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

 

[jason_recliner]

Reynolds had many opportunities and didn't ask for her jacket back. That she didn't and then used it against Higgins to frame her as dishonest and a thief, speaks volumes imo.

Here's Reynolds testifying. This is something she also said on the Spotlight interview, along with agreeing that the rape may not have been committed.

"It did annoy me … I was still upset my jacket had been stolen."

Here's what we know after three weeks of the Linda Reynolds vs Brittany Higgins defamation trial

The witnesses have wrapped up their evidence and the legal teams are preparing their final pitches to the judge as the mammoth defamation trial between WA Senator Linda Reynolds and her ex-staffer Brittany Higgins nears its end. Here's what we've learned.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Underarrest_]

Reynolds had many opportunities and didn't ask for her jacket back. That she didn't and then used it against Higgins to frame her as dishonest and a thief, speaks volumes imo.

Here's Reynolds testifying. This is something she also said on the Spotlight interview, along with agreeing that the rape may not have been committed.

"It did annoy me … I was still upset my jacket had been stolen."

Here's what we know after three weeks of the Linda Reynolds vs Brittany Higgins defamation trial

The witnesses have wrapped up their evidence and the legal teams are preparing their final pitches to the judge as the mammoth defamation trial between WA Senator Linda Reynolds and her ex-staffer Brittany Higgins nears its end. Here's what we've learned.

www.abc.net.au

It would have been a brave move to deliberately steal a jacket.
In B’s interview with Maidon B said that she would have thought more if BL had taken her home opposed to PH where there were security/cameras everywhere and then passed security on the way who were witness to her wearing it.
I’d think she more put it on to cover herself.

 

[Kurve]

It would have been a brave move to deliberately steal a jacket.
In B’s interview with Maidon B said that she would have thought more if BL had taken her home opposed to PH where there were security/cameras everywhere and then passed security on the way who were witness to her wearing it.
I’d think she more put it on to cover herself.

Agree, she took it to cover herself.

It wouldn't surprise me if it really was in the goodwill bin because someone told her vertical stripes aren't a great idea, not only can they make chubby women look like a quarterback but under the camera the stripes wiggle under strobe and make it worse.

 

[FIGJAM]

What does "placing" her mean?

Drew Burland from the Ministerial Office had been looped in that there were issues placing Higgins due to an unspecified incident that he wasn't fully briefed on.

Sorry, where she was going to work from, whether Perth, Gold Coast or Canberra (she had been told that she couldn't do Brissie).

 

[Thats Ambitious]

Reynolds had many opportunities and didn't ask for her jacket back. That she didn't and then used it against Higgins to frame her as dishonest and a thief, speaks volumes imo.

Here's Reynolds testifying. This is something she also said on the Spotlight interview, along with agreeing that the rape may not have been committed.

"It did annoy me … I was still upset my jacket had been stolen."

Here's what we know after three weeks of the Linda Reynolds vs Brittany Higgins defamation trial

The witnesses have wrapped up their evidence and the legal teams are preparing their final pitches to the judge as the mammoth defamation trial between WA Senator Linda Reynolds and her ex-staffer Brittany Higgins nears its end. Here's what we've learned.

www.abc.net.au

Thanks for that Kurve

Has anyone done a timeline on this one?
I'm particularly interested in the comment in the article that states Rachael Young SC argued that damage suffered in 2021 can have no basis in posts made in 2023.

Obviously if this is correct, what is the harm caused by the Higgins' posts if all of the 'damage' for Reynolds occurred before the posts were published?

 

[Kurve]

Sorry, where she was going to work from, whether Perth, Gold Coast or Canberra (she had been told that she couldn't do Brissie).

So there were issues placing her in work due to an incident. That right there, is a pointer to work difficulties rising out of the rape in Reynolds office.

 

[Festerz]

This twitter thread is well worth a read.

It should be remembered that Linda Reynolds sought and was granted leave to not call her former CoS Fiona Brown as a witness for health reasons but her written testimony will be submitted into evidence. Hence while the chance to cross exam Brown directly on that evidence directly has been lost, it is still open for Ms Higgins' counsel to address any inconsistencies in that statement uncovered subsequent to the Lehrmann defamation trial (or not properly considered as part of that trial) and what it means for Reynolds' case in her summation.

On these points, it should also be remembered that aspects of the Lee judgement in the Lehrmann defamation trial are being challenged by Channel Ten and Wilkinson, stating that His Honour erred in his failure to give weight to or take proper consideration of some key aspects of the evidence presented. My understanding is that these concerns include but are not limited to Lee's findings with respect to certain claims made by Ms Higgins' in the Project interview about actions and events which took place subsequent to the alleged rape.

Edit : For example this from the Ten Network Notice of Contention lodged with the Federal Court and still to be heard:

His Honour erred in assessing Ms Higgins’ credibility in preferring Ms Fiona Brown's evidence over Ms Higgins (a matter that his Honour considered to be notable in relation to Ms Higgins’ credit) without regard to contemporaneous records and other independent evidence from witnesses whose evidence was accepted without qualification that corroborated Ms Higgins’ evidence where it conflicted with Ms Brown’s.

 

[FIGJAM]

So there were issues placing her in work due to an incident. That right there, is a pointer to work difficulties rising out of the rape in Reynolds office.

You're all over my turns of phrase, Kurve. It's like walking on eggshells in here!

Ignore my previous two words; Higgins was given the opportunity by the very supportive Fiona Brown to work from either Perth, Canberra or from home on the Gold Coast. She chose one and Curson and Burland were availed of the decision, as one was replacing Brown and the other going to Perth as a senior member of the Ministerial Office.

It's amazing that anyone can spin "work difficulties rising out of the rape in Reynolds office" out of what is actually evidence of a supportive team, working well collaboratively.

 

[Kurve]

You're all over my turns of phrase, Kurve. It's like walking on eggshells in here!

So much pot kettle in your response is an understatement

 

[Kurve]

Higgins was given the opportunity by the very supportive Fiona Brown to work from either Perth, Canberra or from home on the Gold Coast. She chose one and Curson and Burland were availed of the decision, as one was replacing Brown and the other going to Perth as a senior member of the Ministerial Office.

Give it a spell will you?

Fiona Brown had left the office within two weeks of the event.

 

[FIGJAM]

So much pot kettle in your response is an understatement

As always, you quote my post in under 10 minutes, pick out one thing that you don't like, rip into it and then ignore the other very relevant points raised in the rest of the post...

 

[Kurve]

As always, you quote my post in under 10 minutes, pick out one thing that you don't like, rip into it and then ignore the other very relevant points raised in the rest of the post...

Your central point or a point I need to address, sometimes it's a passive aggressive pot shot.

 

[FIGJAM]

Fiona Brown had left the office within two weeks of the event.

Isn't that literally what I've said for the whole time in that she supported Higgins with multiple options as to where she wanted to go (except Brisbane to be with boyfriend Dillaway) and then handed over to Curson?

I feel like you're at a point now where you are arguing with me over universally agreed facts, with the facts that I've raised, that you bloody-well agree with!

 

[Kurve]

Systemic problems and confidentiality does not equal a threat to someone's job if they chose to proceed with charges and not does in infer that they won't get support.

At the end of the day though, Carlson knew because he was her direct report. And if Brown's testimony is correct, Burland eventually knew because Higgins told him.

Higgins quit her job and did the interview with Maiden in response to a media inquiry about the incident. She knew then that what happened in there was becoming known and it was only a matter of time before the press had something solid they could run with and it was then totally out of her hands.

"Confidentiality" pfft

She knew that she wouldn't have the freedom to tell her side, pursue charges and still be able keep her job, that she had to quit.

People are mad because Higgins did it her way.

 

[FIGJAM]

Higgins quit her job and did the interview with Maiden in response to a media inquiry about the incident.

Her claims of feeling forced choose between her job and a pursuing criminal investigation within the interviews weren't directed at this point in time though; it was directed towards the early-2019 environment.

People are mad because Higgins did it her way.

No, some people are "mad" (or better said; want some fair and reasonable degree of accountability) because of untruths stated surrounding the 2019 period in particular, has literally given one woman a nervous breakdown.

 

[Kurve]

Her claims of feeling forced choose between her job and a pursuing criminal investigation within the interviews weren't directed at this point in time though; it was directed towards the early-2019 environment.

Makes no difference imo. It's obvious that Higgins needed a job but that she couldn't continue working in there and pursue charges, weathering the media storm that was sure to follow, with all eyes on her.

No, some people are "mad" (or better said; want some fair and reasonable degree of accountability) because of untruths stated surrounding the 2019 period in particular, has literally given one woman a nervous breakdown.

Why do certain elements want to lay all the blame on Higgins for this 'nervous breakdown'? It's absolute nonsense.

 

[FIGJAM]

Makes no difference imo. It's obvious that Higgins needed a job but that she couldn't continue working in there and pursue charges, weathering the media storm that was sure to follow, with all eyes on her.

Nonsense! If she decided to pursued charge, at any point, then she is subject to the same right to privacy as all claimant rape victims, such as the current claimant in Tooowoomba.

Not even Janet violates this code of conduct!

 

[Festerz]

Higgins quit her job and did the interview with Maiden in response to a media inquiry about the incident. She knew then that what happened in there was becoming known and it was only a matter of time before the press had something solid they could run with and it was then totally out of her hands.

Yep.

And the selective quoting and misrepresentation being made by a couple of posters here (one in particular) continues. This time to suit their anti-Higgins narrative regarding how the media found out about an allegation of rape in a Ministerial office in Parliament House continues. It's not just blatantly wrong but boring and repetitive trolling.

We know from the Lehrmann defamation trial that an inquiry was made about this incident well before Ms Higgins was interviewed by Sam Maiden. And that inquiry was from a Canberra Times journalist of the Perth office of Liberal Senator Michaelia Cash. And we know that inquiry was not sparked by any contact with Brittany Higgins because key aspects of the allegations being quoted by the Canberra Times journalist were dead wrong.

 

[Kurve]

Nonsense! If she decided to pursued charge, at any point, then she is subject to the same right to privacy as all claimant rape victims, such as the current claimant in Tooowoomba.

Apples and oranges. I'm sure I don't need to explain to you why.

 

[Mick F]

Makes no difference imo. It's obvious that Higgins needed a job and that she couldn't continue working in there and pursue charges, weathering the media storm that was sure to follow, with all eyes on her.



Why do certain elements want to lay all the blame on Higgins for this 'nervous breakdown'? It's absolute nonsense.

Hiding at home, to avoid being confronted with uncomfortable questions, may not necessarily indicate a ‘nervous breakdown’. Lack of character, or empathy, is not a medical condition.

 

[FIGJAM]

Apples and oranges. I'm sure I don't need to explain to you why.

Of course they're not the same, but the Toowoomba case isn't the same as a more conventional sexual assault case either, bringing the heat of the very same media throng that has followed this case from the beginning.

Yet the claimant there has had absolute anonymity to the point of not even having to go into the court room.

There could be reasonable court orders to protect the media from even reporting what government department the alleged assault eventuated in, to avoid an undesired Guess Who scenario.

Anonymity can be done and it is indeed a legal right of the claimant.

 

[FIGJAM]

Hiding at home, to avoid being confronted with uncomfortable questions, may not necessarily indicate a ‘nervous breakdown’. Lack of character, or empathy, is not a medical condition.

What an absolute dog of a thing to say!!

 

[Kurve]

Of course they're not the same, but the Toowoomba case isn't the same as a more conventional sexual assault case either, bringing the heat of the very same media throng that has followed this case from the beginning.

The media throng were there for Lehrmann who tried to have suppression orders placed over the reporting.

Yet the claimant there has had absolute anonymity to the point of not even having to go into the court room.

There's no pressure for the public to know who this victim is and we're not going to see the kinds of leaks to the media Higgins has been subjected to for years.

There could be reasonable court orders to protect the media from even reporting what government department the alleged assault eventuated in, to avoid an undesired Guess Who scenario.

No it was never going to play out that way.

A serious crime had been committed in Parliament House in the Minister for Defence's office.

 

[Kurve]

What an absolute dog of a thing to say!!

That's probably what many Australians thought when Reynolds threw Kimberley Kitching under a bus

 

[GrayRanga]

Of course they're not the same, but the Toowoomba case isn't the same as a more conventional sexual assault case either, bringing the heat of the very same media throng that has followed this case from the beginning.

Yet the claimant there has had absolute anonymity to the point of not even having to go into the court room.

There could be reasonable court orders to protect the media from even reporting what government department the alleged assault eventuated in, to avoid an undesired Guess Who scenario.

Anonymity can be done and it is indeed a legal right of the claimant.

You realise that the Toowoomda trial is a criminal trial.

There is no claimant.

There is the accused and the alleged victim

For somebody who nit picks evey element of trancsripts; a rookie error.

The victim (or prosecution on their behalf) may apply to the Court in a criminal trial for sexual assault to not be named and in some instances, especially with incest or paedophelia charges,the Court may order that the accused's names can be supressed to prevent identification of the Victim

Of course, Grace Tame took her sexual assailant through the Courts to be named so that her assaulter could be named

Higgins, as a sexual assault victim. had the quite understandable desire to control her own narrative of the rape and the repercussions on her own terms