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]

How does the bill protect Reynolds?

It was actually a submission to the Sofronoff inquiry that was something else leaked by Albrechtsen.

 

[FIGJAM]

Very few sexual assault crimes result in charges, why should they be bound to silence?

I said the opposite. And indeed, there will be rape victims who run out of a sexual assault scenario screaming screaming that they've been r*ped.

There should however (and it's just IMHO) be a reasonableness in most instances about the order in which most cases where there isn't that latter scenario, whereby the alleged victim would be best advised to go to the police before the media in anything other than extreme scenarios (ie. there needs to be a genuine cover-up / suppression of avenues to justice by all parties).

Like it or not, there are false claims and you can't give a carte blanche to anyone wanting to make claims to the media before going to the police. That is a veritable minefield!

Given Reynold's history and her behaviour, I don't buy it that the proposed bill was about protecting the process. It's laughable, why was this even on her mind and why this particular bill? She wanted law passed that would have protected her, not anybody else! IMO.

She's very self-interested, we can all agree, but what is her self-interest in this instance? Her self-interest is obvious in that she's pissed with a victim of a crime throwing her and Brown (especially) under a bus.

Linda Reynolds is all about Linda Reynolds.

Yep! It's why Lee said that Reynolds' strong desire to take Higgins to the police was because it was in her best interest.

But it was still the right thing to do. And Higgins not proceeding in 2019 was because of Higgins' own reasons, and not pressure from Reynolds.

Can I ask a question; what if Higgins proceeded with the charges in 2019? The charges that Brown and Reynolds helped arrange? What do you (or anyone) think that Brown and Reynolds would have done?

We probably wouldn't even know there was a rapist working for the Minister for Defence if Higgins hadn't gone to the press.

Nonsense! The AFP chased the case hard in 2019. There was an opportunity there to press charges.

In 2021, if Higgins truly sought justice against Lehrmann, then she could have gone to the police and reignited the case and most likely had charges laid.

The story would have broken in the fullness of time.

And even if the story didn't break as a result of an affirmative criminal charge, then anyone would have the right to tell their truth irrespective. Bill Shorten resigned today and Kathy Sherriff has told her truth after trying the police first (not that I'm casting aspersions on to either party in that case, because I know little about the allegations).

 

[Kurve]

She's very self-interested, we can all agree, but what is her self-interest in this instance? Her self-interest is obvious in that she's pissed with a victim of a crime throwing her and Brown (especially) under a bus.

The tortious conspiracy might be between Reynolds and Albrechtsen, this looks like baiting to me. Has anybody aside from Albrechtsen, actually seen this submission from Reynolds? Have you seen it?

According to The Australian, Senator Reynolds made a submission to the Sofronoff inquiry that the ACT Crimes Act be amended to deter alleged victims from using the media and/or parliamentary forums in situations where the accused should be subject to criminal justice processes.

 

[Kurve]

Nonsense! The AFP chased the case hard in 2019. There was an opportunity there to press charges

It's common knowledge that the AFP didn't want to follow through with charges, that there was a lot of resistance within.

 

[FIGJAM]

The tortious conspiracy might be between Reynolds and Albrechtsen, this looks like baiting to me. Has anybody aside from Albrechtsen, actually seen this submission from Reynolds? Have you seen it?

Nope! Just on what's reported.

"Baiting"?

It's common knowledge that the AFP didn't want to follow through with charges, that there was a lot of resistance within.

Incorrect. The AFP in 2019 were very proactive, even making follow up calls after Higgins had dropped the charges and kept chasing down CCTV footage.

The resistance was in 2021 after the "brume of confusion" was introduced by the media-first attitude of Higgins and a number demonstrably false claims.

 

[campbell]

It's common knowledge that the AFP didn't want to follow through with charges, that there was a lot of resistance within.

indeed , i know that to be correct.

old boys club.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Nope! Just on what's reported.

"Baiting"?



Incorrect. The AFP in 2019 were very proactive, even making follow up calls after Higgins had dropped the charges and kept chasing down CCTV footage.

The resistance was in 2021 after the "brume of confusion" was introduced by the media-first attitude of Higgins and a number demonstrably false claims.

If there was no coverup, why did the AFP have to 'keep chasing down' the CCTV footage?

 

[Kurve]

Nope! Just on what's reported.

It seems pretty clear to me that Reynolds submission to change the Crime Act so that alleged victims may not use the media or parliamentary forums, was a response to the decisions Higgins made.

Reynolds clearly didn't think the AFP would have moved on placing charges without pressure. In that case, if rape victims weren't allowed to speak, that would have advantaged Reynolds enormously.

Reynolds told her psychologist that the rape trial was politically motivated and:

Her notes detailed the pair’s ongoing sessions, including the senator’s thoughts in late 2022 when Lehrmann was on trial for rape.

“If this wasn’t political it wouldn’t have gone to court, pre-orchestrated by Brittany and her boyfriend,” one of the notes read to the court said.

Linda Reynolds believed Lehrmann rape trial was politically motivated, psychologist tells defamation trial

April Jones tells Perth court she started counselling Reynolds after reports of Brittany Higgins’ accusations senator mishandled her rape complaint

www.theguardian.com

 

[Festerz]

View attachment 2101331

A case management hearing regarding the Lehrmann appeal to the Lee judgement in his defamation trial. To be heard by Justice Abraham.

 

[Festerz]

It's common knowledge that the AFP didn't want to follow through with charges, that there was a lot of resistance within.

indeed , i know that to be correct.

old boys club.

Yep the lack of commitment by key AFP officers involved in the Lehrmann investigation is a fact that was acknowledged by Bruce Lehrmann's lawyer (Steve Whybrow SC) in statements made subsequent to Lehrmann's abandoned rape trial.

Steven Whybrow SC said in a statement provided to an independent inquiry into Lehrmann’s prosecution that he met with detective inspector Marcus Boorman in October 2022, while the jury was deliberating in Lehrmann’s case.

Boorman had texted Whybrow asking to meet for a coffee on 25 October, Whybrow said in the statement, six days after the jury had retired to consider its verdict.

“When I saw him, he appeared to me to be anxious and agitated and concerned we not be seen speaking together in direct line of sight of the ODPP [office of the director of public prosecutions],” Whybrow said in a statement.

“DI Boorman indicated to me that he was quite distressed about this prosecution and considered that Mr Lehrmann was innocent.

“He made several other comments along these lines and I recall he said words to the effect :

‘if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, I’m resigning’.”

Remember this is the lead investigator in a rape trial speaking to the accused's barrister. And it followed the leak of confidential personal information pertaining to Ms Higgins from AFP files to Bruce Lehrmann's attorney. A (claimed) innocent mistake (and its receipt quickly acknowledged to the Court by Mr Whybrow it has to be said).

This is the AFP being 'very proactive' apparently . Which it was of course - but not in the way that was of prosecutorial benefit to Ms Higgins. And certainly not conduct that any rape victim would expect the lead police officers involved in leading both the investigation and subsequent charging of their alleged rapist to behave. Frankly its friggin' disgusting.

 

[BonzaRam]

Yep the lack of commitment by key AFP officers involved in the Lehrmann investigation is a fact that was acknowledged by Bruce Lehrmann's lawyer (Steve Whybrow SC) in statements made subsequent to Lehrmann's abandoned rape trial.

Steven Whybrow SC said in a statement provided to an independent inquiry into Lehrmann’s prosecution that he met with detective inspector Marcus Boorman in October 2022, while the jury was deliberating in Lehrmann’s case.

Boorman had texted Whybrow asking to meet for a coffee on 25 October, Whybrow said in the statement, six days after the jury had retired to consider its verdict.

“When I saw him, he appeared to me to be anxious and agitated and concerned we not be seen speaking together in direct line of sight of the ODPP [office of the director of public prosecutions],” Whybrow said in a statement.

“DI Boorman indicated to me that he was quite distressed about this prosecution and considered that Mr Lehrmann was innocent.

“He made several other comments along these lines and I recall he said words to the effect :

‘if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, I’m resigning’.”

Remember this is the lead investigator in a rape trial speaking to the accused's barrister. And it followed the leak of confidential personal information pertaining to Ms Higgins from AFP files to Bruce Lehrmann's attorney. A (claimed) innocent mistake (and its receipt quickly acknowledged to the Court by Mr Whybrow it has to be said).

This is the AFP being 'very proactive' apparently . Which it was of course - but not in the way that was of prosecutorial benefit to Ms Higgins. And certainly not conduct that any rape victim would expect the lead police officers involved in leading both the investigation and subsequent charging of their alleged rapist to behave. Frankly its friggin' disgusting.

Umm everything you quoted in this happened in 2021/2022 after BH reignited the complaint with the AFP, not in 2019 that the 'very proactive' comment related too..... is that how a strawman fallacy works?

 

[FIGJAM]

If there was no coverup, why did the AFP have to 'keep chasing down' the CCTV footage?

Another example on why you need to watch your turns of phrase in here! "Chasing down" = "gathering evidence".

Justice Lee in Paragraphs 733 to 739 goes into detail about Higgins' embellished claims about viewing the CCTV, the legalities as to why she shouldn't have viewed them before an Evidence-In-Chief interview and the different legalities that apply to Parliament House that caused a slight delay.

Agent Rebecca Cleaves obtained the CCTV footage in a relatively timely manner and even viewed and quarantined it after Higgins had decided not to pursue the charge.

https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0369

 

[FIGJAM]

It seems pretty clear to me that Reynolds submission to change the Crime Act so that alleged victims may not use the media or parliamentary forums, was a response to the decisions Higgins made.

It was obviously a response to Higgins and Sharaz's decision to air their claims as fact that were untested and unchallenged by literally anyone, including Maiden and Wilkinson / Angus Llewelyn.

Reynolds felt aggrieved by the claims and if fighting like a complete psychopath to clear her name, whereas Brown had a nervous breakdown. There is serious collateral damage from Higgins' going to the media and telling her truth (that was also unfortunately laced with a significant amount of untruths and embellishments).

Reynolds clearly didn't think the AFP would have moved on placing charges without pressure. In that case, if rape victims weren't allowed to speak, that would have advantaged Reynolds enormously.

Reynolds told her psychologist that the rape trial was politically motivated and:

Her notes detailed the pair’s ongoing sessions, including the senator’s thoughts in late 2022 when Lehrmann was on trial for rape.

“If this wasn’t political it wouldn’t have gone to court, pre-orchestrated by Brittany and her boyfriend,” one of the notes read to the court said.

Linda Reynolds believed Lehrmann rape trial was politically motivated, psychologist tells defamation trial

April Jones tells Perth court she started counselling Reynolds after reports of Brittany Higgins’ accusations senator mishandled her rape complaint

www.theguardian.com

I don't know whether the police would have got sufficient evidence without the political pressure after a 2 year break, but wouldn't have said that it definitely wouldn't have been reopened and disagree with Reynolds there.

Nobody knows in that Sliding Doors moment that a 2021 reopening would or wouldn't have occurred, but I reckon it would have been pretty good chance given the records of the initial 2019 complaint.

As for Reynolds' comments to her psychologist, a significant difference in our points of view is that you are interested as to what Reynolds said to her psychologist; whereas I am more interested as to why she is seeing a psychologist in the first place!

 

[jason_recliner]

It was actually a submission to the Sofronoff inquiry that was something else leaked by Albrechtsen.

I can't find that - what's the mechanism by which the Bill protects Reynolds?

 

[jason_recliner]

Reynolds clearly didn't think the AFP would have moved on placing charges without pressure. In that case, if rape victims weren't allowed to speak, that would have advantaged Reynolds enormously.

How?

 

[Festerz]

A no show for Burrows on the weekend.

Seems pretty clear to me from this morning's Federal Court directions hearing that Lehrmann's appeal is in a state of disarray - due mainly to his lack of funds it seems.

The lawyer handling his appeal (Burrows) being unable to provide any certainty as to their ability to comply with the next steps of the appeal process and communication between her, her client and Channel Ten/Wilkinson seems to be virtually non existent.

Surely it's just a matter of time before Lehrmann's appeal is tossed out?

EDIT: OMG this Zali Burrows lawyer has zero clue. Her presentation before the court this morning is a train wreck. Justice Abraham is getting very annoyed at Burrows lack of understanding of court processes.

Burrows even went so far as to ask Justice Abraham to order Lehrmann's former lawyers to give to Lehrmann the $117K that was sitting in the lawyers' trust fund for the duration of the defamation trial and which originally came from settlement funds received from the ABC and news.com.au. Money that is still in trust as it might be the only money Ten and Wilkinson ever get to see from the multi-million dollar win from the Lehrmann defamation case.

Justice Abraham said words to the effect of 'I'm sorry but WTF does this have to do with me and this directions hearing?' and sent that application off to the Federal Court Registrar for determination.

The clusterfeckery continues.

 

[Kurve]

How?

The Project interview would have become very problematic for Higgins to participate in.

 

[Kurve]

It was obviously a response to Higgins and Sharaz's decision to air their claims as fact that were untested and unchallenged by literally anyone, including Maiden and Wilkinson / Angus Llewelyn.

Reynolds felt aggrieved by the claims and if fighting like a complete psychopath to clear her name, whereas Brown had a nervous breakdown. There is serious collateral damage from Higgins' going to the media and telling her truth (that was also unfortunately laced with a significant amount of untruths and embellishments).



I don't know whether the police would have got sufficient evidence without the political pressure after a 2 year break, but wouldn't have said that it definitely wouldn't have been reopened and disagree with Reynolds there.

Nobody knows in that Sliding Doors moment that a 2021 reopening would or wouldn't have occurred, but I reckon it would have been pretty good chance given the records of the initial 2019 complaint.

As for Reynolds' comments to her psychologist, a significant difference in our points of view is that you are interested as to what Reynolds said to her psychologist; whereas I am more interested as to why she is seeing a psychologist in the first place!

There's no statute of limitations on rape, the evidence was either there in 2019 or it wasn't. The evidence doesn't change through a pause.

Of course I'm interested in what Reynolds said to her psychologist, which goes to why she was seeing her in the first place. Her psychologist is a witness in this current trial.

 

[jason_recliner]

The Project interview would have become very problematic for Higgins to participate in.

Yes, and with good reason, except the bill won't be passed before the interview airs and isn't retrospective. Unless another rape victim intends to lie to the media and throw Reynolds under the bus, the bill won't protect Reynolds. It will just reduce the likelihood of future cases being compromised due to inappropriate media deals.

 

[Kurve]

. Yes, and with good reason, except the bill won't be passed before the interview airs and isn't retrospective. Unless another rape victim intends to lie to the media and throws Reynolds under the bus, the bill won't protect Reynolds. It will just reduce the likelihood of future cases being compromised due to inappropriate media deals.

It would have protected Reynolds and had Lee not found that Higgins was r*ped, given Reynolds a whole lot more leverage.

Reynolds must have been so disappointed with Lee's findings.

 

[Kurve]

. Yes, and with good reason, except the bill won't be passed before the interview airs and isn't retrospective. Unless another rape victim intends to lie to the media and throws Reynolds under the bus, the bill won't protect Reynolds. It will just reduce the likelihood of future cases being compromised due to inappropriate media deals.

The intention of Reynolds if it is as Albrechtsen purports the submission to be, was to use Higgins to prevent all victims from speaking to the media and in Parliament.

It says a lot given the problems Sofronoff now has, is that he appears to have ignored it.

 

[jason_recliner]

It would have protected Reynolds and had Lee not found that Higgins was r*ped, given Reynolds a whole lot more leverage.

Reynolds must have been so disappointed with Lee's findings.

You're missing the point. The interview has aired, the Bill isn't going to make one bit of difference to Reynolds, and certainly won't "protect" her. Not sure why you think she'd be disappointed that Leerman was convicted (or whatever the term is for civil maters, before Bfew corrects me) or why you think she is pro-rapist.

 

[jason_recliner]

The intention of Reynolds if it is as Albrechtsen purports the submission to be, was to use Higgins to prevent all victims from speaking to the media and in Parliament.

It says a lot given the problems Sofronoff now has, is that he appears to have ignored it.

Yes, for the purpose of not corrupting the justice process. It's not a bad move IMO.

What problems does Sofronoff have? How many $100 bills to stuff into his mattress?

 

[FIGJAM]

There's no statute of limitations on rape, the evidence was either there in 2019 or it wasn't. The evidence doesn't change through a pause.

I'm stating that the excellent early 'grunt' work by Agent Cleaves and others in 2019 would have helped significantly. Would the CCTV footage that she retrieved and quarantined been retrievable in 2021 at all?

Neither of us know how often that sort of data is wiped. Without it, you're relying on a tonne of handwritten evidence and notes.

It was still a 'warm' case with important evidence preserved.

Of course I'm interested in what Reynolds said to her psychologist, which goes to why she was seeing her in the first place. Her psychologist is a witness in this current trial.

The overarching reason as to why she was there, is that she was falsely accused of trying to cover-up a rape, despite demonstrably trying to help the alleged victim press charges.

Any statement or opinion blurted out by Reynolds to her shrink is largely irrelevant to this primary issue.

 

[Kurve]

You're missing the point. The interview has aired, the Bill isn't going to make one bit of difference to Reynolds, and certainly won't "protect" her. Not sure why you think she'd be disappointed that Leerman was convicted (or whatever the term is for civil maters, before Bfew corrects me) or why you think she is pro-rapist.

I'm not missing the point. If a bill was in place prior to the interview, it WOULD HAVE protected Reynolds.

Had Reynolds submission been successful going forward, it would have essentially destroyed Higgins legacy.

Can you not see how vindictive Reynolds is yet?