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

 

[Kurve]

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

The cops can take evidence regardless on the suspicion of a crime, particularly a serious crime. They didn't actually need Higgins permission to examine the couch.

Also, a bit of pot kettle there.

 

[Lady O]

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

Higgins could have just admitted she lied and avoided all this. It's not just Reynolds who is being obstinate.

 

[jason_recliner]

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.

That's just not correct. DNA is resilient under certain conditions, such as a dry environment with low UV radiation. Fluid residues can remain for years. Regardless, she reported the rape to Police straight after the event and as a serious crime they may (or may not - I don't know) be obligated to investigate.

 

[Underarrest_]

Higgins could have just admitted she lied and avoided all this. It's not just Reynolds who is being obstinate.

But did she lie, or did she feel unsupported. I can only add that other people also were aware of the “incident” at the time. It wasn’t handled well.

 

[Festerz]

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

She could have of course avoided every single cent of those ‘substantial costs’ by not mounting this civil action. Reynolds is solely responsible for the financial costs of her legal action.

And put her big girl pants on and ignore a handful of silly social media posts rather than mounting a vengeful, spiteful financial and public attack on a rape survivor that has only trashed her reputation and public standing even further. All while being on the taxpayer’s payroll as a serving Federal Senator, having just come off a $380k salary as a Minister and about to sec ure a very generous taxpayer funded superannuation pension.

Yeah, the collective hearts of Australians bleed for Senator Reynolds financial woes.

 

[jason_recliner]

She is solely responsible for the financial cost to her if she is not found to be defamed.

FIFY

 

[jason_recliner]

But did she lie

Absolutely.

 

[Thats Ambitious]

The issue re the DNA is not if it would still be there or not. The issue is how can the prosecution prove that it came from Leahrman on that night and in the circumstances posed by the prosecution given the amount of time that has passed.

If the DNA evidence was presented after all this time, ironically the current trial in Toowoomba could actually help Learhman in this regard as he could say it was from another night he snuck in!

 

[Underarrest_]

Absolutely.

That she wasn’t supported?

 

[jason_recliner]

The issue re the DNA is not if it would still be there or not. The issue is how can the prosecution prove that it came from Leahrman on that night and in the circumstances posed by the prosecution given the amount of time that has passed.

If the DNA evidence was presented after all this time, ironically the current trial in Toowoomba could actually help Learhman in this regard as he could say it was from another night he snuck in!

He'd have to introduce reasonable doubt and it would be all lies so practically impossible.

 

[jason_recliner]

That she wasn’t supported?

Yep.

 

[Thats Ambitious]

He'd have to introduce reasonable doubt and it would be all lies so practically impossible.

My comment regarding the current rape trial and other times Learhman snuck in was tongue in cheek. Sorry, I forgot to put in the /s

 

[Underarrest_]

He'd have to introduce reasonable doubt and it would be all lies so practically impossible.

Yes and any other explanation if DNA of that sort would be interesting.

 

[Underarrest_]

Yep.

Just my observation, but I feel that B’s perception was that she wasn’t supported enough.
Although, since this case they have employed a specialised person to support staff in these situations which is telling that perhaps there could have been a better approach.

 

[jason_recliner]

Just my observation, but I feel that B’s perception was that she wasn’t supported enough.
Although, since this case they have employed a specialised person to support staff in these situations which is telling that perhaps there could have been a better approach.

It's impossible to say for sure whether she felt she was supported enough but Brown's affidavit reads, to me, like she was appropriately supported (except conducting the interview on the couch, which wasn't the right place). Higgins thanked Brown and Reynolds for their support.

 

[Kurve]

It's impossible to say for sure whether she felt she was supported enough but Brown's affidavit reads, to me, like she was appropriately supported (except conducting the interview on the couch, which wasn't the right place). Higgins thanked Brown and Reynolds for their support.

Brown clearly as to the best of her ability, tried to support Higgins but then Brown's position was only temporary and she left very soon after for Campaign HQ. Higgins asked to be placed back with Dillaway as he was her main support and was refused.

Then Brown got advice to close the matter off.

None of that is Brown's fault but I can understand why after that, Higgins felt a bit adrift.

 

[Underarrest_]

It's impossible to say for sure whether she felt she was supported enough but Brown's affidavit reads, to me, like she was appropriately supported (except conducting the interview on the couch, which wasn't the right place). Higgins thanked Brown and Reynolds for their support.

I understand your point.
B could have just been going through the motions at that time and afterwards felt like she could have been supported more. Example, was there any face to face welfare checks and her having to wait a month for EAP. There’s other support services of course but different protocols could have seen her having ongoing support (via her workplace) earlier.

 

[big_e]

Higgins could have just admitted she lied and avoided all this. It's not just Reynolds who is being obstinate.

Lied about what, specifically?

 

[Kurve]

Disagreement is not insulting.
The whole cover-up angle has been well covered off by Lee and dismissed. If people want to re-litigate this again then that is their problem but its been shown to be completely false and I'm not even sure BH's lawyers are re-examining it that hard in this case as it would not help her one bit. There would need to be one hell of a smoking gun that comes up for any cover up to be re-considered.

Reynolds lied when she said that if she'd known about the potential of a sexual assault in her office that she wouldn't have conducted a meeting with Higgins in there.

That's a bit of a cover up right there.

Anyhow, through Lee's Wilkinson/10 defamation case, Reynolds wasn't required to give evidence. Reynolds wasn't cross examined, nor was she subjected to discovery or subpoenas.

So to say the angle as it pertains to Reynolds is well covered off by Lee, isn't quite true.

 

[Lady O]

But did she lie, or did she feel unsupported. I can only add that other people also were aware of the “incident” at the time. It wasn’t handled well.

Brown's Affidavit:

61. I asked her again “are you alright?” and she said “yes”. I said “I think it is best if you
go home for the afternoon” and suggested she take “a few days off or work from
home”, and “all you need to do is let me know”. She said “ok”. I said “you can also
take a few days off to return to the Gold Coast to see your family”. I asked her “is
there anything else I can do to help?” She said “no, I spoke to dad on the weekend
and he is coming down on the weekend to see me”. I said “I’m available any time
should you wish to talk”.

What more could she have done? Frog marched her to the AFP?

 

[jason_recliner]

Yes and any other explanation if DNA of that sort would be interesting.

"Your Honour, the night in question, I was lying on my boss' - er, Minsister Reynolds' - office couch, drinking whisky and watching Sorority Sisters Seven on my laptop, when - "

"Objection! The defendant's IP data indicates he watched Sorority Sisters Seven at home, in his office, in the bathroom at his parents' house, and in the back - presumably - seat of an Uber, but never in the Minister's office."

"Yes, of course. Your honour, on the night in question, I picked up a couple of bags of blow from a media consultant, then met a fine and upstanding young woman via legal and wholesome avenues and took her to the Ministers' office to drink whisky, do lines of Colombian marching powder, and get nasty on Linda's couch. And no, I do not know her name, where I met her, or her contact details. May I be excused now?"

 

[Festerz]

Brown clearly as to the best of her ability, tried to support Higgins but then Brown's position was only temporary and she left very soon after for Campaign HQ. Higgins asked to be placed back with Dillaway as he was her main support and was refused.

Then Brown got advice to close the matter off.

None of that is Brown's fault but I can understand why after that, Higgins felt a bit adrift.

How many times did Senator Reynolds make contact with Her staffer after she was informed of the sexual assault allegations? Did she visit her at home to comfort her or discuss what happened? i.e. is there any substance to Ms Higgins’ claim that she felt her boss was avoiding her once the sexual assault claim became known?

Did Senator Reynolds discuss Ms Higgins’ needs before or after she had her heated exchange with her CoS demanding that the allegation be reported to police? A demand Ms Brown strongly and successfully resisted because she believed it took away Ms Higgins’ ‘agency’ of her own sexual assault.

Who made contact with the Prime Minister’s Office to inform them of the rape allegation that led to his staffer making personal contact with Ms Higgins to check up on her welfare?

I assume these questions were answered in the Luhrmann defamation trial and they seem to be important in my view in trying to understand why a rape victim might have felt under some sort of political pressure to act in a certain way or that her job as a political staffer might be under threat in the lead up to an election.

Because imho understanding motivation is a critical component of Reynolds allegation of a tortious conspiracy, although the charge of an unintentional tort (tort just means legal -as opposed to moral - wrong btw) might still exist for which a finding of guilt, and associated damages, in a civil case can still be awarded

 

[Underarrest_]

Brown's Affidavit:

61. I asked her again “are you alright?” and she said “yes”. I said “I think it is best if you
go home for the afternoon” and suggested she take “a few days off or work from
home”, and “all you need to do is let me know”. She said “ok”. I said “you can also
take a few days off to return to the Gold Coast to see your family”. I asked her “is
there anything else I can do to help?” She said “no, I spoke to dad on the weekend
and he is coming down on the weekend to see me”. I said “I’m available any time
should you wish to talk”.

What more could she have done? Frog marched her to the AFP?

Unless you’re a specialist in the field you might not get it entirely right, but there’s also common sense. Did B receive the support she felt she needed in her workplace? B didn’t feel it was?

 

[Kurve]

Brown's Affidavit:

61. I asked her again “are you alright?” and she said “yes”. I said “I think it is best if you
go home for the afternoon” and suggested she take “a few days off or work from
home”, and “all you need to do is let me know”. She said “ok”. I said “you can also
take a few days off to return to the Gold Coast to see your family”. I asked her “is
there anything else I can do to help?” She said “no, I spoke to dad on the weekend
and he is coming down on the weekend to see me”. I said “I’m available any time
should you wish to talk”.

What more could she have done? Frog marched her to the AFP?

This is no longer about Brown, who took the stand for examination at Lee's Wilkinson/10 defamation trial.

Reynolds did not.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Unless you’re a specialist in the field you might not get it entirely right, but there’s also common sense. Did B receive the support she felt she needed in her workplace? B didn’t feel it was?

Feelings aren't facts.
As Lee made abundantly clear in the last hearing.