Updated Bruce Lehrmann Pt2 * Reynolds Defamation Trial Current

[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]

Maybe. But why were they let in @ 1am on a Saturday morning? My work would want to know what the **** I was doing if I did that.
Imo blind Freddy could see what they were doing. Reason they were let in is there was a culture of hook ups and shenanigans in PH were a blind eye was turned.
This led to this incident hence a payout.

No question about what they intended to do. The question is regarding consent.

 

[jason_recliner]

No question about what Leerman intended to do. The question is regarding consent.

FIFY.

Yep, and she couldn't consent as shown by all evidence presented - with NONE presented to the contrary. So much so that Leerman couldn't even argue she consented but had to stick to the ridiculous claim that he went to his cubicle to work and didn't see her again.

 

[Run n Spread]

FIFY.

Yep, and she couldn't consent as shown by all evidence presented - with NONE presented to the contrary. So much so that Leerman couldn't even argue she consented but had to stick to the ridiculous claim that he went to his cubicle to work and didn't see her again.

This in general is where the law gets murky. Assuming he was just as pissed he couldn't consent either. So given the law applies to.men and women equally to.spot the obvious practical and biological differences who consents to who? A case in NSW was scrapped because of this and the laws re written.
Who rape and SA laws need to be re written and clear and unambigous

 

[Run n Spread]

Sure, the payout was OTT.

Possibly. But it had nothing to do with LR. And her and Fiona Brown probably did their best in unfamiliar uncertain and extreme circumstances.
But the whole culture of Canberra and the politicisation of this makes it toxic. Going charging in all guns blazing is I'll advised
A judge found there was no cover up. LR essentially did nothing wrong.
I get she's upset. I'd be too. But going nuclear ain't the best approach. Cool heads need to prevail. But there don't appear to be any.
And while nothing any where this level but in life I feel have been monstrously unfairly treated in a workplace where it got personal. But you know what leave move on. Nothing can be gained going this route

 

[jason_recliner]

. Assuming he was just as pissed

I don't assume that and haven't seen any evidence his fat male self was as inebriated as skinny little Brittany was. Only evidence to the contrary i.e. getting her drunk, taking her to Parliament house and raping her.

I don't think the law is as murky as you suggest. If it was, Leerman may have had a defence - we had sex but neither of us could consent.

 

[Lady O]

Possibly. But it had nothing to do with LR. And her and Fiona Brown probably did their best in unfamiliar uncertain and extreme circumstances.
But the whole culture of Canberra and the politicisation of this makes it toxic. Going charging in all guns blazing is I'll advised
A judge found there was no cover up. LR essentially did nothing wrong.
I get she's upset. I'd be too. But going nuclear ain't the best approach. Cool heads need to prevail. But there don't appear to be any.
And while nothing any where this level but in life I feel have been monstrously unfairly treated in a workplace where it got personal. But you know what leave move on. Nothing can be gained going this route

I think you are glossing over it a bit.

 

[Run n Spread]

I think you are glossing over it a bit.

Over what?

 

[Run n Spread]

I don't assume that and haven't seen any evidence his fat male self was as inebriated as skinny little Brittany was. Only evidence to the contrary i.e. getting her drunk, taking her to Parliament house and raping her.

I don't think the law is as murky as you suggest. If it was, Leerman may have had a defence - we had sex but neither of us could consent.

But than evidence would need to be presented as to his intoxication level etc biology .
It's a moot point. He claimed/argued at trial they went separate. She claimed they didn't. There was no conclusive proof either way.

 

[Run n Spread]

I don't assume that and haven't seen any evidence his fat male self was as inebriated as skinny little Brittany was. Only evidence to the contrary i.e. getting her drunk, taking her to Parliament house and raping her.

I don't think the law is as murky as you suggest. If it was, Leerman may have had a defence - we had sex but neither of us could consent.

Can't find a link but it was a tid bit years ago. A case of 2 teens getting it on. Mum found out was furious my daughter was drunk couldn't have consented look at the law it's rape. Went to court Defence got up simply said my client = just as drunk so who r*ped who? Case was chucked on the spot.
My point thou is
a) a lot of people have drunk than had sex. Happily without issue.
b) Than others both drink have sex wake up with hangovers and no beer goggles 1 regrets it and thinks shit shouldn't have done it and would never have sober(not rape)
C) a predator loads a woman with booze and takes advantage.
C is rape. A and b are not. Law needs to be clearer imo.

 

[jason_recliner]

But than evidence would need to be presented as to his intoxication level etc biology .
It's a moot point. He claimed/argued at trial they went separate. She claimed they didn't. There was no conclusive proof either way.

Only if the ridiculous claim was ever made that fatty was as drunk as she was. It's laughable so they had to try something else (equally laughable). Their fundamental problem is that it's much more difficult to prove a lie - Brittany wasn't r*ped - than to prove the truth - she was r*ped.

 

[jason_recliner]

Can't find a link but it was a tid bit years ago. A case of 2 teens getting it on. Mum found out was furious my daughter was drunk couldn't have consented look at the law it's rape. Went to court Defence got up simply said my client = just as drunk so who r*ped who? Case was chucked on the spot.
My point thou is
a) a lot of people have drunk than had sex. Happily without issue.
b) Than others both drink have sex wake up with hangovers and no beer goggles 1 regrets it and thinks shit shouldn't have done it and would never have sober(not rape)
C) a predator loads a woman with booze and takes advantage.
C is rape. A and b are not. Law needs to be clearer imo.

No that's not correct. The law requires consent. If a woman is so drunk she can't consent, has sex, regrets it, feels she has been r*ped, she's been r*ped.

 

[Run n Spread]

No that's not correct. The law requires consent. If a woman is so drunk she can't consent, has sex, regrets it, feels she has been r*ped, she's been r*ped.

My point is if 2 people are drunk meet at a club think it's a great idea than get it on. Technically under the law neither can consent. So what then?
What also.do.you mean feels she has been r*ped? Sorry someone's r*ped or not.
It needs to be objectively proven not based off a feeling g

 

[jason_recliner]

My point is if 2 people are drunk meet at a club think it's a great idea than get it on. Technically under the law neither can consent. So what then?
What also.do.you mean feels she has been r*ped? Sorry someone's r*ped or not.
It needs to be objectively proven not based off a feeling g

I mean she has been r*ped under the law if she wasn't able to consent and she can therefore pursue it in court if she chooses to do so.

There are few things more pointless than a devil's advocate. Look at what really happens.

 

[Kurve]

I don't know. There was I think two further posts that she wanted to include that were made during or just prior to the current trial.

There was one other I noticed, Higgins appeared to be promoting a book that Julian Assange's lawyer IIRC but I'm not certain, on how the law silences women. Higgins said it was pertinent.

Reynolds was all over that.

 

[Lady O]

No that's not correct. The law requires consent. If a woman is so drunk she can't consent, has sex, regrets it, feels she has been r*ped, she's been r*ped.

Yep, and it doesn't matter if the accused is just as or more drunk. It's all about consent. A person who is asleep has not necessarily been r*ped, but if she complains and it is found that the other person (male or female) did not make sure she was still consenting (recklessly disregarded whether she consented or not), then he/she/they are guilty of rape.

 

[jason_recliner]

A person who is asleep has not necessarily been r*ped...

Do you have a son? I hope that's not the advice you're giving him about consent.

 

[campbell]

Yep, and it doesn't matter if the accused is just as or more drunk. It's all about consent. A person who is asleep has not necessarily been r*ped, but if she complains and it is found that the other person (male or female) did not make sure she was still consenting (recklessly disregarded whether she consented or not), then he/she/they are guilty of rape.

I think you are confused here, maybe research consent.

BH had no capacity to consent........

 

[Kurve]

Yep, and it doesn't matter if the accused is just as or more drunk.

If a woman is passed out drunk and a man is equally as drunk or more so, he isn't able to perform. He'd be passed out drunk as well.

 

[Lady O]

I think you are confused here, maybe research consent.

BH had no capacity to consent........

Read it again!

 

[Festerz]

Senator Reynolds' revenge crusade sets its sights on another young woman and rape survivor..

This time its Saxon Mullins - 2018 Winner of the Young People's Medal from the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Director, Advocacy at Rape and Sexual Assault Research and Advocacy.




A survivor who has already been through her own trauma of sexual assault and the way our justice system deals with it.

After a gruelling, traumatic sexual assault trial, Saxon Mullins says a pop song saved her life

It's been more than a decade since Saxon Mullins accused a man of raping her behind his father's nightclub in Kings Cross. Since then she's learned a lot about endurance — and the life-saving power of pop music.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Satan]

Senator Reynolds' revenge crusade sets its sights on another woman..

There is going to be a shortage of lawyers due to conflict of interest

 

[Kurve]

Senator Reynolds' revenge crusade sets its sights on another young woman..

This time its Saxon Mullins - 2018 Winner of the Young People's Medal from the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Director, Advocacy at Rape and Sexual Assault Research and Advocacy.

Do we know if Reynolds was successful with her application to subpoena Mullins and Higgins private exchanges? I don't think that should have been allowed, if so.

This is becoming oppressive and goes to isolating Higgins by these legal manoeuvres, targeting those Reynolds views as supporting Higgins.

 

[Satan]

Do we know if Reynolds was successful with her application to subpoena Mullins and Higgins private exchanges? I don't think that should have been allowed, if so.

This is becoming oppressive and goes to isolating Higgins by these legal manoeuvres, targeting those Reynolds views as supporting Higgins.

Think its a tba

 

[Run n Spread]

No that's not correct. The law requires consent. If a woman is so drunk she can't consent, has sex, regrets it, feels she has been r*ped, she's been r*ped.

My point is if 2 people are drunk meet at a club think it's a great idea than get it on. Technically under the law neither can consent. So what then?
What also.do.you mean feels she has been r*ped? Sorry someone's r*ped or not.
It needs to be objectively proven not based off a feeling g

Ok. To clarify further rape is s 38 under the crimes act.
Can't quote the whole thing on my phone but
rape is sexual penetration without consent. Obvious what that means. Now
Sub sections
A person does not consent if they submit because of
Force or fear
Unlawful detention
Etc etc other examples
Affect of drugs or alcohol.
Now 2 really grey areas spring to mind here. How is submission legally defined? Someone a wasn't really in the mood but agreed to say please a partner? Thought what the hell nothing on TV? Or b cowered in fear?
And affect of drugs and alcohol. Is a glass of light beer or rose enough to get someone inebriated or a bottle of scotch? A drink drive law for example says .05 is the limit doesn't matter if a raging alcoholic went dry for a day or someone drinking for the first time in years got behind a wheel. And no drugs at all. Ice bender or smoked a joint last night.
But here it's open to interpretation. Even a statement I.e. reasonable person would suffice
Not trying to start a shit fight but whole law needs to be re written. It just isn't clear
And I'm not suggesting anything happened like that in the bh bl case. Just had no where else to put response

 

[Kurve]

Really ... the cleaner for the first time ever, was left alone and locked in to Reynold's suites. That imo would probably be for containment, if anything was found ie condoms etc, the cleaner would be the only person to know about it aside from the person he needed to make his report to, no witnesses.

The cleaner was also told to lie if anybody asked what he was doing there and told to say he was there to clean up a "water leak" But maybe it wasn't exactly a lie.