Updated Bruce Lehrmann Pt2 * ACT Bar clears former DPP head Shane Drumgold of misconduct

[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

 

[Lebbo73]

Did Linda Reynolds know that Brittany Higgins might have been r*ped in her office when she met with Brittany Higgins in her office at Parliament House?

 

[Kurve]

Did Linda Reynolds know that Brittany Higgins might have been r*ped in her office when she met with Brittany Higgins in her office at Parliament House?

Yes, she did.

 

[FIGJAM]

Did Linda Reynolds know that Brittany Higgins might have been r*ped in her office when she met with Brittany Higgins in her office at Parliament House?

Higgins told Fiona Brown on the Thursday before that Monday meeting:



Brown then stated:



Higgins did not elaborate further in that meeting (by both Brown and Higgins' account).

Whilst Brown and in turn Reynolds started to worry at that point that something might have happened, but penetrative sexual assault had not been confirmed.

In addition, Brown and Reynolds knew that Lehrmann and Higgins were "in the office" after hours. The "where" in the office is now well known, but at the time, neither Brown nor Reynolds knew it was in the Minister's office on the couch (Source: Fiona Brown's affidavit).

Higgins had been "in the office" from Monday to Thursday and had two meetings with Brown in there. The Monday meeting was ultimately a very unfortunate choice of venue, but it's not the issue that the tin foil hat brigade will have you believe.

 

[Kurve]

Did Linda Reynolds know that Brittany Higgins might have been r*ped in her office when she met with Brittany Higgins in her office at Parliament House?

Higgins told Fiona Brown on the Thursday before that Monday meeting:

View attachment 2114678

Brown then stated:

View attachment 2114683

Higgins did not elaborate further in that meeting (by both Brown and Higgins' account).

Whilst Brown and in turn Reynolds started to worry at that point that something might have happened, but penetrative sexual assault had not been confirmed.

In addition, Brown and Reynolds knew that Lehrmann and Higgins were "in the office" after hours. The "where" in the office is now well known, but at the time, neither Brown nor Reynolds knew it was in the Minister's office on the couch (Source: Fiona Brown's affidavit).

Higgins had been "in the office" from Monday to Thursday and had two meetings with Brown in there. The Monday meeting was ultimately a very unfortunate choice of venue, but it's not the issue that the tin foil hat brigade will have you believe.

You forgot to mention that Reynolds prior to that, was attempting to go behind Higgins back, pressuring Fiona Brown to report it to the police.

Nobody reports an incident to the police unless they suspect a crime has been committed.

 

[FIGJAM]

You forgot to mention that Reynolds prior to that, was attempting to go behind Higgins back, pressuring Fiona Brown to report it to the police.

Nobody reports an incident to the police unless they suspect a crime has been committed.

Of course they suspected something happened and Reynolds, being the poster child of self-interest, wanted to cover her own arse just in case something did happen.

As Lee said:

667 Indeed, I am comfortably satisfied that the Minister considered it would protect her personal interests that the very opposite occur. She wanted the incident to be reported to the police and was doing what she could to encourage Ms Higgins to see the AFP, having failed in her attempt to direct Ms Brown to report the incident the previous Friday. As I said during the hearing, it is the only alleged cover-up of which I am aware where those said to be responsible for the covering up were almost insisting the complainant to go to the police.

"The incident" Lee refers to above at that time was based upon "I remember him being on top of me".

Not rape and not specifically on the couch in Reynolds' office.

 

[Kurve]

Of course they suspected something happened and Reynolds, being the poster child of self-interest, wanted to cover her own arse just in case something did happen.

As Lee said:



"The incident" Lee refers to above at that time was based upon "I remember him being on top of me".

Not rape and not specifically on the couch in Reynolds' office.

Yeah I agree but even if Higgins didn't actually say the word 'rape' of course in the circumstances, it probably would be and we'd have expected among ALL of them in the big house where laws are made, they knew it.

 

[Festerz]

Yeah I agree but even if Higgins didn't actually say the word 'rape' of course in the circumstances, it probably would be and we'd have expected among ALL of them in the big house where laws are made, they knew it.

FMD.

Here we go again.

Higgins used the words 'he was on top of me' to embarrassingly first describe to her boss what is clearly a sexual assault committed without consent by her work colleague after hours in a Ministerial Office of Parliament House.

That we have, yet again, the same posters haggling over what those words actually mean or imply tells the same old story of ignorance and victim blaming when it comes to allegations of sexual assault. That it is being used for partisan reasons to excuse the subsequent actions of a Federal Minister makes it even worse.

 

[Kurve]

FMD.

Here we go again.

Higgins used the words 'he was on top of me' to embarrassingly first describe to her boss what is clearly a sexual assault committed without consent by her fellow employee after hours.

That we have, yet again, the same posters haggling over what those words actually mean or imply tells the same old story of ignorance and victim blaming when it comes to allegations of sexual assault. That it is being used for partisan reasons to excuse the subsequent actions of a Federal Minister makes it even worse.

It's almost like Reynolds is trying to get off on a technicality.

 

[Kurve]

Of course they suspected something happened and Reynolds, being the poster child of self-interest, wanted to cover her own arse just in case something did happen.

As Lee said:



"The incident" Lee refers to above at that time was based upon "I remember him being on top of me".

Not rape and not specifically on the couch in Reynolds' office.

According to Reynolds they learned about the incident via the DHS report and that Higgins had been found naked on her couch.

 

[Underarrest_]

FMD.

Here we go again.

Higgins used the words 'he was on top of me' to embarrassingly first describe to her boss what is clearly a sexual assault committed without consent by her work colleague after hours in a Ministerial Office of Parliament House.

Found on the couch passed out drunk and naked. “I remember him on top of me.” 1 +1=3?

 

[Kurve]

That we have, yet again, the same posters haggling over what those words actually mean or imply tells the same old story of ignorance and victim blaming when it comes to allegations of sexual assault. That it is being used for partisan reasons to excuse the subsequent actions of a Federal Minister makes it even worse.

Lebbo did ask which is what dragged it all back up again.

 

[Festerz]

Lebbo did ask which is what dragged it all back up again.

Yes, well let's not forget that poster is the one who originally claimed in this thread (March 2021) that 'Brittany got sloshed and had a romp with another staffer at Parliament House. Then the embarrassment of what happened set in and we have a rape allegation'.

So my comments about victim blaming are pertinent in relation to the context of the matter being brought up again.

 

[FIGJAM]

According to Reynolds they learned about the incident via the DHS report and that Higgins had been found naked on her couch.

Fiona Brown was hammered under oath by two superstar $12,000 per day barristers in Sue Chrisanthou and Matthew Collins about all of the issues that you’ve raised and a superstar judge Justice Lee still sided with Brown and Reynolds’ account over Higgins’.

Lee even published all of the evidence online for your perusal on your link at the top of the page.

This is the very judge that said “Mr Lehrmann r*ped Ms Higgins”, which you and others take as gospel.

And yet “some posters” suggest “some posters” are trying to “spin a narrative"? "Some posters" might need to look in the mirror!

Ultimately, this bullshit about who knew what when; who should have done the or asked this at this point; whether there was a "steam clean" or a Chux Superwipe used on the couch; when the CCTV should have been handed over etc. is all just deflection from the main true crime at hand here, as well as the follow-up insanity by both Higgins and Sharaz in weaponising a demonstrably partly factually inaccurate story for personal gain. And Higgins and Sharaz knowingly pedalled some untruths to get themselves on telly.

 

[Kurve]

Fiona Brown was hammered under oath by two superstar $12,000 per day barristers in Sue Chrisanthou and Matthew Collins about all of the issues that you’ve raised and a superstar judge Justice Lee still sided with Brown and Reynolds’ account over Higgins’.

Lee even published all of the evidence online for your perusal on your link at the top of the page.

This is the very judge that said “Mr Lehrmann r*ped Ms Higgins”, which you and others take as gospel.

And yet “some posters” suggest “some posters” are trying to “spin a narrative"? "Some posters" might need to look in the mirror!

Ultimately, this bullshit about who knew what when; who should have done the or asked this at this point; whether there was a "steam clean" or a Chux Superwipe used on the couch; when the CCTV should have been handed over etc. is all just deflection from the main true crime at hand here, as well as the follow-up insanity by both Higgins and Sharaz in weaponising a demonstrably partly factually inaccurate story for personal gain. And Higgins and Sharaz knowingly pedalled some untruths to get themselves on telly.

 

[FIGJAM]

Ironically this is as close as you've ever gotten to addressing the facts-based points that I've made!

 

[jason_recliner]

FMD.

 

[Underarrest_]

Fiona Brown was hammered under oath by two superstar $12,000 per day barristers in Sue Chrisanthou and Matthew Collins about all of the issues that you’ve raised and a superstar judge Justice Lee still sided with Brown and Reynolds’ account over Higgins’.

Lee even published all of the evidence online for your perusal on your link at the top of the page.

This is the very judge that said “Mr Lehrmann r*ped Ms Higgins”, which you and others take as gospel.

And yet “some posters” suggest “some posters” are trying to “spin a narrative"? "Some posters" might need to look in the mirror!

Ultimately, this bullshit about who knew what when; who should have done the or asked this at this point; whether there was a "steam clean" or a Chux Superwipe used on the couch; when the CCTV should have been handed over etc. is all just deflection from the main true crime at hand here, as well as the follow-up insanity by both Higgins and Sharaz in weaponising a demonstrably partly factually inaccurate story for personal gain. And Higgins and Sharaz knowingly pedalled some untruths to get themselves on telly.

I agree, there is a main true crime and this is all behind the person who has allegedly committed the crime (as we know, he’s got other things to deal with now) but that’s how sad this all is. After 5 years it’s still dragging on.
Surely Reynolds has more self esteem/supports to get through this without dragging everyone (except the perpetrator) through all of this and sending a victim of a crime broke.

 

[Kurve]

Ironically this is as close as you've ever gotten to addressing the facts-based points that I've made!

 

[Xtreme]

Surely Reynolds has more self esteem/supports to get through this without dragging everyone (except the perpetrator) through all of this and sending a victim of a crime broke.

Perhaps BH/DS should have been more sensible and not slag off LR on social media.

Actions have consequences. These in particular can't be forgiven/forgotten with a "lol soz, just kidding" apology.

 

[Underarrest_]

Perhaps BH/DS should have been more sensible and not slag off LR on social media.

Actions have consequences. These in particular can't be forgiven/forgotten with a "lol soz, just kidding" apology.

Personally, I don’t think there was any need for the social media posts but wasn’t one of these posted after LR leaked BH’s payout?
We’re talking about a victim of a horrible (alleged) crime and it’s hardly an eye for an eye in contrast to drag a victim of rape through court knowing it’s probably going to send them broke.

 

[FIGJAM]

Surely Reynolds has more self esteem/supports to get through this without dragging everyone (except the perpetrator) through all of this and sending a victim of a crime broke.

Fully agreed on that.

I'm very keen to know what the sticking points were with the negotiations between Reynolds and Higgins/Sharaz, but we won't know this until costings.

The way I see it, is that it can't be solely about dollars, because even if Reynolds gets some form of a win, she might not be awarded costs and could very easily be in the negative herself.

I'm assuming that Reynolds wanted Higgins to concede that her Wilkinson / Maiden articles of a political cover-up and mismanagement were fabricated / imagined in line with Lee's findings.

 

[Lebbo73]

Lebbo did ask which is what dragged it all back up again.

That’s because I wanted to know if Linda Reynolds knew or not that potentially a rape had occurred in her office. You said she did and FIGJAM put doubt on whether Reynolds knew.

 

[FIGJAM]

That’s because I wanted to know if Linda Reynolds knew or not that potentially a rape had occurred in her office. You said she did and FIGJAM put doubt on whether Reynolds knew.

There is a problem with the perennial cover-up conspiracy theories, in that who knew (or should have known) what, when and where reads perfectly when written down with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight.

But real life isn’t played out in hindsight. It’s dynamic and people don’t know everything all at once. And they all have other shit to deal with at the same time and would have NFI just how big an issue this would become at the time.

 

[Underarrest_]

Fully agreed on that.

I'm very keen to know what the sticking points were with the negotiations between Reynolds and Higgins/Sharaz, but we won't know this until costings.

The way I see it, is that it can't be solely about dollars, because even if Reynolds gets some form of a win, she might not be awarded costs and could very easily be in the negative herself.

I'm assuming that Reynolds wanted Higgins to concede that her Wilkinson / Maiden articles of a political cover-up and mismanagement were fabricated / imagined in line with Lee's findings.

Spending a million dollars to feel a million dollars is bizzare to me.
Even if Linda wins, Brittany herself has not conceded to this.

 

[FIGJAM]

Spending a million dollars to feel a million dollars is bizzare to me.
Even if Linda wins, Brittany herself has not conceded to this.

Agreed.

I am of the view that even it Reynolds "wins" she'll get two fifths of **** all.

Reynolds "won" on the Lee verdict and should have let it go from there.

The live case is an abomination.