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]

Jesus! I think I'd have dealt with the "lying cow" commentary with a bit more nuance than Bennett there...

I'm not sure I recall these oft quoted phrases attributed to Reynolds by Higgins as being denied by Reynolds:



I can only assume that Fiona Brown will back up Reynolds on this.

Why would Higgins make up the bit where Reynolds says "I'm sorry that happened to you." because that indicates a level of support.

I call BS, Higgins probably didn't make that up.

 

[FIGJAM]

Why would Higgins make up the bit where Reynolds says "I'm sorry that happened to you." because that indicates a level of support.

I call BS, Higgins probably didn't make that up.

The one person who might be able to clear that up is Fiona Brown and her appearance (or otherwise) could be delayed due to "ongoing medical treatment".

This whole shebang really is one of the more ill advised things that I've seen. Even more so than Bruce's, because they collectively should have learned a lesson from that trial as to how ****ing brutal these lawyers are going to be.

 

[Kurve]

Today and further to Higgins social media reaction to Reynolds targeting her for harassment.

Reynolds has no leg to stand on imo with regard her claim she wasn't aware of Higgins alleged rape April 1 when Fiona Brown's notes clearly indicate that she was aware as her and Brown had a discussion about going behind Higgins back and reporting the incident as a criminal offence taken place, to the AFP.

She said she would present a case demonstrating that claims that Reynolds was not aware of Higgins’ alleged rape by 1 April 2019 were “not credible” and that claims of a conspiracy to ambush the senator were wrong.

It is plain to me, that this act by Reynolds as Minister for Defence, was very specifically aimed at Higgins to undermine her work and to express her displeasure at Higgins conduct. Add to that the repeated leaking of confidential documents to Albrechtsen and it certainly looks like harassment to me.

Young also pointed to a submission to the ACT board of inquiry to allege Reynolds was trying to “silence” sexual assault victims.

Reynolds’ submission, shown to the court, read: “Individuals should be deterred from using the media and or parliament forums [sic] to advance their own interests in relation to an alleged criminal offence that ought properly to be the subject of the criminal justice processes.”

Linda Reynolds tells defamation trial why Brittany Higgins meeting was held in room where staffer was allegedly raped

Western Australian senator is suing Brittany Higgins over social media posts she alleges damaged her reputation

www.theguardian.com

 

[Satan]

#Stand With Brittany Higgins

#STAND WITH BRITTANY HIGGINS

chuffed.org

 

[FIGJAM]

Higgins' crew have said "New ref! Nil all!!" and are running the exact same arguments as the first civil trial.

They're banking on Justice Tottle disagreeing with Justice Lee.

Reynolds has no leg to stand on imo with regard her claim she wasn't aware of Higgins alleged rape April 1 when Fiona Brown's notes clearly indicate that she was aware as her and Brown had a discussion about going behind Higgins back and reporting the incident as a criminal offence taken place, to the AFP.

She said she would present a case demonstrating that claims that Reynolds was not aware of Higgins’ alleged rape by 1 April 2019 were “not credible” and that claims of a conspiracy to ambush the senator were wrong.
It is plain to me, that this act by Reynolds as Minister for Defence, was very specifically aimed at Higgins to undermine her work and to express her displeasure at Higgins conduct.

Nah, plain to me that Reynolds was covering her arse by trying to do things too far by the book. Brown commendably told her to hold off.

Brown and Reynolds no doubt had their suspicions after the Thursday meeting with Brown, but didn't know anything for sure.

Notwithstanding the above, the key issue here isn't 'did Reynolds stuff some shit up and/or slightly mismanage the things', it is 'did she bully Higgins into choosing between her career and a rape charge'. Justice Lee said the following:

666 One of the most topsy-turvy aspects of this case is that putting what occurred at this meeting and the events of the preceding days together, a clear picture emerges, but it is entirely at odds with the notion of an attempt being made to cover up an allegation of rape by discouraging it to be reported to the police.

667 Indeed, I am comfortably satisfied that the Minister considered it would protect her personal interests that the very opposite occur. She wanted the incident to be reported to the police and was doing what she could to encourage Ms Higgins to see the AFP, having failed in her attempt to direct Ms Brown to report the incident the previous Friday. As I said during the hearing, it is the only alleged cover-up of which I am aware where those said to be responsible for the covering up were almost insisting the complainant to go to the police.

Another thing that is also important on this non issue, is to remind yourself that Higgins had literally zero knowledge of Reynolds wanting to have reported it to (or at least word up) the police before the April 1, 2019 meeting, until 2023 and some 2+ years after The Project article, so it's not acceptable evidence of a "power play" or bullying by Reynolds when viewed through that lens.

 

[Kurve]

Another thing that is also important on this non issue, is to remind yourself that Higgins had literally zero knowledge of Reynolds wanting to have reported it to (or at least word up) the police before the April 1, 2019 meeting, until 2023 and some 2+ years after The Project article, so it's not acceptable evidence of a "power play" or bullying by Reynolds when viewed through that lens.

I wasn't suggesting the 29h March notes made by Brown factors in to evidence of bullying, it merely goes to Reynold's lapse that she had no inkling of a crime having been committed in her office. That there was a 'heated' discussion between her and Brown about contacting the police indicates she was aware.

 

[FIGJAM]

I wasn't suggesting the 29h March notes made by Brown factors in to evidence of bullying, it merely goes to Reynold's lapse that she had no inkling of a crime having been committed in her office. That there was a 'heated' discussion between her and Brown about contacting the police indicates she was aware.

"Aware" and "suspected" are two completely different things.

I've had this discussion before with yourself and Festerz, that you can't project your own thoughts on how you think you should respond on others.

From Justice Lee said about Brown:

271 We are not all the same. I have no doubt that if apprised of the information identified above, many in her place would have concluded that sex had taken place with a question mark hovering over consent. For all I know, the Senator (who was not called), may have done so by this time and I suspect that is the conclusion I would have drawn. But I accept Ms Brown’s evidence of hercircumspection was given genuinely, and this reflected what the contemporaneous record demonstrates was her guarded personality and careful, even pedantic, approach.

And:

273 She did not draw a definitive conclusion in the light of the ambiguous words used by Ms Higgins – she adopted the more cautious view that sex and something untoward may have happened.

Maybe Reynolds had a more definitive suspicion, but ultimately it's rats and mice semantics. None of it was ever in the domain of Higgins' knowledge before 2023. None of it shows that she was pressured to choose between her career and taking the investigation to the police.

Again, Reynolds and Brown bloody well argued over taking here to the police, then bloody well took her there!

Mismanagement? Bullying? What a load of shit!

 

[Kurve]

"Aware" and "suspected" are two completely different things.

I've had this discussion before with yourself and Festerz, that you can't project your own thoughts on how you think you should respond on others.

From Justice Lee said about Brown:



And:



Maybe Reynolds had a more definitive suspicion, but ultimately it's rats and mice semantics. None of it was ever in the domain of Higgins' knowledge before 2023. None of it shows that she was pressured to choose between her career and taking the investigation to the police.

Again, Reynolds and Brown bloody well argued over taking here to the police, then bloody well took her there!

Mismanagement? Bullying? What a load of shit!

They didn't argue over taking her to the police, they argued about going behind Higgins back and reporting it to the police 'low key' and without Higgins knowledge, before the 1st April.

 

[Kurve]

"Aware" and "suspected" are two completely different things.

I've had this discussion before with yourself and Festerz, that you can't project your own thoughts on how you think you should respond on others.

What? I didn't do that.

Read it again. I said it indicated they were both aware that a crime had probably been committed or they wouldn't even be thinking about going behind Higgins back and reporting it to the AFP!

 

[FIGJAM]

They didn't argue over taking her to the police, they argued about going behind Higgins back and reporting it to the police 'low key' and without Higgins knowledge, before the 1st April.

What is your problem with this? They’re having a discussion on how best to handle a scenario that most of us will never have to deal with.

It’s literal evidence that they did not put pressure on Higgins in any way. But if you disagree with that assessment, then it was put on the exact opposite way that Higgins said it was!

 

[Kurve]

What is your problem with this? They’re having a discussion on how best to handle a scenario that most of us will never have to deal with.

It’s literal evidence that they did not put pressure on Higgins in any way. But if you disagree with that assessment, then it was put on the exact opposite way that Higgins said it was!

Higgins defence is using this, I dont have a problem with it.

New trial, new judge, there will be a much harder look at this since the question of rape has been determined.

 

[FIGJAM]

New trial, new judge, there will be a much harder look at this since the question of rape has been determined.

Justice Lee had very hard look at this and determined that a rape had probably occurred.

He also concluded that Higgins had not been pressured into withdrawing her police complaint and that there is contemporaneous evidence that she never had any intent with going through with the first police complaint in the first place.

But I agree with you in that "New ref! Nil all!!" is the approach. Might get lucky!

 

[CD Xbow]

Sofronoff hasn't done anything wrong. He'll be fine.

Given he has already been censured for his behaviour wrt his report and appears to be under investigation for corruption your confidence is surprising.
I think The Soff has given his final report.

 

[Thats Ambitious]

What is your problem with this? They’re having a discussion on how best to handle a scenario that most of us will never have to deal with.

It’s literal evidence that they did not put pressure on Higgins in any way. But if you disagree with that assessment, then it was put on the exact opposite way that Higgins said it was!

Why would Reynolds be pushing to report the incident to police if she didnt 'know anything for sure'?

Doesnt this undermine Reynolds' claim that she was not aware prior to the meeting in the office where Higgins was, on the balance of probabilities, r*ped?

 

[Kurve]

Justice Lee had very hard look at this and determined that a rape had probably occurred.

It was his job to adjudicate on Wilkinson's truth defence and the question of rape. It wasn't his job to adjudicate on anything else.

 

[FIGJAM]

Why would Reynolds be pushing to report the incident to police if she didnt 'know anything for sure'?

As stated above by Justice Lee, it was to "protect her interests" in the event that there was a claim of a rape during the meeting.

On the Tuesday meeting with Brown, there was no mention of anything.

The Thursday meeting, the "on top of me" claim came about.

Not a heap of info to go on at this point!

As stated by Lee above, Brown took a conservative approach to the possibility of an assault, stating that it may have happened. I suspect Reynolds' and the other staffer who's name escapes me was a bit stronger, but both ultimately were running on hunches and reacting in their own ways.

At the end of the day though, whilst Brown and Reynolds and others would do differently if they had their time again (the location of meeting the most obvious faceplant!), there was nothing but evidence that they were trying to help Higgins out, actively pushed to take the matter to the authorities early and then literally took her to the authorities.

 

[FIGJAM]

It was his job to adjudicate on Wilkinson's truth defence and the question of rape. It wasn't his job to adjudicate on anything else.

It was literally his job to test the veracity of the claims made by Higgins and broadcast by Network 10 and Wilkinson.

2 The result is best characterised as the respondents overcoming a misconceived claim in relation to a broadcast because they were able to prove at trial the substantial truth of what the contemporaneous material demonstrates they considered to be the less substantial allegation made in the broadcast.

To rephrase this; Network 10 are lucky that Justice Lee could support that a rape probably happened, because they were otherwise pedalling a story that "staffer asked to choose between her career and pursuing charges against a rapist" had literally no merit.

And to reiterate Lee's findings; The Project and Wilkinson demonstrably considered the rape to be the less important component of the story. Let that sink in for a bit!

 

[Kurve]

And to reiterate Lee's findings; The Project and Wilkinson demonstrably considered the rape to be the less important component of the story. Let that sink in for a bit!

I believe Higgins complained about that publicly, which will be to her benefit.

 

[FIGJAM]

I believe Higgins complained about that publicly, which will be to her benefit.

She was the one who laid the claims that she was forced to choose between her job and a rape allegation to both The Project and Maiden, which was detrimental to her credibility with the police (the second time around), the criminal trial and Justice Lee wrote a mountain on the false narrative and Higgins’ credibility. I can’t see how she palms off these claims into the media and hope it benefits her.

 

[Kurve]

It was literally his job to test the veracity of the claims made by Higgins and broadcast by Network 10 and Wilkinson.

'Adjudicate' was the important word there.

 

[Kurve]

She was the one who laid the claims that she was forced to choose between her job and a rape allegation to both The Project and Maiden, which was detrimental to her credibility with the police (the second time around), the criminal trial and Justice Lee wrote a mountain on the false narrative and Higgins’ credibility. I can’t see how she palms off these claims into the media and hope it benefits her.

Can you address what I drew attention to? Did Higgins or did Higgins not complain about Wilkinson and what her focus was?

 

[FIGJAM]

Did Higgins or did Higgins not complain about Wilkinson and what her focus was?

I recall Higgins complaining about Wilkinson and Maiden arguing about who got the scoop, but not whether the scoop was too focused on the false allegations of a political cover up or not.

If Higgins has wound back her claim that there was pressure on her to no proceed with the rape charge, then I can't say that I can recall it.

 

[Lady O]

I recall Higgins complaining about Wilkinson and Maiden arguing about who got the scoop, but not whether the scoop was too focused on the false allegations of a political cover up or not.

If Higgins has wound back her claim that there was pressure on her to no proceed with the rape charge, then I can't say that I can recall it.

"The largest roar of “Shame!” from the crowd came when Brittany Higgins claimed the Morrison government had tried to cover up her rape.
She said people she had previously considered to be “my family” suddenly treated her differently.
“I wasn’t a person who had just gone through a life-changing traumatic event, I was a political problem,” she said.
It fed into a broader narrative that was incredibly damaging for the Morrison government.
The fact now proven in a civil court that Brittany Higgins had indeed been r*ped inside a minister’s office at Parliament House was shocking enough.
But her allegation that ministers and advisers right up to the prime minister’s office had then tried to cover it up and discourage her from speaking to the police or publicly about her ordeal was political dynamite.
Sensationally, Justice Michael Lee has now found it was also untrue.
“When examined properly and without partiality, the cover-up allegation was objectively short on facts but long on speculation and internal inconsistencies,” he said.
“Trying to particularise it during the evidence was like trying to grab a column of smoke.”

The now-revealed falsity of a cover-up also helped justify the Albanese Government’s decision to award Ms Higgins more than $2.3 million in compensation.

The judge found that the cover-up narrative was pushed by people around Ms Higgins, including her partner, David Sharaz, the presenter of Network Ten’s The Project program, Lisa Wilkinson, and News Corp journalist Samantha Maiden, who broke the rape story.
Ms Wilkinson won a Logie award for her interview with Ms Higgins. Ms Maiden won Australian journalism’s highest award, the Gold Walkley.
Justice Lee found in his judgment: “The publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice won The Project team — like Ms Maiden — a glittering prize; but when the accusation is examined properly it was supposition without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact.”

 

[Kurve]

I recall Higgins complaining about Wilkinson and Maiden arguing about who got the scoop, but not whether the scoop was too focused on the false allegations of a political cover up or not.

If Higgins has wound back her claim that there was pressure on her to no proceed with the rape charge, then I can't say that I can recall it.

I don't recall it that way, she actually said it wasn't about the actual rape and that it became about something else and that it was specific to Wilkinson.

 

[Kurve]

"The largest roar of “Shame!” from the crowd came when Brittany Higgins claimed the Morrison government had tried to cover up her rape.
She said people she had previously considered to be “my family” suddenly treated her differently.
“I wasn’t a person who had just gone through a life-changing traumatic event, I was a political problem,” she said.
It fed into a broader narrative that was incredibly damaging for the Morrison government.
The fact now proven in a civil court that Brittany Higgins had indeed been r*ped inside a minister’s office at Parliament House was shocking enough.
But her allegation that ministers and advisers right up to the prime minister’s office had then tried to cover it up and discourage her from speaking to the police or publicly about her ordeal was political dynamite.
Sensationally, Justice Michael Lee has now found it was also untrue.
“When examined properly and without partiality, the cover-up allegation was objectively short on facts but long on speculation and internal inconsistencies,” he said.
“Trying to particularise it during the evidence was like trying to grab a column of smoke.”


The judge found that the cover-up narrative was pushed by people around Ms Higgins, including her partner, David Sharaz, the presenter of Network Ten’s The Project program, Lisa Wilkinson, and News Corp journalist Samantha Maiden, who broke the rape story.
Ms Wilkinson won a Logie award for her interview with Ms Higgins. Ms Maiden won Australian journalism’s highest award, the Gold Walkley.
Justice Lee found in his judgment: “The publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice won The Project team — like Ms Maiden — a glittering prize; but when the accusation is examined properly it was supposition without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact.”

Do you have the link?