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]

Reynolds was paid out $90k compensation when Drumgold claimed her behaviour through the rape trial was disturbing and Higgins defence might be seeking to prove it actually WAS disturbing. I think people should stop paying her out to simply go away.

Sarah Basford Canales
Higgins’ lawyer begins cross-examination of Reynolds

Brittany Higgins’ lawyer, Rachael Young SC, has begun her cross-examination of Linda Reynolds and is asking about her settlement on other defamation actions arising from Higgins going public with her allegations.

Reynolds posted a statement on her Facebook page on 4 March 2024 that she had settled with the ACT government over a letter published in the Guardian written by its former director of public prosecutions.


Linda Reynolds receives $90,000 defamation settlement over former ACT DPP’s Lehrmann trial comments
Read more
In the post, Young showed the court Reynolds had said: “This settlement is the fifth defamation claim I have resolved to my satisfaction.”

Young asked Reynolds to outline what the other four settlements were. Reynolds said she had settled with online publications, The Spectator and The Independent. The senator said she believed a settlement against the journalist, Aaron Patrick, and his publisher, Harper Collins, over a book Patrick published were separate.

Young requested the production of concerns notices, settlement deeds and any other court documents produced.

The hearing continues.

Via The Guardian Live

 

[Kurve]

 

[BFew]

Reynolds about to face a defamation lawsuit from a fair Maiden?

Linda Reynolds praises ‘fair and balanced’ Albrechtsen – but reveals she is no fan of Samantha Maiden | Weekly Beast

Liberal senator gives evidence at defamation trial about why she chose to leak confidential information to the Australian columnist. Plus: Four Corners to air exposé on Seven

www.theguardian.com

'Linda Reynolds praises ‘fair and balanced’ Albrechtsen – but reveals she is no fan of Samantha Maiden'

'Reynolds said Maiden had been “harassing my office on a regular basis” and “monstering” her staff.
She told the court her lawyers wrote a cease and desist letter to the journalist, who had been “horrific” to staff.'

 

[Kurve]

Reynolds about to face a defamation lawsuit from a fair Maiden?

Linda Reynolds praises ‘fair and balanced’ Albrechtsen – but reveals she is no fan of Samantha Maiden | Weekly Beast

Liberal senator gives evidence at defamation trial about why she chose to leak confidential information to the Australian columnist. Plus: Four Corners to air exposé on Seven

www.theguardian.com

'Linda Reynolds praises ‘fair and balanced’ Albrechtsen – but reveals she is no fan of Samantha Maiden'

'Reynolds said Maiden had been “harassing my office on a regular basis” and “monstering” her staff.
She told the court her lawyers wrote a cease and desist letter to the journalist, who had been “horrific” to staff.'

Who are the staff Maiden was said to be "monstering"?

Aside, Reynolds is coming across as a vexatious litigant, I hope it isn't long before she's called on it.

 

[Kurve]

Anybody know if Wong or Gallagher are to be called?

 

[BFew]

Reynolds should leak it to Janet.

 

[BFew]

Reynolds will be trying to set Maiden up. Who are the staff Maiden was said to be "monstering"?

Aside, Reynolds is coming across as a vexatious litigant, I hope it isn't long before she's called on it.

Reynolds might be run out of WA if her current performance results in fast tracked changes to WA defamation laws.

 

[Kurve]

Sarah Basford Canales
Linda Reynolds denies claims that she should have known “on face value” a report handed to her in March 2019 showed signs Brittany Higgins might have been sexually assaulted, a court has heard.

This morning in Perth, Higgins’ lawyer, Rachael Young SC, has been comparing accounts given by Reynolds in an earlier criminal trial with a parliamentary security report given to her in the days after the alleged rape.

The Department of Parliamentary Services security report, handed to Reynolds on Wednesday 27 March, said Higgins had appeared drunk upon entrance in the early hours of the previous Saturday. It said two welfare checks were provided and she was in a state of undress.

Reynolds insisted she did not know a sexual assault might have occurred because “nothing in the [DPS] report” had indicated “a crime had taken place”.

Later that week, her chief of staff, Fiona Brown, forwarded her advice she had received from the finance department outlining steps Higgins could take for her welfare, including using the Employee Assistance Program and 1800 Respect number.

Young said the email indicated Reynolds had been aware something “untoward” had occurred in her ministerial suite against Higgins.

“I hadn’t jumped to that conclusion,” Reynolds said, adding it was related to Higgins having been involved in a serious security breach.

The hearing continues.

Via The Guardian Live News

 

[Kurve]

Reynolds might be run out of WA if her current performance results in fast tracked changes to WA defamation laws.

Reynolds is back in Parliament on Monday, I wonder the reception she'll get.

 

[Festerz]

Reynolds is back in Parliament on Monday, I wonder the reception she'll get.

She will find a few friends in the Senate - weirdos like Pauline Hanson who have been pro-Lehrmann and anti Higgins from day 1.





But even still, I expect most of the cross bench, Labor and even a few National and Liberal Party Senators won't make it comfortable for her.

 

[Kurve]

Sarah Basford Canales
Linda Reynolds has broken down in the court, saying she feels “guilty” for playing a role in the late Labor senator Kimberley Kitching’s death.

Under cross-examination by the defence, Reynolds became emotional when questioned about a letter allegedly authored by Kitching before her death.

Reynolds maintained Kitching had allegedly spoken to her in early February 2021 to warn of Labor’s plans to “weaponise” Brittany Higgins’ allegations against the senator and the Liberal party.

Reynolds broke down as she explained to the court that if she hadn’t privately revealed Kitching’s role in the matter, the Labor senator would never have become incensed at her – and “ostracised” by her Labor colleagues.

“I should have never have said it,” Reynolds said. “It was very clear to see how angry [Kitching] was with me ... I carry that guilt.”

Reynolds then repeated the claim that Labor’s alleged bullying of Kitching “led to” her death.

The court adjourned to allow Reynolds to recollect herself. It will resume at 4.45pm Perth time.

Via The Guardian Live News

 

[Festerz]

Linda Reynolds has broken down in the court

She has broken down because she surely now realises that her lies and inconsistencies have caught up with her. Just as what happened with Lehrmann.

FFS. Her story over what she knew and when about the rape allegations has changed over the course of just a week.

Or are we to believe that Assistant Commissioner Leanne Close simply made up what she wrote in her official contemporaneous notes about the interview with Reynolds?

 

[Festerz]

The manner in which the credibility, reliability and consistency of Senator Reynolds as a witness has been all but destroyed over the past week provides further evidence of why it is foolish to take one side of a story and one narrative at face value until ALL sides of the story have been told and cross examined.

A lesson those who have voluminously and repetitively cut and pasted selected evidence and quotations from the Lehrmann defamation trial and Justice Lee's findings should hopefully now understand. Because that trial did not examine all the key witnesses and evidence that are central to the specific allegations in THIS trial - including Senator Reynolds herself.

Equally, as unreliable and inconsistent as her own evidence had made Senator Reynolds appear, we cannot judge the likely outcome of THIS trial until all the key witnesses central to its claims have given evidence and been cross examined.

That includes Brittany Higgins herself - the likely victim of a cowardly sexual assault in her own workplace that will be giving evidence for the THIRD time in court - more than (almost) any other witness, including the alleged rapist himself. One can only imagine how traumatic that will be for her, yet again.

But it is a simple fact of defamation law in Australia that it is up to Ms Higgins to disprove Reynolds allegation that her and her partner's social media posts targeting Reynolds were defamatory. That will be a very difficult thing to do - almost impossible by my reckoning. Especially under sustained cross examination where her character and motives will be put under extreme and aggressive attack and the credibility reliability of her evidence, already found extremely wanting in the Lehrmann defamation trial, will be heavily scrutinised.

So IMHO if you think Senator Reynolds was harshly dealt with and made to look incompetent and duplicitous during her time on the stand, in the immortal words of Bachman–Turner Overdrive....

 

[BFew]

She has broken down because she surely now realises that her lies and inconsistencies have caught up with her. Just as what happened with Lehrmann.

View attachment 2073126



FFS. Her story over what she knew and when about the rape allegations has changed over the course of just a week.

Or are we to believe that Assistant Commissioner Leanne Close simply made up what she wrote in her official contemporaneous notes about the interview with Reynolds?

It's not easy to be both a vexatious litigant and an unreliable witness.

 

[CD Xbow]

The guardian has an article that highlights a number of Reynolds inconsistencies - these have been pointed out by earlier posts. The longer this goes on, the worse she looks.

‘Fairytales’, media leaks and Canberra’s underbelly: takeaways from Linda Reynolds v Brittany Higgins defamation trial

The former minister has accused her former staff member of a ‘social media pile on’ as she defended her conduct over the alleged rape in her office

www.theguardian.com

 

[campbell]

The guardian has an article that highlights a number of Reynolds inconsistencies - these have been pointed out by earlier posts. The longer this goes on, the worse she looks.

‘Fairytales’, media leaks and Canberra’s underbelly: takeaways from Linda Reynolds v Brittany Higgins defamation trial

The former minister has accused her former staff member of a ‘social media pile on’ as she defended her conduct over the alleged rape in her office

www.theguardian.com

Bottom line is, she does not care.

There is pathology at play here imo.

 

[Festerz]

Bottom line is, she does not care.

There is pathology at play here imo.

This pretty sums it up I think

 

[Kurve]

Bottom line is, she does not care.

There is pathology at play here imo.

This from the Minister for Defence. Is this how she also viewed confidential defence documents? That if she didn't sign off on them they could be passed on anywhere? It's mind blowing.

Reynolds said she sent the confidential documents to Albrechtsen because she was “incredibly angry”, believed the attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, was “stitching” her up, and wanted the public to know.

“The letter of confidentiality was never signed by me so my recollection is while they sent the [settlement] proposal ... "

 

[Festerz]

Excellent summary of the whole sad affair by Julia Baird in today's SMH:


I fully appreciate this has been a taxing time for Reynolds, often deeply unfair, even if she has not suffered anywhere near the same kind of trauma and public opprobrium as Higgins. But beyond the law, beyond the tit-for-tat of politics, you have to wonder if and when another kind of thinking might enter this equation: one of understanding why a young woman who has suffered a trauma might lash out at or resent those she perceived to have let her down. Whose mental health dipped wildly whilst waiting for some kind of resolution. Of allowing someone to make mistakes, to be human. Of giving the benefit of the doubt. Of not seeking more punishment for those who have already suffered.

In the public eye, the details long ago became blurred, and the ugliness of the whole escapade depressing. As a wise man once said, there reaches a point when it’s about “the vibe” of the thing. And the vibe here, on continuing litigation against a woman found to have been r*ped five years ago, who has had periods so black that she has been in and out of hospital repeatedly ever since, who has been forced to sell a house when pregnant with her first child is a bit … off.

This will be the case no matter the verdict. It just seems, sometimes, that the most important question is so often forgotten: “In the middle of all of this chaos, hurt, damage and muddle, what is the most decent thing to do?”

What I wish Linda Reynolds would say, instead of suing Brittany Higgins

It seems that sometimes the most important question is so often forgotten: what is the most decent thing to do?

www.theage.com.au

 

[campbell]

Excellent summary of the whole sad affair by Julia Baird in today's SMH:


I fully appreciate this has been a taxing time for Reynolds, often deeply unfair, even if she has not suffered anywhere near the same kind of trauma and public opprobrium as Higgins. But beyond the law, beyond the tit-for-tat of politics, you have to wonder if and when another kind of thinking might enter this equation: one of understanding why a young woman who has suffered a trauma might lash out at or resent those she perceived to have let her down. Whose mental health dipped wildly whilst waiting for some kind of resolution. Of allowing someone to make mistakes, to be human. Of giving the benefit of the doubt. Of not seeking more punishment for those who have already suffered.

In the public eye, the details long ago became blurred, and the ugliness of the whole escapade depressing. As a wise man once said, there reaches a point when it’s about “the vibe” of the thing. And the vibe here, on continuing litigation against a woman found to have been r*ped five years ago, who has had periods so black that she has been in and out of hospital repeatedly ever since, who has been forced to sell a house when pregnant with her first child is a bit … off.

This will be the case no matter the verdict. It just seems, sometimes, that the most important question is so often forgotten: “In the middle of all of this chaos, hurt, damage and muddle, what is the most decent thing to do?”

What I wish Linda Reynolds would say, instead of suing Brittany Higgins

It seems that sometimes the most important question is so often forgotten: what is the most decent thing to do?

www.theage.com.au

Sadly, I don't believe decency is a thought process, that Reynolds will allow herself.
Lacks insight amongst other things.

 

[Kurve]

Another awful look.

Twenty witnesses are expected to be called during the nearly five-week trial. Higgins’ defence intends to call only one – Higgins herself.

‘Fairytales’, media leaks and Canberra’s underbelly: takeaways from Linda Reynolds v Brittany Higgins defamation trial

The former minister has accused her former staff member of a ‘social media pile on’ as she defended her conduct over the alleged rape in her office

www.theguardian.com

 

[campbell]

Another awful look.

Twenty witnesses are expected to be called during the nearly five-week trial. Higgins’ defence intends to call only one – Higgins herself.

‘Fairytales’, media leaks and Canberra’s underbelly: takeaways from Linda Reynolds v Brittany Higgins defamation trial

The former minister has accused her former staff member of a ‘social media pile on’ as she defended her conduct over the alleged rape in her office

www.theguardian.com

Flat track bullying imo.

 

[Festerz]

Another awful look.

Twenty witnesses are expected to be called during the nearly five-week trial. Higgins’ defence intends to call only one – Higgins herself.

‘Fairytales’, media leaks and Canberra’s underbelly: takeaways from Linda Reynolds v Brittany Higgins defamation trial

The former minister has accused her former staff member of a ‘social media pile on’ as she defended her conduct over the alleged rape in her office

www.theguardian.com

A pile on.

But surely Reynolds' most ardent supporters now realise the asymmetrical nature of he relentless pursuit of a rape victim via this multi-million dollar litigation? That her selfish vindictiveness will end up destroying what's left of her reputation - the very reputation she claims to be fighting to restore?

Maybe not. Because her supporters, like Reynolds herself, simply know no other way.

 

[GrayRanga]

Sadly, I don't believe decency is a thought process, that Reynolds will allow herself.
Lakes insight amongst other things.

A member of the Senate, a Minister and a retired Brigadier in the Army Reserve is granted huge amounts of power over other people's lifes and she acts like a spoiled 14 year old?

Just my experiences of High School, but Pauline Hanson was the 14 year old redhead that worked out that to stop being teased, she could could be the leader of the group that picked on the kids with Op Shop clothes or ate sandwiches with other than Vegemite and Coon cheese.

I could imagine Reynolds hanging round in the locker room making snide sotto voce comments about anybody who was prettier than her, but when challenged would immediately run to the Office to scream she was being picked on but editing whole story about what she said because it was a private conversation between her and her 20 besties

 

[FIGJAM]

I fully appreciate this has been a taxing time for Reynolds, often deeply unfair, even if she has not suffered anywhere near the same kind of trauma and public opprobrium as Higgins. But beyond the law, beyond the tit-for-tat of politics, you have to wonder if and when another kind of thinking might enter this equation: one of understanding why a young woman who has suffered a trauma might lash out at or resent those she perceived to have let her down. Whose mental health dipped wildly whilst waiting for some kind of resolution. Of allowing someone to make mistakes, to be human. Of giving the benefit of the doubt. Of not seeking more punishment for those who have already suffered.

In the public eye, the details long ago became blurred, and the ugliness of the whole escapade depressing. As a wise man once said, there reaches a point when it’s about “the vibe” of the thing. And the vibe here, on continuing litigation against a woman found to have been r*ped five years ago, who has had periods so black that she has been in and out of hospital repeatedly ever since, who has been forced to sell a house when pregnant with her first child is a bit … off.

This will be the case no matter the verdict. It just seems, sometimes, that the most important question is so often forgotten: “In the middle of all of this chaos, hurt, damage and muddle, what is the most decent thing to do?"

I agree with this to a large degree and have voiced that Reynolds' current actions as idiotic from a long way back. She should have taken the Lee verdict as vindication of no cover-up and settled with Higgins and Sharaz to not keep posting stuff about her. A gimme putt for mine!

It is no doubt the 'decent' thing to have done and this trial is completely unnecessary. It is no doubt the politically (and financially!) smart thing to do even if you're not decent!

All that said the reason I have a more empathy for Reynolds than others (most sit at precisely zero!) is that were it just the bolded, then we can all agree that the "coulda, shoulda, woulda done better" story for a traumatised rape victim, then Reynolds coulda, shoulda, woulda left it there.

But then it was never just that. As Lee said, Higgins and Sharaz "crafted a narrative accusing others of putting up roadblocks and forcing her two years earlier of having to choose between her career and seeking justice by making and pursuing a complaint.". So when Reynolds is copping posts online from Sharaz and Higgins making claims of "bullying", it is through her lens a perpetuation of those false accusations.

Sharaz and Higgins conspiring as to who can get the most hits and cause the most damage isn't a good look. Higgins posting at the very start of the trial "How the law silences women" doesn't help her cause any either. All well and good telling Reynolds to leave Higgins alone, but it's fair to argue that the reverse should also be done.

Again, Reynolds should have taken the financial hit post-Lee verdict and hung her and Bruce's hat on that. Instead, she's gone back into the lion's den to get that Zampatti jacket and I'm quite confident that even if she gets some form of 'win', she'll probably still be down financially and she's already near the bottom in public opinion.