Updated Bruce Lehrmann Pt2 * ACT Bar clears former DPP head Shane Drumgold of misconduct

[Kurve]

Here is PART 1

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



FIONA BROWN - AFFIDAVIT

 

[Kurve]

Strong statement should've gone on a media blitz than left it there.

That's what I reckon. Reynolds could have played it to maximum benefit but it just wasn't enough for her.

 

[Run n Spread]

I agree with you, but if she doesn't take it to court, they will continue to push their narrative that she and Brown did not support them and her job was threatened. It would have been simple for Higgins and Sharaz to admit to the lie and settle, but they refused. Reynolds deserves to clear her name.

Pyrrhic victory. It will destroy her financially. Winners will be the lawyers.
This also is just a few social media posts. Fire back then.
I reckon there is a bit of vengeance here also looking at quotes. I reckon LR doesn't necessarily believe BH or at minimum every element of her account and is pissed at the payout she got.
But that payout will go and so will both their houses.
Sure she does have the same rights to the law and courts as everyone else. And is fully entitled to do so. Still not a great move imo. Law of unintended consequences and all that

 

[Kurve]

I agree with you, but if she doesn't take it to court, they will continue to push their narrative that she and Brown did not support them and her job was threatened. It would have been simple for Higgins and Sharaz to admit to the lie and settle, but they refused. Reynolds deserves to clear her name.

Reynolds name was essentially cleared with Lee's findings.

I'm not convinced Higgins was on "the plan" as Reynolds calls it and consciously lying accordingly if I'd not have minded overly, if Sharaz was tested on the stand.

 

[Lady O]

Pyrrhic victory. It will destroy her financially. Winners will be the lawyers.
This also is just a few social media posts. Fire back then.
I reckon there is a bit of vengeance here also looking at quotes. I reckon LR doesn't necessarily believe BH or at minimum every element of her account and is pissed at the payout she got.
But that payout will go and so will both their houses.
Sure she does have the same rights to the law and courts as everyone else. And is fully entitled to do so. Still not a great move imo. Law of unintended consequences and all that

Sure, the payout was OTT.

 

[Festerz]

It would have been simple for Higgins and Sharaz to admit to the lie and settle, but they refused.

Utter Rubbish. And just repeats the pro-Reynolds BS sprouted by Albrechtsen in the Australian yesterday.




Show me where Brittany Higgins refused to settle. She participated in two court mediated settlement meetings while living on the other side of the world - that shows me someone who was willing to settle.

And Sharaz has entered a no contest to the defamation action.

The most likely cause of this going to trial is that Senator Reynolds wanted more in terms of a publi apology and financial reward to settle than Ms Higgins was willing or able to give.

A legally binding settlement is like a contract to sell a used car - it takes the agreement of both sides of the deal, not just one. Only a fool signs up to a settlement proposal at any price just because the other side demands it. And the stakes are raised higher when it comes to matters of integrity, dignity and believed truth.

And a reminder that if Channel 10 and Lisa Wilkinson had agreed to Lehrman's settlement demands earlier this year (as the ABC and Sam Maiden did) - we would not be in the position of having, finally, the judicial finding that he most likely DID rape Brittany Higgins. Which is the only slither of justice Ms Higgins has received thus far.

 

[Lady O]

Reynolds name was essentially cleared with Lee's findings.

I'm not convinced Higgins was on "the plan" as Reynolds calls it and consciously lying accordingly if I'd not have minded overly, if Sharaz was tested on the stand.

Aren't some of the posts/comments coming from Higgins/Sharaz after the Lee rulings?

 

[Kurve]

Aren't some of the posts/comments coming from Higgins/Sharaz after the Lee rulings?

I don't know, I haven't seen any yet.

 

[Underarrest_]

I agree with you, but if she doesn't take it to court, they will continue to push their narrative that she and Brown did not support them and her job was threatened. It would have been simple for Higgins and Sharaz to admit to the lie and settle, but they refused. Reynolds deserves to clear her name.

I think an order to cease the social media posts linked to Reynolds would be helpful.
Hopefully neither will have to lose their home.
In the meanwhile Brucey’s probably at a bar with a cocktail making another Mona Lisa video....until his next trial anyway.

 

[Lady O]

I don't know, I haven't seen any yet.

I posted it earlier: "And Ms Higgins's post in March this year that read "I won't stay silent so you can stay comfortable" was particularly galling.", weren't from someone who admitted lying.

 

[jason_recliner]

This might be how Reynolds lawyers access the files to use from the Lehrmann defamation case in another state. Shifty.

No, "shifty" is exploiting technicalities such as jurisdictions and statues and NDAs (often at odds with the intent of these instruments) to have evidence - real actual things that really actually happened - excluded from consideration and judgement. One reason why the successful lawyers get the big bucks.

 

[campbell]

I don't know, I haven't seen any yet.

no, this is all prior.....

 

[Kurve]

I posted it earlier: "And Ms Higgins's post in March this year that read "I won't stay silent so you can stay comfortable" was particularly galling.", weren't from someone who admitted lying.

Is that it?

Was that even directed at Reynolds? It's like a mantra that DV and SA victims commonly use, especially when they're under attack, which could be coming from anywhere, especially in a social media context.

 

[jason_recliner]

... I agree with Lee's findings that a rape on balance of probablity probably occurred.

A rape, on balance of probability, occurred. There's a big difference.

 

[DapperDon]

Sure, the payout was OTT.

What price would you put on someone being r*ped in their place of work?

 

[Lady O]

Is that it?

Was that even directed at Reynolds? It's like a mantra that DV and SA victims commonly use, especially when they're under attack, which could be coming from anywhere.

I don't know. There was I think two further posts that she wanted to include that were made during or just prior to the current trial.

 

[jason_recliner]

What price would you put on someone being r*ped in their place of work?

Part of the payout was to compensate for an alleged conspiracy of treatment and behaviour by her employers that has been found never to have occurred. The payment should have been limited to WHS-related liability i.e. Government's failure to provide a safe (alcohol and drug free) workplace.

 

[Lady O]

What price would you put on someone being r*ped in their place of work?

Well, I wouldn't put a price on it, but here's a benchmark FYI: "Under the National Redress Scheme for Survivors, the compensation of sexually abused victims Australia is $150,000, although the average compensation payment is about $85,000."

 

[Run n Spread]

A rape, on balance of probability, occurred. There's a big difference.

True. Was getting my language in but to get technical my opinion in my language
He probably did it. But I wouldn't be certain enough to.convict.

 

[jason_recliner]

True. Was getting my language in but to get technical my opinion in my language
He probably did it. But I wouldn't be certain enough to.convict.

Fair enough. I would absolutely convict if presented with the same evidence as the civil trial.

 

[Run n Spread]

Part of the payout was to compensate for an alleged conspiracy of treatment and behaviour by her employers that has been found never to have occurred. The payment should have been limited to WHS-related liability i.e. Government's failure to provide a safe (alcohol and drug free) workplace.

Maybe. But why were they let in @ 1am on a Saturday morning? My work would want to know what the **** I was doing if I did that.
Imo blind Freddy could see what they were doing. Reason they were let in is there was a culture of hook ups and shenanigans in PH were a blind eye was turned.
This led to this incident hence a payout.

 

[Run n Spread]

Fair enough. I would absolutely convict if presented with the same evidence as the civil trial.

Don't mean to nit pick. But there is no conviction at civil trial. I'm the same. There were 2 probabilities only presented.
BHs and BHs. Nothing else argued.
On balance I believe her far more than him.
Or did you mean you'd convict at criminal trial?
I wouldn't. Reason = There is no physical medical witness evidence to back her claim. Plus inconsistencies in her testimony leads to reasonable doubt. Anywaybthats old ground.
This Renolds thing is a cluster ****. Can she even prove defamation? How many read BHs social media etc. Then if it re reported in msm can bh be blamed for that? And has she been defamed in WA the jurisdiction this is bought in. All sorts of questions.

 

[campbell]

I posted it earlier: "And Ms Higgins's post in March this year that read "I won't stay silent so you can stay comfortable" was particularly galling.", weren't from someone who admitted lying.

goodness, a generic insta post, and LR , deduces it is about her.

mmmm.......pathology at play.

 

[jason_recliner]

Maybe. But why were they let in @ 1am on a Saturday morning? My work would want to know what the **** I was doing if I did that.
Imo blind Freddy could see what they were doing. Reason they were let in is there was a culture of hook ups and shenanigans in PH were a blind eye was turned.
This led to this incident hence a payout.

That's what I meant by inability to provide a safe workplace. But the stated reasons for the payout went further.

 

[jason_recliner]

Don't mean to nit pick. But there is no conviction at civil trial. I'm the same. There were 2 probabilities only presented.
BHs and BHs. Nothing else argued.
On balance I believe her far more than him.
Or did you mean you'd convict at criminal trial?
I wouldn't. Reason = There is no physical medical witness evidence to back her claim. Plus inconsistencies in her testimony leads to reasonable doubt. Anywaybthats old ground.
This Renolds thing is a cluster ****. Can she even prove defamation? How many read BHs social media etc. Then if it re reported in msm can bh be blamed for that? And has she been defamed in WA the jurisdiction this is bought in. All sorts of questions.

AS the civil trial, not AT the civil trial. Meaning we didn't see the criminal trial but if the same evidence was presented, I would have found him guilty

 

[Lady O]

Maybe. But why were they let in @ 1am on a Saturday morning? My work would want to know what the **** I was doing if I did that.
Imo blind Freddy could see what they were doing. Reason they were let in is there was a culture of hook ups and shenanigans in PH were a blind eye was turned.
This led to this incident hence a payout.

No question about what they intended to do. The question is regarding consent.