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 wonder what story is being referred to here?

 

[Festerz]

Will the outcome of this appeal likely to be finalised before the trial in Toowoomba commences? I wonder if that has factored in.

Yes- it has more than likely been factored in.

As I've mentioned in this thread previously, IMHO, the potential impact it might have on his upcoming Toowoomba rape trial has been a key factor on how Bruce Lehrmann has handled the timing and handling of his appeal process to his disastrous (from his perspective) failed Federal Court defamation trial.

If nothing else, it adds weight to the strong likelihood of the Toowoomba Magistrate determining that Lehrmann's rape trial be decided by Judge alone rather than in front of a jury.

Given that it is now more than three years since Lehrmann allegedly twice r*ped his victim early hours of October 10, 2021 in Toowoomba, any further delay in Lehrmann facing court would be intolerable for his victim. Setting aside the start date for his upcoming criminal trial for a civil matter in another jurisdiction would be publicly unacceptable. Having a judge-only trial for his rape trial in Qld would mitigate the suggestion that the outcome of the Federal Court appeal process would unfairly influence judgement in either or both.

Obviously, I have no insider knowledge but can only hope that his next criminal trial commences as planned in coming days where procedural matters, including applications for the matter of judge only v jury will be processed.

 

[FIGJAM]

I wonder what story is being referred to here?

You can see the Horseshoe Theory in full effect based on the Trumpian responses that thread.

 

[CM86]

There was definitely a "cover-up". Of a potential "party" as described above.

The issue is that people conflate this cover-up of a probable party (ie. get rid of bottles, condom wrappers, potential drug residue etc.), as also incorporating getting rid of evidence of a 'probable' sexual assault. It's a peculiar leap of assumption that I'm certain that 99.9% of the population would not have made at that time.

I don't know if you're being deliberately dishonest, or if you're so ideologically captured that you actually believe what you post.

Yeah, it was probably just a party in the highly secured office of the Minister for Defense. Typical nightshift to clean up from the office party, collecting bottles, condom wrappers, drug residue etc. SOP! Make sure to wipe down any highly classified files to avoid pages sticking together.
And sure, only two people gained entrance, but it takes two to tango, baby!

And sure, only one of them left hurriedly.
And sure the only other person was found naked and comatose.
But that's just how wild these parties get in the office of the Minister for Defense!

I am 100% behind all of Justice Lee's findings

You sure are, right behind them. Trying to shove them into any gaps you can, regardless of not fitting.

You 'quote' Lee's findings like a cut out ransom note.

You can see the Horseshoe Theory in full effect based on the Trumpian responses that thread.

The Horseshoe Theory is bullshit, for very unserious people who chew crayons and eat glue.
It's like saying that because 'the left' and 'the right' both oppose Islam, they're the same.

Except 'the left' oppose Islam due to a general opposition to religion and discriminatory practices.
While 'the right' oppose Islam because it isn't Christianity, and they don't like 'brown people'.


It's like saying a doctor and a torturer are the same because they're both trying to keep you alive.

You can see the Horseshoe Theory in full effect based on the Trumpian responses that thread.

Did you even read your link??

Matching the neo-Nazi with the radical left leads to the legitimization of far-right ideology and practices.​

​

It's alllllll starting to make sense now...

 

[CM86]

 

[FIGJAM]

I don't know if you're being deliberately dishonest, or if you're so ideologically captured that you actually believe what you post.

Yeah, it was probably just a party in the highly secured office of the Minister for Defense. Typical nightshift to clean up from the office party, collecting bottles, condom wrappers, drug residue etc. SOP! Make sure to wipe down any highly classified files to avoid pages sticking together.
And sure, only two people gained entrance, but it takes two to tango, baby!

And sure, only one of them left hurriedly.
And sure the only other person was found naked and comatose.
But that's just how wild these parties get in the office of the Minister for Defense!

I get that we can all piece everything together with hindsight to be 'slap in the face obvious', but in real time, out of the many things they could have been up to (drinking, having consensual sex, doing drugs, stealing sensitive defence data etc.), it's still low on the probability scale.

All this whilst welfare checks on Higgins had Higgins state that she was fine on the second check.

Expecting people to have assumed that out of the hundreds, if not thousands, of after hour drinks over the years at PH, that this was going to be the one with a sexual assault attached to it is, as I've said, a huge leap.

The notes from the security guards basically confirmed that they thought there was probably drinking and consensual sex and that Higgins was just drunk. It's not unreasonable for people to have assumed that at that time that the odds of an assault having happened would be low.

Anyway, I'm happy to change my opinion if Schaefer's small team of "elite" researchers have uncovered anyone who has made the assumption of a potential sexual assault and then sent in Mr Wolf / Dexter to clean up the crime scene.

 

[Festerz]

The Horseshoe Theory is bullshit,

False Equivalence - cow dung is real.

You 'quote' Lee's findings like a cut out ransom note.

Glorious and spot on.

 

[Underarrest_]

I get that we can all piece everything together with hindsight to be 'slap in the face obvious', but in real time, out of the many things they could have been up to (drinking, having consensual sex, doing drugs, stealing sensitive defence data etc.), it's still low on the probability scale.

All this whilst welfare checks on Higgins had Higgins state that she was fine on the second check.

Expecting people to have assumed that out of the hundreds, if not thousands, of after hour drinks over the years at PH, that this was going to be the one with a sexual assault attached to it is, as I've said, a huge leap.

The notes from the security guards basically confirmed that they thought there was probably drinking and consensual sex and that Higgins was just drunk. It's not unreasonable for people to have assumed that at that time that the odds of an assault having happened would be low.

Anyway, I'm happy to change my opinion if Schaefer's small team of "elite" researchers have uncovered anyone who has made the assumption of a potential sexual assault and then sent in Mr Wolf / Dexter to clean up the crime scene.

‘All this whilst welfare checks on Higgins had Higgins state that she was fine on the second check.’

I feel that’s where this all fell apart.
Receiving I’m ‘ok’ from someone who is passed out on a couch, naked doesn’t cut the chase for a ‘welfare check.’ Security reported the incident up the line but there was no, under what you would find in any policies or procedures of any workplace a ‘welfare check,’ by those who should have had concerns.
If we put the (alledged rape aside) Brittany was left in a vulnerable position and at risk of a possible further ‘incident’ (medical or other,) by being left in that state. IMO.

 

[BFew]

My initial reaction to who this might be was "Rick Morton" and https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/

Rick has just published "Mean Streak" (about Robodebt) https://amzn.asia/d/haPP1og

 

[FIGJAM]

‘All this whilst welfare checks on Higgins had Higgins state that she was fine on the second check.’

I feel that’s where this all fell apart.
Receiving I’m ‘ok’ from someone who is passed out on a couch, naked doesn’t cut the chase for a ‘welfare check.’ Security reported the incident up the line but there was no, under what you would find in any policies or procedures of any workplace a ‘welfare check,’ by those who should have had concerns.
If we put the (alledged rape aside) Brittany was left in a vulnerable position and at risk of a possible further ‘incident’ (medical or other,) by being left in that state. IMO.

I don't disagree with that to be honest. There are plenty of 'learnings' (FKA 'lessons') from this whole incident.

Nikola leaving her there at the 4.30am check in to allow her her dignity (paraphrasing) was for me not something that I would have done.

The second welfare check that got a verbal check of positivity from Higgins was forgivable.

If I was Fiona Brown, I'd have probed a lot harder at the initial meeting with Lehrmann and Higgins and then at the second meeting on the Thursday with Higgins after there was an inference of the fat turd "being on top of me".

But ultimately, what you, I or [insert regular poster from this thread] claim that we would have done, is irrelevant and sometimes egotistical (including myself here, as I assume that I would have probed harder than Brown, or done better with the 4.30am check i....but what if I didn't in reality?).

What we need to understand is that people within this saga have make decisions in real time that are based on the information made available to them at that time.

Some of those decisions will, in hindsight, be sub-optimal. And that's perfectly normal!

At the end of it all, the 'cover-up' focussed security guards, working in cahoots with the DPS, working in cahoots with the incumbent government, who were negatively influencing the AFP to make a young junior staffer to choose between her career and seeking justice by making and pursuing a complaint, is fanciful. That is the ultimate "cover-up narrative" pushed by Higgins, Sharaz, Wilkinson and Maiden, that is pretty much certainly incorrect based on the evidence presented at three trials now.

 

[Kurve]

My initial reaction to who this might be was "Rick Morton" and https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/

Rick has just published "Mean Streak" (about Robodebt) https://amzn.asia/d/haPP1og

Could be and "Mean Streak" is a good title for the cruelty of Robodebt.

Lee's judgement where he states "As we will also see, when examined properly and without partiality, the cover-up allegation was objectively short on facts, but long on speculation and internal inconsistencies – trying to particularise it during the evidence was like trying to grab a column of smoke."

Yet, I can't find Stefanic of DPS or Butler as DOS who objected to Reynold's office being cleaned before the AFP investigated, mentioned anywhere in there.

 

[Underarrest_]

I don't disagree with that to be honest. There are plenty of 'learnings' (FKA 'lessons') from this whole incident.

Nikola leaving her there at the 4.30am check in to allow her her dignity (paraphrasing) was for me not something that I would have done.

The second welfare check that got a verbal check of positivity from Higgins was forgivable.

If I was Fiona Brown, I'd have probed a lot harder at the initial meeting with Lehrmann and Higgins and then at the second meeting on the Thursday with Higgins after there was an inference of the fat turd "being on top of me".

But ultimately, what you, I or [insert regular poster from this thread] claim that we would have done, is irrelevant and sometimes egotistical (including myself here, as I assume that I would have probed harder than Brown, or done better with the 4.30am check i....but what if I didn't in reality?).

What we need to understand is that people within this saga have make decisions in real time that are based on the information made available to them at that time.

Some of those decisions will, in hindsight, be sub-optimal. And that's perfectly normal!

At the end of it all, the security guards, working in cahoots with the DPS, working in cahoots with the incumbent government, who were negatively influencing the AFP to make a young junior staffer to choose between her career and seeking justice by making and pursuing a complaint, is fanciful. That is the ultimate "cover-up narrative" pushed by Higgins, Sharaz, Wilkinson and Maiden, that is pretty much certainly incorrect based on the evidence presented at three trials now.

I don’t think it’s what should have been done but rather commonsense or duty of care and certainly needed to be followed up as soon as security reported it up the chain, long before the first meeting with Brittany. The cover up, I guess that comes from no ‘welfare check’ being done aside from security officers asking if B was ok and then the cleaning the office.
I do ask myself if the question of B being made to make a choice would even be an issue if she was given an opportunity to be supported that morning rather than go home and cry in bed all weekend and force herself back to work. Can this be proven as a cover up, I don’t know, but certainly leaves questions.

 

[BFew]

Bruce predicted to be an unappealing loser again in the below.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/10/25/bruce-lehrmann-brittany-higgins-ten-defamation-appeal/ (https://archive.is/Pvk9F)

'Bruce Lehrmann set to haunt the headlines a whole lot longer'​

'Michael Bradley
Oct 25, 2024
...
The case that launched a thousand Janet Albrechtsen columns is set to bless us with a few hundred more. Bruce Lehrmann will continue to haunt our dreams.
...
I’ll comfortably predict that the appeal will fail; it’s not unarguable, but it entirely misses the point that Lee was making, his logic impeccable and solidly backed by fact.'

 

[FIGJAM]

I don’t think it’s what should have been done but rather commonsense or duty of care and certainly needed to be followed up as soon as security reported it up the chain, long before the first meeting with Brittany.

Underarest_, what you, me or anyone else perceive as "common sense" is through the lens of hindsight. We can't know for sure exactly how we'd have reacted.

The cover up, I guess that comes from no ‘welfare check’ being done aside from security officers asking if B was ok and then the cleaning the office.

Anderson made sure she was OK, then they followed up with a verbal and then they did an after hours clean for a probable after-hours "party" (the "party" sentiment is evidenced in the contemporaneous documents).

None of that has anything to do with the News.com and Project claims that "a young junior staffer was forced to choose between her career and seeking justice by making and pursuing a complaint". That's the "cover-up narrative" referred to by Lee.

I do ask myself if the question of B being made to make a choice would even be an issue if she was given an opportunity to be supported that morning rather than go home and cry in bed all weekend and force herself back to work.

She was checked on at 7am and she said she was OK.

I'm sure there's been many a drunk person who has overshot the alcohol mark and wanted to be left alone (myself included!).

I ask, why is the most reasonable assumption that the worst possible case has occurred by those checking on her? And why should they not listen to her?

 

[Underarrest_]

Underarest_, what you, me or anyone else perceive as "common sense" is through the lens of hindsight. We can't know for sure exactly how we'd have reacted.



Anderson made sure she was OK, then they followed up with a verbal and then they did an after hours clean for a probable after-hours "party" (the "party" sentiment is evidenced in the contemporaneous documents).

None of that has anything to do with the News.com and Project claims that "a young junior staffer was forced to choose between her career and seeking justice by making and pursuing a complaint". That's the "cover-up narrative" referred to by Lee.



She was checked on at 7am and she said she was OK.

I'm sure there's been many a drunk person who has overshot the alcohol mark and wanted to be left alone (myself included!).

I ask, why is the most reasonable assumption that the worst possible case has occurred by those checking on her? And why should they not listen to her?

Figjam, you’re entitled to speak for yourself.
I don’t believe that a young intoxicated woman found naked and alone and the only other person at ‘this party’ in the middle of the night at PH has left the building is the same as passing out because they’ve overshot the alcohol mark.
My personal view of why it’s interlinked with forced to ‘choose between her career and seeking justice’ is because employers were notified of B’s situation but did nothing and if there is ‘an incident’ at PH the AFP are meant to be notified. Even the head of the security team has raised this.

 

[Kurve]

My personal view of why it’s interlinked with forced to ‘choose between her career and seeking justice’ is because employers were notified of B’s situation but did nothing and if there is ‘an incident’ at PH the AFP are meant to be notified. Even the head of the security team has raised this.

Yep, the AFP should have been notified and Linda Reynolds called straight away.

Not even PH but back in the day, similarly where a staff member came in late at night when I was working alone for a big multinational comms company, he must have slipped past me when I was getting coffee, and he entered the managers office next door to mine.

Security got hold of the manager straight away and he drove back from down the coast. Cops were called.

 

[FIGJAM]

Figjam, you’re entitled to speak for yourself.
I don’t believe that a young intoxicated woman found naked and alone and the only other person at ‘this party’ in the middle of the night at PH has left the building is the same as passing out because they’ve overshot the alcohol mark.
My personal view of why it’s interlinked with forced to ‘choose between her career and seeking justice’ is because employers were notified of B’s situation but did nothing and if there is ‘an incident’ at PH the AFP are meant to be notified. Even the head of the security team has raised this.

As are you and you are one of the few in here that don't try to polarise the discussion.

I respect your point of view, even through I have a different point of view.

One of the security guards Mark Fairweather said "I f**king knew it. That’s f**king typical." when confronted with “I found her naked and she had her you-know-what showing." by the 4.30am check in guard Nikola Anderson.

He wasn't talking about a sexual assault being "typical"; he's referring to general shenanigans and not rape. It's important to view their very early morning decisions through that lens IMHO.

 

[Festerz]

Bruce predicted to be an unappealing loser again in the below.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/10/25/bruce-lehrmann-brittany-higgins-ten-defamation-appeal/ (https://archive.is/Pvk9F)

'Bruce Lehrmann set to haunt the headlines a whole lot longer'​

'Michael Bradley
Oct 25, 2024
...
The case that launched a thousand Janet Albrechtsen columns is set to bless us with a few hundred more. Bruce Lehrmann will continue to haunt our dreams.
...
I’ll comfortably predict that the appeal will fail; it’s not unarguable, but it entirely misses the point that Lee was making, his logic impeccable and solidly backed by fact.'

A similar conclusion reached earlier this week by Hannah Marshall in the Saturday Paper, who correctly predicted that Justice Wendy Abraham, would most likely allow Lehrmann's right to appeal on the basis of fairness and the gravity of the findings against him in the Lee judgement. Abraham deciding that Lehrmann should not lose his right to appeal simply because he's impecunious.

Future looks grim for Bruce Lehrmann, ‘arguably Australia’s most hated man’

Bruce Lehrmann’s appeal against his failed defamation case, aiming to rescue his reputation and finances, is a long shot – with a judge deciding whether or not he can even afford it.

www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au

But, as we've discussed, the appeal itself would be tremendously difficult to win. An appeal won’t hear new evidence. An appeal court will be reluctant to overturn the findings on factual matters, like whether Lehrmann r*ped Higgins, because it’s the trial judge and not the appeal court who hears the evidence firsthand.

While segments of Lee's groundmark judgement have predictably been used out of context by some commentators and social media posters to support their political perspectives on certain events subsequent to the alleged rape, there is no doubt that Lee's carefully crafted and considered judgement has been widely heralded in legal circles. As Marshall states in her Saturday Paper article:

"The judgement against Lehrmann sits as a milestone in the pursuit of a better legal system for survivors, adjusting the traditional power balance in defamation cases and pressing for greater responsibility from news publishers who share their stories."

Overturning the core elements of such a widely heralded judgement is a monumental task for Lehrmann and his unpaid and experienced counsel because the underpinning substance of his appeal is centred around whether the truth defence should be overturned. That would mean reversing Lee's finding finding that, on the balance probabilities, Lehrmann r*ped Brittany Higgins at Parliament House in 2019.

Again, from Marshall:

'At trial, Justice Lee’s finding was based on a careful assessment of all the evidence, including his impressions of Lehrmann and Higgins’s respective credibility. Recognising the gravity of his task, he wrote in his judgement, “from the start of this case, I have attempted to ensure as transparent a process as possible, conscious that a trial conducted in public, accessible to the public, and only upon evidence and submissions made fully available to the public, was the best security for confidence of the fair-minded in the impartiality and efficiency of the justice system”.'

The consequences of Lehrmann’s decision to sue for defamation, and then to appeal against his loss, now have wider policy implications for how the community and justice system treats rape survivors.

Edit: Skim read the Bradley article in Crikey prior to my post. Have now had the chance to read it in full and contemplate. It's exceptional in its clarity and going to the essence of the issues. My post adds nothing to what it says. Would urge others to take the time to read from BFew's post.

 

[Underarrest_]

I think where our opinion differs is that I look at it from B’s perspective.
The role of the security guard was not to assume what happened.
I have to say, (and this not directed at yourself) but who the heck was he to assume/say, "I f**king knew it. That’s f**king typical."!!!
Here is a young woman lying on a couch alone in a room when she’d (allegedly) been r*ped.
Unlike MF, the AFP have the skills to assess incidents and or potential crimes. AFP were not notified because security was told not to.
For me, this raises the question, if it was procedure for AFP to be notified of ALL incidents at PH, why weren’t they?

 

[Festerz]

My initial reaction to who this might be was "Rick Morton" and https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/

Rick has just published "Mean Streak" (about Robodebt) https://amzn.asia/d/haPP1og

Could well be. And the Guardian has a string of highly regarded up and coming journalists they link up with including those who write occasional feature articles that would also be well suited to this story.

The credibility of the writer, in terms of their independence and acknowledged capacity to do proper facts-based investigative journalism is key here given the politically charged environment and context that will be under review.

 

[FIGJAM]

I think where our opinion differs is that I look at it from B’s perspective.

I assume that you're talking to me UA?

If so, yes, I prefer to take in everyone's point of view in their decision making to arrive at my conclusions.

The role of the security guard was not to assume what happened.
I have to say, (and this not directed at yourself) but who the heck was he to assume/say, "I f**king knew it. That’s f**king typical."!!!

Because this was all before Milligan's 4Corners story Inside the Canberra Bubble that broke a lot on the general booze and liberal sex culture in PH. Thus to the security guard, such an event was more or less "typical" of the behaviour in that place.

If there was heaps of booze and consensual sex, then the amount of (reported anyway!) rapes in that time would have been proportionate to the amount of next to nothing (or literally nothing). As such, I can't make the same leap of assumption to the security guards assuming that there was a reasonable probability of a sexual assault.

And even those requesting the clean up asked Carlos to check for evidence of a party and condoms. This is evidence of the mindset that nobody assumed anything outside of booze / drugs or consensual sex.

Here is a young woman lying on a couch alone in a room when she’d (allegedly) been r*ped.

There were no allegations of any impropriety by Higgins until the Thursday meeting with Brown (and even then that was vague).

Unlike MF, the AFP have the skills to assess incidents and or potential crimes. AFP were not notified because security was told not to.
For me, this raises the question, if it was procedure for AFP to be notified of ALL incidents at PH, why weren’t they?

I missed the part where the security guards were told not to notify the AFP.

My question is that if there was no claim of a sexual assault, then what exactly is the "incident" / crime. If it's broadly "typical" event at the time for security as per Fairweather, would they have to report every late-night piss up to the AFP?

Brown and Reynolds and others wanting to take Higgins' claim to the story post the Thursday meeting is extremely well documented. One of the few "cover-ups" where almost everyone wanted to report the incident to the police. Brown commendably stood her ground to give Higgins her "agency".

On the whole, whilst there is plenty I would have done differently were I in the place of many of the participants, but that does not a collective conspiracy to cover-up make IMHO.

I'm happy to alter my opinion should there be new and enlightening evidence.

 

[Festerz]

Who could have possibly guessed after her unwavering screeching public support for Bruce Lehrmann and Linda Reynolds?

In her latest commentary for the Australian newspaper, Janet Albrechtsen preaching about the need for Australia to adopt US/Trumpian style judicial reform, claiming Australian lawyers and legal profession are too lefty.

 

[GrayRanga]

Who could have possibly guessed after her unwavering screeching public support for Bruce Lehrmann and Linda Reynolds?

In her latest commentary for the Australian newspaper, Janet Albrechtsen preaching about the need for Australia to adopt US/Trumpian style judicial reform, claiming Australian lawyers and legal profession are too lefty.

View attachment 2152156

And this is person with a Doctor of Juridical Science from the University of Sydney and lectured at the University of Sydney Law School.

I did note that on her CV on Wikipedia there is no reference to the usual prerequisites for elevation to the Judiciary, like pro bono work with Redfern Legal Aid or work ensuring that access to legal assistance to both rich and poor is eqitable

Lots of details about her work with the IPA or Coalition appointments to various bodies with undue influence in Australian society