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]

I'm not sure anybody promoted stealthing as one of the actual charges.

It's an alleged rape. She asked him to stop and he refused.

The original reports of the incident were:

"She then approached police and said she only consented to sex on the proviso he wore a condom. The alleged victim claimed that he was not wearing one during the second and third occasions they had sex."
The woman alleges that on the two final occasions the sex was not consensual because he wasn't wearing a condom.'
There was no mention originally of her 'asking him to stop'.
Certainly the first reports were that she consented to sex, but on condition of him wearing a condom. There was no suggestion he coerced or forced her to have unprotected sex on any of the occasions.

Surely there is some responsibility on the woman concerned to re-state her need for a condom, prior to each occasion of engaging in intercourse and to ensure that the man actually has enough condoms for the number of instances of intercourse she has consented to (with condom). Would you not question him? Ensure he has suited up or notice that he failed to do so? Especially as the person is a total stranger and you have no knowledge of his sexual health status. It seems to me that if he failed to wear a condom on the second occasion against your wishes, you would not consent to a third!

That is the reason I said it must have been a joke.

 

[jason_recliner]

The original reports of the incident were:

"She then approached police and said she only consented to sex on the proviso he wore a condom. The alleged victim claimed that he was not wearing one during the second and third occasions they had sex."
The woman alleges that on the two final occasions the sex was not consensual because he wasn't wearing a condom.'
There was no mention originally of her 'asking him to stop'.
Certainly the first reports were that she consented to sex, but on condition of him wearing a condom. There was no suggestion he coerced or forced her to have unprotected sex on any of the occasions.

Surely there is some responsibility on the woman concerned to re-state her need for a condom, prior to each occasion of engaging in intercourse and to ensure that the man actually has enough condoms for the number of instances of intercourse she has consented to (with condom). Would you not question him? Ensure he has suited up or notice that he failed to do so? Especially as the person is a total stranger and you have no knowledge of his sexual health status. It seems to me that if he failed to wear a condom on the second occasion against your wishes, you would not consent to a third!

That is the reason I said it must have been a joke.

Bettina? Is that you?

 

[Kurve]

Certainly the first reports were that she consented to sex, but on condition of him wearing a condom. There was no suggestion he coerced or forced her to have unprotected sex on any of the occasions.

She was asleep and woke up to find he was already on top of her .. this has a familiar ring to it.

 

[Lady O]

She was asleep and woke up to find he was already on top of her .. this has a familiar ring to it.

No mention of that initially either.

 

[Kurve]

No mention of that initially either.

Not sure I understand your point?

We never get all the detail until the case goes to committal or it goes to trial, even then suppression orders can go over some or even most of it.

The magistrate found sufficient grounds to commit Lehrmann to trial, rejecting his argument that he had “no case to answer”, two and a half weeks after the complainant gave her evidence and was cross-examined in closed court.

 

[Lady O]

Not sure I understand your point?

We never get all the detail until the case goes to committal or it goes to trial, even then suppression orders can go over some or even most of it.

The magistrate found sufficient grounds to commit Lehrmann to trial, rejecting his argument that he had “no case to answer”, two and a half weeks after the complainant gave her evidence and was cross-examined in closed court.

My point is regarding to comments I made at the outset, when this Toowoomba case was first mentioned in the media. The complainant was quoted as saying she consented to sex with a condom. Now she is saying she was coerced or forced or did not consent or was asleep.

 

[Kurve]

My point is regarding to comments I made at the outset, when this Toowoomba case was first mentioned in the media. The complainant was quoted as saying she consented to sex with a condom. Now she is saying she was coerced or forced or did not consent or was asleep.

Her account or original statement would not have changed.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

My point is regarding to comments I made at the outset, when this Toowoomba case was first mentioned in the media. The complainant was quoted as saying she consented to sex with a condom. Now she is saying she was coerced or forced or did not consent or was asleep.

Let me guess, media = Janet?

 

[Underarrest_]

My point is regarding to comments I made at the outset, when this Toowoomba case was first mentioned in the media. The complainant was quoted as saying she consented to sex with a condom. Now she is saying she was coerced or forced or did not consent or was asleep.

But isn’t it if “she consented to sex with a condom” and he proceeded to have sex twice without a condom then she did not consent.