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

 

[MPMonkeys]

In this clip, Higgins defends Liberal Party women Julia Banks, Sue Hickey and Christine Holgate.

Banks and Hickey both left the Liberal Party and have been critical since their departure.
I've never seen Holgate referred to as a Liberal Party person. She seems like a classic Teal to me.

 

[FIGJAM]

With all your cuts and pastes from the Lee trial, where is the evidence presented in this trial that Higgins was part of the conspiracy

Would help if it was live-streamed and had a transparent evidence-list like the last trial, but instead we're left with what are effectively sound grabs from the media.

I don't disagree that this trial is a new one and with a new judge who should presumably be of an independent mind and make his own decision.

But we can surely assume that much of what has been presented to date has been the same or same-ish to the previous trial, just focussed on the allegations of defamation and/or a tortious conspiracy.

Has the following text from Higgins been raised in the recent trial and will you allow us to discuss it?

He's (Morrison) about to be f***ed over. Just wait. We've got him.

 

[Festerz]

Banks and Hickey both left the Liberal Party and have been critical since their departure.
I've never seen Holgate referred to as a Liberal Party person. She seems like a classic Teal to me.

What's a 'classic teal'?

Seems to me that once upon a time a leading international business executive (Holgate's currently Group CEO of Team Global Express – a $3bn logistics organisation) would be just the sort of person who would be right at home in the Liberal Party. Why not now?

 

[Kurve]

Has the following text from Higgins been raised in the recent trial and will you allow us to discuss it?

You're pretending I've stopped you from discussions when that hasn't happened but you're probably going to get pushback when you continue to draw on Lee's findings through this new trial. We've had FOUR MONTHS to discuss Lee's findings.

Wasn't that a text from Sharaz, not Higgins? That doesn't even look like Higgins language. Also, what's the context?

 

[Kurve]

Sam Maiden on Insiders, of course she has a point.

 

[Festerz]

In this clip, Higgins defends Liberal Party women Julia Banks, Sue Hickey and Christine Holgate.

That's a very powerful speech - outlining in great clarity why she is so angry about politicians (including Morrison) and other powerful men and women statements, and behaviour in relation to sexual violence.

I assume her defence counsel will include it with the other materials sent to the judge to assist in determining motive for her position and texts when it came to her own sexual assault in the office of a Liberal Minister in Parliament House.

Sam Maiden on Insiders, of course she has a point.

Yep - she's making it plain that Reynolds' was caught in a lie. A horrific lie in Parliament and in a criminal trial relating to the rape of a young women, her employee, in her own bloody office. Blind Freddy can see that. Any surprises that rape survivor was upset and angry?

 

[GrayRanga]

Would help if it was live-streamed and had a transparent evidence-list like the last trial, but instead we're left with what are effectively sound grabs from the media.

I don't disagree that this trial is a new one and with a new judge who should presumably be of an independent mind and make his own decision.

But we can surely assume that much of what has been presented to date has been the same or same-ish to the previous trial, just focussed on the allegations of defamation and/or a tortious conspiracy.

Has the following text from Higgins been raised in the recent trial and will you allow us to discuss it?

I don't know if it that was mentioned in this trial.

You're telling the story

Please place Higgin's quote in context, by placing it within the entire conversation, with who it was communicated to, the day and time it was sent, how it fits within the chronology of the events in Higgin's life and the the political and societal events that were happening at the time

If that comment was led in evidence, the trial Judge will be doing that, possibly parsing the entire conversation to within an inch of its' life if he considers it to be relevant and weighing it against other evidence provided

He may consider it to be irrelevant as it specifically mentions Morrison

Reynolds. who is taking the defamation action is not mentioned .

 

[Festerz]

Please place Higgin's quote in context, by placing it within the entire conversation, with who it was communicated to, the day and time it was sent, how it fits within the chronology of the events in Higgin's life and the the political and societal events that were happening at the time

Excellent point not just in relation to posting stuff from the Lehrmann defamation trial but in general when it comes to quoting from other sources, including media sources.

By way of a petty example, we saw in this thread late yesterday a poster quoting a single line from a WA today article and I had to go hunting to find that article to understand its full context.

Big Footy posting rules state that 'Articles from other sites should be limited to a relevant paragraph or two and a link to the source'. And while I suspect that this rule is there for copyright reasons as much as anything and it's up to the mods to moderate in relation to BF rules (thanks again Kurve) I think it makes good sense, especially in relation to court cases that make up the bulk of the posts in crime threads, that excerpts from other sources are referenced properly, including a link to the full source so that the full context of the excerpt is is clear and verifiable by other posters.

Although I admit this is pretty difficult in relation to media articles sitting behind a paywall. And getting the context right when quoting selected sections or quotes of evidence from another trial that went for multiple weeks with a judgement spanning 324 pages is nigh impossible - which is why it's probably best avoided imho.

/rant.

 

[FIGJAM]

I don't know if it that was mentioned in this trial.

You're telling the story

I just picked a random quote to see if it has been introduced as evidence just to highlight the point that we are 98.6% blind in this trial.

Hence why I don't think bringing up court-covered evidence in Lee's verdict, or even the much maligned Sofronoff report, is that unreasonable.

You're pretending I've stopped you from discussions...

I was talking to the Ranga.

 

[Lady O]

Yes and this is what concerns me the most.
It’s evident that B did not receive that initial support which is so important especially in the first 48-72 hours but what did her ongoing support look like.
I personally wouldn’t find any part of my partner coming forward to the world that they’d been r*ped, funny. Support them, yes, but this was not a win or lose situation for B. She’d been (allegedly) r*ped.

Sure makes you wonder if this (alleged) rape was a joke between the two of them. I wondered if Higgins was being led by Sharaz, but now I doubt it. It wouldn't have even played out if it wasn't for both of them crafting the story. They could see the havoc it could cause and were having a good laugh. Imagine their astonishment when she was paid $2.4M!

 

[jason_recliner]

He may consider it to be irrelevant as it specifically mentions Morrison

It may not be directly relevant to defaming Reynolds but it might cause one possessing a degree of objectivity to question whether Maiden's opinion Higgins wasn't trying to harm the Liberal party was well founded. From the Daily Fail in 2023 (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...enlist-Anthony-Albanese-senior-Labor-MPs.html):

'He's about to be f***ed over. Just wait. We've got him,' she [Higgins] wrote to Mr Sharaz on March 26, 2021.

The following, though, may be considered by some to support Reynolds' claims of conspiracy resulting in harm (defamation):

Mr Sharaz asked host Lisa Wilkinson if she knew any 'friendly MPs' who could lob questions at the then-Liberal government during question time.

'Oh, certainly Albo,' Ms Wilkinson said in response, adding: 'Tanya Plibersek, definitely.'

Mr Sharaz told Ms Wilkinson and network producer Angus Llewellyn: 'I have a friend in Labor, Katy Gallagher on the Labor side, who will probe and continue it going.

'So sitting week, the story comes out, they have to answer questions at Question Time, it's a mess for them.'

Attacking Morrison and the Libs, certainly, but the subtext may be that there was a cover-up, which would logically require Reynolds' authorisation and involvement:

... Mr Sharaz wrote of how Senator Gallagher was 'really invested' in the saga.

'Katy Gallagher messaged me. She's angry and wants to help. She's got the context. Says they knew something was wrong because they fired Bruce and not you. They avoided a scandal,' he wrote to Ms Higgins.

Four days before Ms Higgins' allegations went public Mr Sharaz wrote:

'I gave her [The Project] interview for context. I hope that's okay? She's not doing anything with it. But I'm also happy to step out and let her talk to you if you want. Basically, I wanted her to get all the context because it's so complicated.'

Ms Higgins replied: 'That's fine. It'll all be public pretty soon anyway haha.' [bold mine]

 

[Kurve]

That last text in blue, half of Australia could have said that.

 

[Kurve]

Okay, so from the article the context is this was a response to finding out the PM was backgrounding her.

That was raised in the Senate.

 

[GrayRanga]

I just picked a random quote to see if it has been introduced as evidence just to highlight the point that we are 98.6% blind in this trial.

Hence why I don't think bringing up court-covered evidence in Lee's verdict, or even the much maligned Sofronoff report, is that unreasonable.



I was talking to the Ranga.

This tread is currently speciically about the defamation trial: hint the heading... Bruce Lehrmann Pt2 * Reynolds Defamation Trial Current

You want to play in the sand pit, then obey the sand pit rules rather than make up your own and feign innocence when you're pulled up on it

This Trial will be decided by the Trial Judge on the basis of the evidence provided to the Court with due reference to the WA legislation relating to Defamation and legal precedent.

If you want to discuss politics, conspiracy theories and the machinations of Labor or the Coalition there's a few more appropriate threads

I pity Kurve in this thread as there are still unreconstructed neanderthals promoting or implying their narrative that it was all Higgin's fault because she was dressed inappropriately, drunk or not lying back and thinking of Australia (or the Coalition).

Lee drew certain conclusions from the evidence he heard.

Higgin's had her one chance of "justice" dashed by a juror's indiscretion's.

 

[Underarrest_]

Sam Maiden on Insiders, of course she has a point.

I’m confused and might be misunderstanding. Is Maiden saying Fiona Brown received advice how to handle a SA the Friday before the Monday meeting? I thought the alledged rape was Saturday morning and the meeting on Monday.

 

[Kurve]

I’m confused and might be misunderstanding. Is Maiden saying Fiona Brown received advice how to handle a SA the Friday before the Monday meeting? I thought the alledged rape was Saturday morning and the meeting on Monday.

From the timeline:

Friday, March 22

• Staffers Bruce Lehrmann and Brittany Higgins attend drinks with colleagues at The Dock bar in Canberra. Ms Higgins has 11 drinks over the course of 4.5 hours. Lehrmann cannot remember the number of drinks he had, but describes himself as being "moderately" drunk.
• Lehrmann and Ms Higgins go to a nightclub with two other colleagues for another few hours.

Saturday, March 23

• The pair share an Uber to Parliament House together, arriving about 1.40am. Lehrmann tells security they have been requested to pick up work documents.
• Ms Higgins and Lehrmann are signed in by security guards and escorted to the ministerial suite of then defence industry minister Linda Reynolds.
• Lehrmann leaves the building without Ms Higgins approximately an hour after they arrived together.
• A security guard visits the suite about 4am, finding Ms Higgins disoriented and naked on a couch in the minister's office.
• Ms Higgins wakes up about 8.30am on Saturday and leaves parliament in an Uber about 10am.
• A cleaner enters the suite in the late afternoon for an "out of hours" office clean.

Tuesday, March 26

• Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) provides a report to Senator Reynolds' chief of staff Fiona Brown about a "security breach", triggered by staff entering the office inebriated and after hours.
• Lehrmann is called to a meeting with Ms Brown over the security breach. Ms Higgins is called into a separate meeting.

Monday, April 1

• Ms Higgins meets with Senator Reynolds in the office where the incident allegedly occurred.
• Ms Higgins meets with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) unit at Parliament House.

 

[jason_recliner]

... there are still unreconstructed neanderthals promoting or implying their narrative that it was all Higgin's fault because she was dressed inappropriately, drunk or not lying back and thinking of Australia (or the Coalition).

Oh yeah? Got any links?

 

[GrayRanga]

Sure makes you wonder if this (alleged) rape was a joke between the two of them. I wondered if Higgins was being led by Sharaz, but now I doubt it. It wouldn't have even played out if it wasn't for both of them crafting the story. They could see the havoc it could cause and were having a good laugh. Imagine their astonishment when she was paid $2.4M!

Well. I suppose you think that is a good laugh that you continue to besmirch an alleged sexual assault victim ?

If you were sexually assualted in your work place by a supervisor in one of thmost secure work environments and a core symbol of Australia you don't believe that the Commonwealth of Australia should not provide you with Workplace compensation?

How much do Curches, school's or other big businesses pay out for sexual assault? They are largely hidden by NDA's

 

[Underarrest_]

From the timeline:

Friday, March 22

• Staffers Bruce Lehrmann and Brittany Higgins attend drinks with colleagues at The Dock bar in Canberra. Ms Higgins has 11 drinks over the course of 4.5 hours. Lehrmann cannot remember the number of drinks he had, but describes himself as being "moderately" drunk.
• Lehrmann and Ms Higgins go to a nightclub with two other colleagues for another few hours.

Saturday, March 23

• The pair share an Uber to Parliament House together, arriving about 1.40am. Lehrmann tells security they have been requested to pick up work documents.
• Ms Higgins and Lehrmann are signed in by security guards and escorted to the ministerial suite of then defence industry minister Linda Reynolds.
• Lehrmann leaves the building without Ms Higgins approximately an hour after they arrived together.
• A security guard visits the suite about 4am, finding Ms Higgins disoriented and naked on a couch in the minister's office.
• Ms Higgins wakes up about 8.30am on Saturday and leaves parliament in an Uber about 10am.
• A cleaner enters the suite in the late afternoon for an "out of hours" office clean.

Tuesday, March 26

• Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) provides a report to Senator Reynolds' chief of staff Fiona Brown about a "security breach", triggered by staff entering the office inebriated and after hours.
• Lehrmann is called to a meeting with Ms Brown over the security breach. Ms Higgins is called into a separate meeting.

Monday, April 1

• Ms Higgins meets with Senator Reynolds in the office where the incident allegedly occurred.
• Ms Higgins meets with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) unit at Parliament House.

Thanks that’s a good timeline.
Bare with me please, so meaning they received advice as soon as they found Brittany in the office?

 

[Kurve]

Thanks that’s a good timeline.
Bare with me please, so meaning they received advice as soon as they found Brittany in the office?

Brown received the DPS report on the following Tuesday after the alleged rape, so it was in her hands for five days before Reynolds called the meeting with Higgins in her office.

Reynolds told AFP officer Close, that she found out what happened when they received the DPS report.

 

[FIGJAM]

This tread is currently speciically about the defamation trial: hint the heading... Bruce Lehrmann Pt2 * Reynolds Defamation Trial Current

The thread title has changed a dozen times. We're perennially referring to the broader case that involved a sexual assault claim in parliament, coupled with later allegations of a political cover-up through the media.

You want to play in the sand pit, then obey the sand pit rules rather than make up your own and feign innocence when you're pulled up on it

I won't be getting into your urine soaked sand pit.

This Trial will be decided by the Trial Judge on the basis of the evidence provided to the Court with due reference to the WA legislation relating to Defamation and legal precedent.

Thanks for repeating what I've said already.

If you want to discuss politics, conspiracy theories and the machinations of Labor or the Coalition there's a few more appropriate threads.

I'm only discussing this case.

I pity Kurve in this thread as there are still unreconstructed neanderthals promoting or implying their narrative that it was all Higgin's fault because she was dressed inappropriately, drunk or not lying back and thinking of Australia (or the Coalition).

I hope this isn't directed at me!

Lee drew certain conclusions from the evidence he heard.

He nailed every conclusion.

Higgin's had her one chance of "justice" dashed by a juror's indiscretion's.

She didn't help her own credibility by lying about certain things.

 

[jason_recliner]

Well. I suppose you think that is a good laugh that you continue to besmirch an alleged sexual assault victim ?

This tread is currently speciically about the defamation trial: hint the heading... Bruce Lehrmann Pt2 * Reynolds Defamation Trial Current

You want to play in the sand pit, then obey the sand pit rules rather than make up your own and feign innocence when you're pulled up on it

If you were sexually assualted in your work place by a supervisor in one of thmost secure work environments and a core symbol of Australia you don't believe that the Commonwealth of Australia should not provide you with Workplace compensation?

How much do Curches, school's or other big businesses pay out for sexual assault? They are largely hidden by NDA's

This was literally answered a few pages ago - it's in the order of $100-200k IIRC.

 

[Kurve]

Reynolds is now demanding orders voiding and reversing that transfer (of Higgins money), claiming she is a creditor of Higgins.

Reynolds launches fresh pursuit of Higgins’ trust as defamation trial draws to close

Liberal senator Linda Reynolds has levelled a fresh lawsuit against Brittany Higgins and the entity helming the trust established to safeguard the former staffer’s multimillion-dollar payout.

www.watoday.com.au

 

[GrayRanga]

Reynolds is now demanding orders voiding and reversing that transfer (of Higgins money), claiming she is a creditor of Higgins.

Reynolds launches fresh pursuit of Higgins’ trust as defamation trial draws to close

Liberal senator Linda Reynolds has levelled a fresh lawsuit against Brittany Higgins and the entity helming the trust established to safeguard the former staffer’s multimillion-dollar payout.

www.watoday.com.au

WTAF?

 

[GrayRanga]

WTAF?

Got her knickers in a knot because her Barrister couldn't humiliate her in the witness box are cause a nervous breakdown under cross examination?