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]

From Brown's affidavit:



So from the first question, she denied remembering anything and took responsibility for her actions.





Brown did everything she could to offer assistance, should it be required, but Higgins did not need it.

 

[FIGJAM]

At the time the assault was reported to the police the couch should have been examined.

Well, maybe! But sending in CSI to a minister's office whilst having a pretty casual chat with a potential victim seems excessive and there would also be some risk that it breach's the complainant's anonymity when the office starts asking questions.

Should they have also asked for Higgins' clothes from the night while having a preliminary chat (which again seems excessive and they of course did not do that)?

The way I see it is that there are some interesting points of view on "who should do what when", whether they're cleaners, coppers or people managers, but the preferred order of protocols that some are coming up with can be entirely illogical and/or unreasonable.

 

[DapperDon]

From Brown's affidavit:

View attachment 2088399

So from the first question, she denied remembering anything and took responsibility for her actions.

View attachment 2088400

View attachment 2088407

Brown did everything she could to offer assistance, should it be required, but Higgins did not need it.

Or still felt shame and wasn't ready to talk about her rape.

 

[jason_recliner]

I'm not trying to prove a cover up. There was one, whether it was purposeful and with the awareness of covering up what happened in there and can be proved is something else.

Surely, you can see what this looks like.

You might not be trying to prove a coverup (it looked from your posts that you were) but Higgins is relying on a truth defence, so may be trying at least in part. It's now been shown there wasn't a coverup, so she's going to have to rely on the whole 'report rape vs lose job' thing, which has also been shown not to have occurred. Hopefully the NACC follows up after this trial is over.

 

[Kurve]

Correct.
Reynolds is suing Higgins and Sharaz for defamation.
If they have defamed her based on their claims of a cover-up that never existed then they are both in big trouble. Effectively BH and DS have to demonstrate there was a cover up that LR was involved in and LR has to demonstrate that she was materially defamed. Proving a cover-up will be nigh on impossible (IMO how can you prove something that doesn't exist) so that only leaves BH lawyers to demonstrate that Reynolds was not materially defamed.
Also worth noting that Sharaz is not contesting the defamation which by implication means he knows that he has little grounds on which to prove the cover-up allegation.

There isn't really that much ground-breaking new information in this trial. Its basically been a re-hash of BL vs Wilkinson/Ten albeit with a different focus.

There is actually, I can't find Samantha Maiden and AFP officer Close on the witness list at the Lee trial.

I personally think this isn't going to go all Higgins way but Reynolds is imo, doing the wrong thing by targeting and blaming her for the position she was put in.

 

[Kurve]

You might not be trying to prove a coverup (it looked from your posts that you were) but Higgins is relying on a truth defence, so may be trying at least in part. It's now been shown there wasn't a coverup, so she's going to have to rely on the whole 'report rape vs lose job' thing, which has also been shown not to have occurred. Hopefully the NACC follows up after this trial is over.

It's been shown by Lee that Brown and Reynolds weren't involved in a cover up?

 

[jason_recliner]

Well, maybe! But sending in CSI to a minister's office whilst having a pretty casual chat with a potential victim seems excessive and there would also be some risk that it breach's the complainant's anonymity when the office starts asking questions.

Should they have also asked for Higgins' clothes from the night while having a preliminary chat (which again seems excessive and they of course did not do that)?

The way I see it is that there are some interesting points of view on "who should do what when", whether they're cleaners, coppers or people managers, but the preferred order of protocols that some are coming up with can be entirely illogical and/or unreasonable.

I have no idea about the clothes but if an extremely serious crime is reported to police then the scene (couch) should be examined. That the couch was in a Minster's office is immaterial - she can get another one while it's in the lab.

 

[jason_recliner]

It's been shown by Lee that Brown and Reynolds weren't involved in a cover up?

Yes.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

It's been shown by Lee that Brown and Reynolds weren't involved in a cover up?

Maybe they just ‘forgot’ to tell the Prime Minister.

 

[Kurve]

Who are you blaming specifically for not doing that in this instance?

I hang out on a crime board so my first thought even if I was the tea lady, would have been to have the couch examined, sealed, put in to storage and replaced. Discreetly.

Dunno who yet .. but we certainly do not have the whole story. I have a suspicion but if I say it in here, I'll blow the thread up.

 

[jason_recliner]

I have a suspicion but if I say it in here, I'll blow the thread up.

Thread could use some fresh meat - let 'er rip!

 

[Festerz]

There is actually, I can't find Samantha Maiden and AFP officer Close on the witness list at the Lee trial.

Leanne Cross (Close) notes of interview with Reynolds' were included in the submitted evidence files of the Lehrmann defamation trial but she was not, iirc, asked to give verbal evidence on them?

The fact those notes contain a clear discrepancy with what Reynolds' claimed in relation to what she knew and when did not feature in Lee's judgement - which is why she was called as the only witness for the Defence in this (Reynolds)

Maiden was called as a witness by Reynolds' to support their her conspiracy allegation which I am sure they now regret as she effectively blew apart the 'plan' attack being promoted.

The evidence of those two witnesses in addition to Reynolds' herself who also did not give evidence in the Lehrmann defamation trial demonstrates, yet again, why cutting and pasting from the Lee judgement in the Lehrmann case gives a skewed perspective on things relevant to Reynolds' allegations in THIS defamation trial.

 

[Underarrest_]

No - unlike you might see in TV crime shows, there are unambiguous rules of evidence that the AFP must adhere to in relation to crime scene investigation including the security, continuity of control and integrity of any property and exhibits and to mitigate the consequences relating to the ineffective management of these items.

See:https://www.afp.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-08/AFPNG-Property-Exhibits.pdf

The fact that room and that couch and room had been professionally cleaned (twice) and accessed by a wide range of people subsequent to the alleged sexual assault and prior to the AFP being informed of the alleged rape would have made any subsequent analysis pointless and any potential evidence gathered inadmissible and not able to be used in any subsequent investigation relating to the allegations.

Personally if I’d been r*ped and been able to come out and tell my story even weeks later, i wouldn’t find it a pointless exercise, even my dress.

 

[Kurve]

Wow what a piece of work.... She really needs to take herself to court over defamation of her image at this point

 

[Zing13]

How good! Lol. They must have read my post

 

[MPMonkeys]

Do these idiot tweeters realise they are only helping Reynolds cause?

 

[Zing13]

In all seriousness though, to me this new lawsuit is (as described by another member on here perfectly) very grabby looking of LR. Would this grabby shitty move be taken into account by Justice Tottle when he makes his decision? Or no? Like why not wait until you actually win (hopefully not the case here) to do this. I just feel it speaks volumes of LRs character...

 

[jason_recliner]

why not wait until you actually win (hopefully not the case here) to do this.

Would you trust Higgins to make the funds available if your claim was successful? Reynolds might be worried that, if she's successful, the funds will no longer exist and Higgins will declare bankrupt.

 

[MPMonkeys]

I have no idea about the clothes but if an extremely serious crime is reported to police then the scene (couch) should be examined. That the couch was in a Minster's office is immaterial - she can get another one while it's in the lab.

But she didn’t make a formal complaint until two years later.

Any evidence from the couch would have been next to useless and in addition given BH and BL would have sat on that couch numerous times as employees any DNA could easily be explained away.

 

[Festerz]

Personally if I’d been r*ped and been able to come out and tell my story even weeks later, i wouldn’t find it a pointless exercise, even my dress.

Of course.

But it is a decision that is taken by police investigators not based on emotion but the impartial protocols and procedures of the rules of evidence they are by law required to observe with a view to sustaining a criminal conviction beyond reasonable doubt by a judge or jury in a court of law.

 

[MPMonkeys]

In all seriousness though, to me this new lawsuit is (as described by another member on here perfectly) very grabby looking of LR. Would this grabby shitty move be taken into account by Justice Tottle when he makes his decision? Or no? Like why not wait until you actually win (hopefully not the case here) to do this. I just feel it speaks volumes of LRs character...

This makes no sense. How can you ‘win’ if you don’t contest an event?

 

[Kurve]

Would you trust Higgins to make the funds available if your claim was successful? Reynolds might be worried that, if she's successful, the funds will no longer exist and Higgins will declare bankrupt.

Yes but isn't Reynolds doing this simply to clear her reputation? It's not about the money, right?

 

[jason_recliner]

Yes but isn't Reynolds doing this simply to clear her reputation? It's not about the money, right?

The costs are, I imagine, substantial, even for somebody in her financial position. Why should she have to wear that loss?

 

[Underarrest_]

Of course.

But it is a decision that is taken by police investigators not based on emotion but the impartial protocols and procedures of the rules of evidence they are by law required to observe with a view to sustaining a criminal conviction beyond reasonable doubt by a judge or jury in a court of law.

I understand what you’re saying,
If I can give an example, if a person has for example been found deceased believed suicide even weeks later, they will complete forensics.
I haven’t seen whether it was done or not, just thought it was worth discussing.

 

[Lady O]

But she didn’t make a formal complaint until two years later.

Any evidence from the couch would have been next to useless and in addition given BH and BL would have sat on that couch numerous times as employees any DNA could easily be explained away.

Yes the whole argument is getting ridiculous. People are making accusations based on their political views, not on the evidence.