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

 

[Lady O]

I don’t agree with Reynolds’ inference today about Kimberley Kitching that that period of her helping Reynolds out “led” to her death (even if there was some broader potential cause and effect attached to it).

Do you honestly believe that the "mean girls" did not find out that Kitching warned Reynolds about their plan to ambush her?

 

[FIGJAM]

Do you honestly believe that the "mean girls" did not find out that Kitching warned Reynolds about their plan to ambush her?

No, that definitely happened.

It is the escalation to it "leading" to death that is OTT.

 

[Festerz]

You realise, that is a totally different matter in a completely different jurisdiction about a totally different defamation action bought by totally different parties in relation to totally different acusations.

Lehrmann has never been convicted of a charge of rape before a Criminal Court and he is not a convicted criminal (yet).

Therefore, his Criminal precedents cannot be taken into account by the Court

The Judge in WA is only determining whether Reynolds has been defamed by Higgins and Sharaz, and if so, determining whether a financial payment will address the damage to her reputation and determining the amount involved to appease the damage

Both parties may seem to see fit to mention Lees' findings to the Court to promote their case

However, WA judge may totally ignore Lee's determination in the Civil case and his conclusions if he does not consider it relevant to the matter under determination.

Spot on.

Lee's determination in the Federal Court action of Lehrmann v Network Ten and others has no legal bearing on Reynolds action in the WA Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, it's been entertaining seeing sections of the Lee J. judgement continually re-quoted out of context as if it was precedent and fact. Especially on a footy forum.

Let's be clear here. Reynolds is still in the box seat to win her unprecedented defamation action here given Australian defamation laws and what was contained in the social media texts, especially of Mr Sharaz. And we have yet to hear from other witnesses, including Ms Higgins who I'm sure will be made to look as shaky in the clarity and reliability of her evidence in relation to the cover up claims as she did in the Lehrmann defamation trial.

But imho what chance is there of Senator Reynolds leaving court having restored her reputation, which she claims is her reason for mounting this vindictive show trial?

In the words of The Castle...'Tell her she's dreaming'.

A truly pyrrhic victory regardless how many pieces of silver she manages to grab from her victim.

 

[Lady O]

Did Justice Lee suggest Higgins was knowingly lying to promote the cover up narrative of her rape?

As near as damn is to swearing!

"Justice Lee had been critical of Ms Higgins's claims there had been a cover-up , particularly as it related to Senator Reynolds and Ms Brown."

'No judgment was ever going to change this truth': Brittany Higgins breaks silence after Lehrmann defamation case

Brittany Higgins has posted a statement following last week's judgment in Bruce Lehrmann's defamation case. Justice Michael Lee found Ms Higgins was r*ped at Parliament House.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Kurve]

As near as damn is to swearing!

"Justice Lee had been critical of Ms Higgins's claims there had been a cover-up , particularly as it related to Senator Reynolds and Ms Brown."

'No judgment was ever going to change this truth': Brittany Higgins breaks silence after Lehrmann defamation case

Brittany Higgins has posted a statement following last week's judgment in Bruce Lehrmann's defamation case. Justice Michael Lee found Ms Higgins was r*ped at Parliament House.

www.abc.net.au

I'm not sure he went as far to say Higgins was lying about it and she knew it.

 

[Lady O]

No, that definitely happened.

It is the escalation to it "leading" to death that is OTT.

I don't think so. If you have ever suffered bullying by colleagues, you would know how stressful it is. It would have a detrimental effect on a person who was in poor health, (high blood pressure, heart condition). It is not inconceivable that it could result in a heart attack/cardiac arrest.

 

[Lady O]

I'm not sure he went as far to say Higgins was lying about it and she knew it.

Well he found it didn't happen didn't he? Ergo, she was lying.

 

[Kurve]

Well he found it didn't happen didn't he? Ergo, she was lying.

Would he find Reynolds is lying with her new claim that Kitching's knowledge of the rape allegation led to her death?

 

[Lady O]

Is he also going to Would he find Reynolds is lying with her new claim that Kitching's knowledge of the rape allegation led to her death?

Don't think he is working on this one. Let's see what Judge Tottle finds.

 

[Kurve]

Don't think he is working on this one. Let's see what Judge Tottle finds.

I edited.

Let's be consistent. Absent any evidence whatsoever of bullying in PH contributing to Kitching's death, there is no other way to frame it, Reynolds is lying.

 

[Festerz]

I don't think so. If you have ever suffered bullying by colleagues, you would know how stressful it is. It would have a detrimental effect on a person who was in poor health, (high blood pressure, heart condition). It is not inconceivable that it could result in a heart attack/cardiac arrest.

How does that compare to say, being r*ped by a colleague in your bosses office and being dis-believed. Including by the police officers who state they will resign if the allegation is prosecuted?

Asking for context.

Because one actually happened. On a national scale, on social media and elsewhere including in this thread. Documented.

The other is just (potentially) supposition for effect.

But now your heart is bleeding for the potential damage of an unverified and unverifiable claim made by a Liberal Senator for a deceased Labor Senator as part of her personal legal claim for damages?

GTFO with your partisan BS masquerading as caring.

 

[Kurve]

A fundraiser just launched, and Reynolds team has subpoena'd all exchanges between Higgins and the fundraising page.

It's raised over $33,000 already.

Higgins’ communications with fundraising page subpoenaed by Reynolds’ legal team – as it happened

All the day’s news as it unfolded

www.theguardian.com

 

[Lady O]

I edited.

Let's be consistent. Absent any evidence whatsoever of bullying in PH contributing to Kitching's death, there is no other way to frame it, Reynolds is lying.

"Andrew Landeryou has revealed he worked hard to “forgive everyone” following the shock death of his late wife, Labor Senator Kimberley Kitching.
Ms Kitching died suddenly in March last year of a heart attack, after weeks of telling friends and family she was under stress due to a pre-selection battle and mistreatment from several high-profile Labor senators.

The Labor senators, who Ms Kitching had referred to privately as the “mean girls”, were Penny Wong, Katy Gallagher and Kristina Keneally."
“There’s a lot I could say about the unpleasantness of a cantankerous cabal – not all of them in parliament – that was aimed at Kimba, and the intensity of it did baffle and hurt her,” he said in the eulogy".

I think her husband is pretty clear that the "cantankerous cabal" was the cause of her death. So are you are saying, the mistreatment of her by the mean girls (and others) had nothing to do with Reynolds?

 

[Festerz]

“There’s a lot I could say about the unpleasantness of a cantankerous cabal – not all of them in parliament – that was aimed at Kimba, and the intensity of it did baffle and hurt her,” he said in the eulogy".

So that's what it's come to - the clawing over the carcass of a deceased female co-Senator to claim superiority for a personal damages claim. Quoting from eulogies out of context. Seriously? Shame on you.

Tell us again how Liberal Senator Reynolds is a 'passionate champion for gender equality and female empowerment in politics and in society more generally' (from https://www.lindareynolds.com.au/issues/womens-engagement/) when your post is an example of how her supporters respond in on line forums.

BTW: The late Labor Senator Kimberley Kitching refuted Liberal Minister Linda Reynolds’ claim of an orchestrated Labor plot to exploit Brittany Higgins’ rape allegation for political gain in a letter written before her death.

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/late-senator-refuted-linda-reynolds-higgins-claim-in-letter-before-her-death/news-story/15f2ef2639c5e11adf2b14332613cd8d

 

[Kurve]

I think her husband is pretty clear that the "cantankerous cabal" was the cause of her death. So are you are saying, the mistreatment of her by the mean girls (and others) had nothing to do with Reynolds?

No, it isn't clear to me at all that Landeryou is blaming this cabal, who he says not all were in Parliament, for his wife's death. Of course he is free to infer it in expressing his grief and the state of her worklife at the time she passed, but he can't make that call either as a fact.

 

[Kurve]

BTW: The late Labor Senator Kimberley Kitching refuted Liberal Minister Linda Reynolds’ claim of an orchestrated Labor plot to exploit Brittany Higgins’ rape allegation for political gain in a letter written before her death.

https://www.news.com.au/national/po...h/news-story/15f2ef2639c5e11adf2b14332613cd8d

Kitching is essentially saying she was set up by Reynolds.

“As I stated during our meeting, I can assure you this report of what is said to be Senator Reynolds’ claim is false,” Senator Kitching wrote.

Senator Kitching said prior to the issue becoming public she never knew Brittany Higgins’ name and denied she had told Senator Reynolds that Labor planned to exploit the issue.

“Simply put, it is not possible to divulge information to anyone about a matter of which I had no knowledge,” she wrote.

“I had never heard of Ms Brittany Higgins or Senator Reynolds’ involvement in her story until it was first reported on 15 February 2021 on news.com.au.

“Moreover, it is not possible to divulge a secret plan which did not actually exist. It has not been Senator Wong’s practice to divulge her secret plans, if she ever has any, to me. I am not in the habit of confiding with Senator Wong either.”

 

[Festerz]

Kitching is essentially saying she was set up by Reynolds.

Yeah. The whole thing is nasty and unsavoury. I can only imagine what Ms Kitching's family and friends think about having their colleague, friend and family member's name dragged through the courts like this.

 

[Kurve]

BTW: The late Labor Senator Kimberley Kitching refuted Liberal Minister Linda Reynolds’ claim of an orchestrated Labor plot to exploit Brittany Higgins’ rape allegation for political gain in a letter written before her death.

I wonder if Reynolds has actually ever looked at herself and the role she played in adding to Kitching's stress?

Whether it was true or not, she threw Kitching right under a bus.

 

[Festerz]

 

[FIGJAM]

Even Fiona Brown was smashed in here as not being ‘hard enough’ as a Chief of Staff by the usual suspects...

Where? Point me to one post thanks.

You can revisit the whole exchange between myself and Festerz from the Part 1 of this Thread that directly surrounds the expectations on what Brown should have known and how hard she should have gone after the first meeting:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...ped-ms-higgins.1255847/page-352#post-82084962

Worth reading the whole exchange, but here are some select bits.

FIGJAM said:
Ultimately that is just your opinion based upon how you think someone else should have reacted under the scenario.

I'd have reacted quite differently to Brown, because I'm like a bull in a China shop in how I deal with staff. I'd be asking Bruce questions about if they went back there to smash lines of Charlie and/or if sex happened. It's in my nature to do that. I wouldn't have suspected in the slightest at that point that there was a possible assault.

You'd have reacted differently too. But so what?! This isn't about you and me.

Brown went strictly by the HR/Dept Finance book of questions because that's her nature. She shouldn't be penalised on a preliminary fact gathering interview for what she did or didn't find out from the DOF questions. She's softly spoken, reserved in nature and believed both parties' versions of the truth on Tuesday the 26th. Brown escalated things the minute she had suspicions of a potential assault, which was on Thursday the 28th. Brown's response wasn't unreasonable under the circumstances.

This juxtaposition of Brown being 'too soft' in asking questions and clearly being a quietly spoken woman, who actually read between the lines that an assault probably took place and that she became a "cold, heartless defender of the Liberal brand" is a ****ing weird angle from the "definite obstruction of justice" tribe. And it's one frankly not supported by the evidence.

Festerz said:

Surely this is a troll post?

Who gives a flying feck about how loud her voice is or whether she is 'reserved in nature' or has a voice like a screaming banshee and fronts a notorious heavy metal band that plays gigs at nudist camps in Canberra on weekends - it is irrelevant.

FFS - she was the $200k/year Chief of Staff of the Australian Defence Minister, not some teenage work experience kid. As Chief of Staff she has clear legislated responsibilities as a senior workplace manager under OH&S legislation for the staff under her management within Parliament House.

Interestingly, I agree with Festerz here in that we should have regard for what Justice Lee things was reasonable:

Festerz said:
And what matters for this trial is what Justice Lee thinks was reasonable.

I think his intervention in responding to Ms Brown's 'I'm not an investigator' comment shows exactly where HIS thinking is on the matter:

“You knew their age, you knew they came back intoxicated, you understood they’d been drinking whisky, and you understood she’d been found naked. Putting those things together, would it be right to say you think it would be more likely than not they had had sex?”

And here is what Justice Lee thought was reasonable:

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 her circumspection was given genuinely, and this reflected what the contemporaneous record demonstrates was her guarded personality and careful, even pedantic, approach.

272 She was not someone to speculate or jump to conclusions and I reject any suggestion Ms Higgins expressly said to Ms Brown at either their first or second meeting that she had been r*ped or sexually assaulted. As Ms Higgins later said to Ms Maiden (Ex 50 (at 12)):

I don’t know, I think for like the longest time I was really weird about actually saying it was rape, I couldn’t ... I don’t know why but I was really delicate around that whole subject. So maybe I didn't say to her directly that he was raping me... he was on top of me and I just ... And from our exchange, I think she understood the inference of what was being made.

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.

274 But what does not reflect caution was standing up to her Minister and the Chief of Staff of another Minister when Ms Brown thought they were intent on protecting their own interests at the expense of allowing a young woman to make her own decision as to whether she would involve the police – even at some risk to her professional career. This showed integrity in resisting pressure she subjectively considered inappropriate and evinced a concern for the autonomy and welfare of Ms Higgins. In these circumstances, to be later vilified as an unfeeling apparatchik willing to throw up roadblocks in covering up criminal conduct at the behest of one’s political overlords must be worse than galling.

275 The attempts in cross-examination to impeach the integrity of Ms Brown’s contemporaneous note taking went nowhere. The contemporaneous record supports the notes being prepared when and how Ms Brown said they were prepared. They do not purport to record everything, but only what was regarded then to be the key points. They are, like in so many cases where there is an honest and careful note taker, the best record of the dealings they document, rather than later recollections. They are of such importance that I reproduce them as Annexure B to these reasons, and I find that to the extent they record the dealings of Ms Brown, they are accurate and reliable. Further, to the extent there is a conflict between those notes and the evidence of Ms Brown with that of Mr Lehrmann, I unhesitatingly prefer the evidence of Ms Brown; the same goes for any conflict between the evidence of Ms Brown or the notes with that of Ms Higgins.

Lee's comments on Brown were telling and commendably showed a high degree of empathy for Brown:

268 I had the opportunity of closely observing Ms Brown giving evidence over two days for approximately five hours. Without any intended disrespect or (I hope) stereotyping, Ms Brown struck me as an archetype of a successful professional administrator of a certain age and disposition. She had a conservative outlook and conducted herself in a careful and (generally) risk adverse way. Despite having her health seriously affected by allegations of shameful conduct and (like the other principal actors) experiencing a torrent of social media abuse, she gave evidence in a calm way, and was responsive to questions.

 

[Festerz]

A quick reminder of what are the basics of this trial. The Age reporting that the costs of Brittany Higgins in defending this action from her former boss are already in excess of $1m..


For the past year, Reynolds has been pursuing Higgins for damages as well as aggravated damages over several social media posts in which she claims she was accused of using the media to harass her former staffer.

Reynolds claims the posts were false and defamatory of her, brought her into public hatred and damaged her physical and mental health.

Higgins is vigorously defending the claim on the basis the imputations of harassment and the mishandling of her alleged rape are true.

The former staffer allegedly sold her home in France to bankroll the legal fees, which are already understood to be in the order of $1 million.

‘This is difficult’: Reynolds’ shock testimony about political firestorm of 2021

Linda Reynolds took a break from questioning after recalling a warning from late Victorian senator Kimberley Kitching that Labor intended to “rain hell” on her over Brittany Higgins’ alleged rape – before making the extraordinary claim the saga led to Kitching’s death.

www.theage.com.au

 

[MPMonkeys]

Nobody said 'Suck it up princess!' but either you're incredibly naive or playing games in here suggesting that politicians who make it to the top are soft because they're not.

You've taken something I posted and run way too far with it. We're also not criticising Reynolds for being upset, she's being criticised for taking a rape victim all the way to the Supreme Court, dragging it on and on and suing her for defamation.

Linda Reynolds is her own worst enemy.

Just because she is a victim does not mean she is a saint. Can Higgins get away with anything because she is a victim? When does this nominal statute of limitations expire?

Reynolds is perfectly entitled to sue for defamation as is the right for every Australian.

This infantalising of Higgins is annoying. She is a married woman in her mid twenties who is expecting a baby. She is not some teenage girl who left school in Year 8. If she wants to play adult games by going to the media instead of the police then she has to face adult consequences.

 

[Kurve]

You can revisit the whole exchange between myself and Festerz from the Part 1 of this Thread that directly surrounds the expectations on what Brown should have known and how hard she should have gone after the first meeting:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...ped-ms-higgins.1255847/page-352#post-82084962

Worth reading the whole exchange, but here are some select bits.





Interestingly, I agree with Festerz here in that we should have regard for what Justice Lee things was reasonable:



And here is what Justice Lee thought was reasonable:



Lee's comments on Brown were telling and commendably showed a high degree of empathy for Brown:

All that is not being "smashed".

It's reasonable to expect Brown's role would be examined.

 

[Kurve]

Just because she is a victim does not mean she is a saint. Can Higgins get away with anything because she is a victim? When does this nominal statute of limitations expire?

Reynolds is perfectly entitled to sue for defamation as is the right for every Australian.

This infantalising of Higgins is annoying. She is a married woman in her mid twenties who is expecting a baby. She is not some teenage girl who left school in Year 8. If she wants to play adult games by going to the media instead of the police then she has to face adult consequences.

More hyperbole and over-excited exaggerations.

 

[MPMonkeys]

More hyperbole and over-excited exaggerations.

Your criticism of Reynolds was that she was 'taking a rape victim all the way to the Supreme Court'. So I pose the question, does Higgins get a leave pass from any legal consequences and how long does this leave pass last for? If there is no leave pass, then why say 'rape victim'. Its de-humanising is it not?

Also, you can't have an over-excited exaggeration. For there to be an over-excited exaggeration there must by definition be an under-excited exaggeration. But I am quibbling.