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

 

[Festerz]

I feel this would be important. It’s still possible DNA can be found even after cleaning. Couch/surroundings, given BL claims nothing happened.

No - unlike you might see in TV crime shows, there are unambiguous rules of evidence that the AFP must adhere to in relation to crime scene investigation including the security, continuity of control and integrity of any property and exhibits and to mitigate the consequences relating to the ineffective management of these items.

See:https://www.afp.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-08/AFPNG-Property-Exhibits.pdf

The fact that room and that couch and room had been professionally cleaned (twice) and accessed by a wide range of people subsequent to the alleged sexual assault and prior to the AFP being informed of the alleged rape would have made any subsequent analysis pointless and any potential evidence gathered inadmissible and not able to be used in any subsequent investigation relating to the allegations.

 

[Kurve]

Absolutely. It's almost impossible to completely destroy all biological evidence without specialised techniques and chemicals. Amazing what our forensics teams can uncover.

Pilot Greg Lynn did well through horrifically violent and bloody acts, if not for a very small piece of lead found in the bush with one of his victim's DNA on it he probably would have got away with the murder and disposal of two people.

 

[FIGJAM]

I feel this would be important. It’s still possible DNA can be found even after cleaning. Couch/surroundings, given BL claims nothing happened.

It definitely didn't happen because Higgins only ever had preliminary meetings to educate herself on her options, hence there would never have been a live case for the coppers to undertake such a search (until 2021 of course).

I often feel like some in here are of the assumption that everyone should have just assumed that a sexual assault occurred and that every action or non-action thereafter needs to be viewed through that lens. It's completely unreasonable in my view (BTW this isn't a statement directed at you Under).

 

[Underarrest_]

No - there are unambiguous rules of evidence that the AFP must adhere to in relation to crime scene investigation including the security, continuity and integrity of property and exhibits and to mitigate the consequences relating to the ineffective management of these items.

The fact that room and that couch had been cleaned and accessed by a wide range of people subsequent to the AFP being informed of the alleged rape would have made any subsequent analysis pointless and any potential evidence gathered inadmissable.

I’m not putting blame on anyone.
I understand that people might have been in the room, but that wouldn’t explain say if BL DNA (Without going into details) was found in a spot on the carpet or something like that.

 

[Kurve]

It definitely didn't happen because Higgins only ever had preliminary meetings to educate herself on her options, hence there would never have been a live case for the coppers to undertake such a search (until 2021 of course).

I often feel like some in here are of the assumption that everyone should have just assumed that a sexual assault occurred and that every action or non-action thereafter needs to be viewed through that lens. It's completely unreasonable in my view (BTW this isn't a statement directed at you Under).

Oh come on.

It would have been a small matter to discreetly bag and move that couch out for examination and storage and replace it with another that looked similar or same.

 

[jason_recliner]

The second time the cleaners went in for the detail clean, they were locked in to the Minister's office which had never happened before, and told to focus on the couch and seating.

It wasn't routine.

Edit: The cleaner was also told to say that he was in there attending to a leak if anybody asked.

Can you post the link to this source please? I don't recall seeing it.

 

[jason_recliner]

Pilot Greg Lynn did well through horrifically violent and bloody acts, if not for a very small piece of lead found in the bush with one of his victim's DNA on it he probably would have got away with the murder and disposal of two people.

True. Burning PH to ash also would have effectively destroyed any biological evidence of rape.

 

[Kurve]

Can you post the link to this source please? I don't recall seeing it.

It's in this thread somewhere, BF is playing up on me today and I don't have the time to hunt these things down.

 

[jason_recliner]

No - unlike you might see in TV crime shows, there are unambiguous rules of evidence that the AFP must adhere to in relation to crime scene investigation including the security, continuity of control and integrity of any property and exhibits and to mitigate the consequences relating to the ineffective management of these items.

See:https://www.afp.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-08/AFPNG-Property-Exhibits.pdf

The fact that room and that couch and room had been professionally cleaned (twice) and accessed by a wide range of people subsequent to the alleged sexual assault and prior to the AFP being informed of the alleged rape would have made any subsequent analysis pointless and any potential evidence gathered inadmissible and not able to be used in any subsequent investigation relating to the allegations.

That's not correct. There are different types of biological fluids and completely eliminating them once discharged is not a simple matter. Other people may have used the office but if semen containing BL's DNA was present it would require some explaining. Crime scenes can be forensically examined years after the crime, leading to arrests.

 

[Kurve]

True. Burning PH to ash also would have effectively destroyed any biological evidence of rape.

He cleaned the crime scene up well and left zero evidence in his vehicle when he would have been covered in blood. Also kept the gun he used, which he made useless for forensics.

 

[Festerz]

I understand that people might have been in the room, but that wouldn’t explain say if BL DNA (Without going into details) was found in a spot on the carpet or something like that.

err. No.

As an advisor to Reynolds, Lehrmann would have been in that room and probably sat in that couch multiple times. You would expect to find his DNA in that room.

And yes, let's go into details. Even if in the highly unlikely chance given the thorough cleaning that took place, a sample of semen was found on the couch or carpet, DNA testing can never prove with complete certainty that the semen is from the suspect.

See: https://www.rxlist.com/semen_dna_analysis/definition.htm#:~:text=DNA tests can show that,semen is from the suspect.

And the AFP and the Crimes Act chain of evidence requirements means that the integrity of how, why and when that or any other DNA came to be in that room is critical to using that evidence. And as I explained in my previous post, that chain of evidence was lost.

Putting those facts together, a competent lawyer would reject any DNA analysis from being used as primary evidence to charge the suspect, let alone used in a subsequent criminal trial.


So zero point.

 

[MPMonkeys]

What do you mean?

There was a criminal trial.
If the couch was of importance then it would be rape investigation 101 to attempt to try and get some forensic evidence. That they didn't would indicate a) they didn't consider it relevant to the case or b) they did try and nothing was there.

In any case, the whole couch/clean business is a total furphy. The idea that someome knew there was a rape in the days directly afterwards and then decided to cover it up immediately is preposterous. Why anyone would risk jail to do something of no benefit to anyone but BL belongs in the realm of fantasy.

 

[Kurve]

There was a criminal trial.
If the couch was of importance then it would be rape investigation 101 to attempt to try and get some forensic evidence. That they didn't would indicate a) they didn't consider it relevant to the case or b) they did try and nothing was there.

In any case, the whole couch/clean business is a total furphy. The idea that someome knew there was a rape in the days directly afterwards and then decided to cover it up immediately is preposterous. Why anyone would risk jail to do something of no benefit to anyone but BL belongs in the realm of fantasy.

This is a very relevant discussion given this current defamation trial where the allegations of a cover up are being examined.

You need to stop insulting people in here.

 

[MPMonkeys]

It definitely didn't happen because Higgins only ever had preliminary meetings to educate herself on her options, hence there would never have been a live case for the coppers to undertake such a search (until 2021 of course).

I often feel like some in here are of the assumption that everyone should have just assumed that a sexual assault occurred and that every action or non-action thereafter needs to be viewed through that lens. It's completely unreasonable in my view (BTW this isn't a statement directed at you Under).

The saying 'Everyone is an expert in hindsight' is apt in this case.

 

[jason_recliner]

It definitely didn't happen because Higgins only ever had preliminary meetings to educate herself on her options, hence there would never have been a live case for the coppers to undertake such a search (until 2021 of course).

I often feel like some in here are of the assumption that everyone should have just assumed that a sexual assault occurred and that every action or non-action thereafter needs to be viewed through that lens. It's completely unreasonable in my view (BTW this isn't a statement directed at you Under).

At the time the assault was reported to the police the couch should have been examined.

 

[FIGJAM]

It would have been a small matter to discreetly bag and move that couch out for examination and storage and replace it with another that looked similar or same.

Who are you blaming specifically for not doing that in this instance?

 

[jason_recliner]

He cleaned the crime scene up well and left zero evidence in his vehicle when he would have been covered in blood. Also kept the gun he used, which he made useless for forensics.

You're referring to one very specific case, compared to how many thousands where perps don't clean up every last drop ('scuse the pun!) and are busted ('scuse the pun!) as a result? I rest my case!

 

[Kurve]

You're referring to one very specific case, compared to how many thousands where perps don't clean up every last drop ('scuse the pun!)? I rest my case!

Yeah and he wasn't a professional cleaner.

 

[MPMonkeys]

This is a very relevant discussion given this current defamation trial where the allegations of a cover up are being examined.

You need to stop insulting people in here.

Disagreement is not insulting.
The whole cover-up angle has been well covered off by Lee and dismissed. If people want to re-litigate this again then that is their problem but its been shown to be completely false and I'm not even sure BH's lawyers are re-examining it that hard in this case as it would not help her one bit. There would need to be one hell of a smoking gun that comes up for any cover up to be re-considered.

 

[Underarrest_]

Yeah and he wasn't a professional cleaner.

Haha that’s true edit he would have been a good professional cleaner.
but they still examined the scene even though it had been cleaned and many people had been through the site.

 

[Kurve]

Disagreement is not insulting.
The whole cover-up angle has been well covered off by Lee and dismissed. If people want to re-litigate this again then that is their problem but its been shown to be completely false and I'm not even sure BH's lawyers are re-examining it that hard in this case as it would not help her one bit. There would need to be one hell of a smoking gun that comes up for any cover up to be re-considered.

If you hadn't noticed, we have new information through this trial.

This is a new trial with a different focus.

 

[jason_recliner]

If you hadn't noticed, we have new information through this trial.

This is a new trial with a different focus.

But no new information supporting a cover-up of a rape (at least that has been made publicly available).

 

[MPMonkeys]

If you hadn't noticed, we have new information through this trial.

This is a new trial with a different focus.

Correct.
Reynolds is suing Higgins and Sharaz for defamation.
If they have defamed her based on their claims of a cover-up that never existed then they are both in big trouble. Effectively BH and DS have to demonstrate there was a cover up that LR was involved in and LR has to demonstrate that she was materially defamed. Proving a cover-up will be nigh on impossible (IMO how can you prove something that doesn't exist) so that only leaves BH lawyers to demonstrate that Reynolds was not materially defamed.
Also worth noting that Sharaz is not contesting the defamation which by implication means he knows that he has little grounds on which to prove the cover-up allegation.

There isn't really that much ground-breaking new information in this trial. Its basically been a re-hash of BL vs Wilkinson/Ten albeit with a different focus.

 

[Kurve]

But no new information supporting a cover-up of a rape (at least that has been made publicly available).

I'm not trying to prove a cover up. There was one, whether it was purposeful and with the awareness of covering up what happened in there and can be proved is something else.

Surely, you can see what this looks like.

 

[Lady O]

From Brown's affidavit:



So from the first question, she denied remembering anything and took responsibility for her actions.





Brown did everything she could to offer assistance, should it be required, but Higgins did not need it.