the civil case?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro