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.

 

[Festerz]

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.

Yes.

This was covered in an earlier post of mine in part one of this thread but it's important to understand how this story of the alleged Toowoomba rape in October 2021 became public and why.

Because it is yet another example of the Australian newspaper and the Murdoch press seeking to control a sympathetic narrative around Bruce Lehrmann and to shame his alleged rape victim(s) by carefully curating what it chooses to post as facts of the case.

A recap...

On 27 October 2023, the Daily Mail published an article headlined:

‘Full details of rape accusations against Bruce Lehrmann after meeting alleged victim at a Toowoomba strip club — and when she came forward.’

The 'journalist' for that story, Kylie Stevens attributes as her source a court brief she states was ‘obtained exclusively by The Australian’:

‘According to a court brief obtained exclusively by The Australian newspaper, the pair used cocaine during the night.’

And where did The Australian get this confidential information? The Australian revealed its source as a 'confidential Qld Police Brief' in a story it published after the Daily Mail story appeared , with a salacious headline detailing prostitutes, unprotected sex and cocaine.

For the record, these are the Queensland Police regulations for access to a court brief:

A copy of a Court Brief (QP 9) can be obtained by a member of the public where that document contains information about that person or relates to the exercise of a right that may be available to the person (e.g. criminal injury compensation). Usually, only the victim or their authorised legal representative will be provided with a copy.

A QP 9 is provided only where the court proceedings have been finalised and the appeal period (if applicable) has expired. Confidential or privileged material may be excluded from this document.

Obviously none of these conditions were fulfilled by The Australian as when the story was was published via their mates at the Daily Mail and then in their own front page story, Lehrmann had not even faced committal proceedings, let alone a trial.

And yet someone at Qld Police provided an unredacted confidential copy of the court brief to a certain Australian journalist - who has used confidential or privileged information about this case to curate a pro-Bruce/anti victim narrative.

Sounds familiar doesn't it? And will more of this confidential material resurface in either NewsCorp publications or the Daily Mail when Lehrmann's trial commences in a couple of week's time? Just as Janet Albrechtsen and her NewsCorp colleagues published leaked private text messages from Brittany Higgins phone that could only have come from the ACT Police and were not used in the Lehrmann criminal trial.

This was the second time a police brief concerning Lehrmann rape charges has mysteriously found its way to the wrong address, remembering that in the aborted ACT rape trial an unredacted police brief was “accidentally” sent by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to Lehrmann’s lawyers. The brief contained Ms Higgins’ counselling notes and a recorded interview.

As a story published at the time and (I think) I linked in my earlier post on this matter. How many leaks from police sources concerning the same accused rapist can be considered inadvertent rather than deliberate?

And how many times does The Australian become the lucky beneficiary of leaked and highly confidential police or judicial information that it then carefully edits and publishes to the detriment of an alleged rape victim?

And Why?

What really, really pisses me off about all this is that just a couple of weeks ago we had Janet Albrechtsen publicly bragging to her NewsCorp buddies that 'she wasn't terribly interested' in whether Brittany Higgins was or wasn't r*ped by Bruce Lehrmann in Parliament House. Her interest, she claims, was the noble pursuit of ensuring Bruce Lehrmann got a fair trial. And yet her media employer has been at the forefront of publishing what is clearly highly confidential and private information leaked from police and justice sources that is carefully edited to sell a narrative that is prejudicial to the (alleged) victim(s) of sexual assault by Lehrmann receiving fair justice.

And yet no one has ever been charged for that leaking of court and police documents.

And as I keep saying, beyond the horror of the alleged rape of young women by the same privileged and protected former Liberal Party staffer, THAT is the real story from this saga imho - the way our justice system across several jurisdictions has been manipulated by the media.

 

[BFew]

Yes.

This was covered in an earlier post of mine in part one of this thread but it's important to understand how this story of the alleged Toowoomba rape in October 2021 became public and why.

Because it is yet another example of the Australian newspaper and the Murdoch press seeking to control a sympathetic narrative around Bruce Lehrmann and to shame his alleged rape victim(s) by carefully curating what it chooses to post as facts of the case.

A recap...

On 27 October 2023, the Daily Mail published an article headlined:

‘Full details of rape accusations against Bruce Lehrmann after meeting alleged victim at a Toowoomba strip club — and when she came forward.’

The 'journalist' for that story, Kylie Stevens attributes as her source a court brief she states was ‘obtained exclusively by The Australian’:

‘According to a court brief obtained exclusively by The Australian newspaper, the pair used cocaine during the night.’

And where did The Australian get this confidential information? The Australian revealed its source as a 'confidential Qld Police Brief' in a story it published after the Daily Mail story appeared , with a salacious headline detailing prostitutes, unprotected sex and cocaine.

For the record, these are the Queensland Police regulations for access to a court brief:

A copy of a Court Brief (QP 9) can be obtained by a member of the public where that document contains information about that person or relates to the exercise of a right that may be available to the person (e.g. criminal injury compensation). Usually, only the victim or their authorised legal representative will be provided with a copy.

A QP 9 is provided only where the court proceedings have been finalised and the appeal period (if applicable) has expired. Confidential or privileged material may be excluded from this document.

Obviously none of these conditions were fulfilled by The Australian as when the story was was published via their mates at the Daily Mail and then in their own front page story, Lehrmann had not even faced committal proceedings, let alone a trial.

And yet someone at Qld Police provided an unredacted confidential copy of the court brief to a certain Australian journalist - who has used confidential or privileged information about this case to curate a pro-Bruce/anti victim narrative.

Sounds familiar doesn't it? And will more of this confidential material resurface in either NewsCorp publications or the Daily Mail when Lehrmann's trial commences in a couple of week's time? Just as Janet Albrechtsen and her NewsCorp colleagues published leaked private text messages from Brittany Higgins phone that could only have come from the ACT Police and were not used in the Lehrmann criminal trial.

This was the second time a police brief concerning Lehrmann rape charges has mysteriously found its way to the wrong address, remembering that in the aborted ACT rape trial an unredacted police brief was “accidentally” sent by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to Lehrmann’s lawyers. The brief contained Ms Higgins’ counselling notes and a recorded interview.

As a story published at the time and (I think) I linked in my earlier post on this matter. How many leaks from police sources concerning the same accused rapist can be considered inadvertent rather than deliberate?

And how many times does The Australian become the lucky beneficiary of leaked and highly confidential police or judicial information that it then carefully edits and publishes to the detriment of an alleged rape victim?

And Why?

What really, really pisses me off about all this is that just a couple of weeks ago we had Janet Albrechtsen publicly bragging to her NewsCorp buddies that 'she wasn't terribly interested' in whether Brittany Higgins was or wasn't r*ped by Bruce Lehrmann in Parliament House. Her interest, she claims, was the noble pursuit of ensuring Bruce Lehrmann got a fair trial. And yet her media employer has been at the forefront of publishing what is clearly highly confidential and private information leaked from police and justice sources that is carefully edited to sell a narrative that is prejudicial to the (alleged) victim(s) of sexual assault by Lehrmann receiving fair justice.

And yet no one has ever been charged for that leaking of court and police documents.

And as I keep saying, beyond the horror of the alleged rape of young women by the same privileged and protected former Liberal Party staffer, THAT is the real story from this saga imho - the way our justice system across several jurisdictions has been manipulated by the media.

If Janet cared so much about legal fairness, she would have already resigned from her NewsCorp employer, for them having allegedly interfered with fairness in the judicial process by publishing highly confidential Brittany Higgins private info.

 

[Kurve]

If Janet cared so much about legal fairness, she would have already resigned from her NewsCorp employer, for them having allegedly interfered with fairness in the judicial process by publishing highly confidential Brittany Higgins private info.

That might be what this holiday is all about. Janet needs to think about whether she has a future at all in opinion writing for major news outlets.

 

[BFew]

Possibly Lehrmann PH case related?

Anti-corruption officers raid Parliament House but remain tight-lipped on target of ‘ongoing investigation’

Exclusive: Nacc says ‘operational activity’ does not involve any current or former member of parliament

www.theguardian.com

 

[Festerz]

As we all know, Bruce Lehrmann faces multiple rape charges in Toowoomba this month.

But his work in facing up to allegations for his (alleged) rape of Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in 2019 and his subsequent actions on the Seven Network and in the Federal Court is not over.

My suspicion is that Bankrupt Bruce lodged his appeal to the Federal Court finding that he DID rape Brittany Higgins for appearances in relation to his appearance in Toowoomba on rape charges. But he got the timing just a bit off and it will be interesting to see what happens if the Ten Network request for a $200k security bond to allow him to keep his appeal active is upheld.

 

[FIGJAM]

Possibly Lehrmann PH case related?

Anti-corruption officers raid Parliament House but remain tight-lipped on target of ‘ongoing investigation’

Exclusive: Nacc says ‘operational activity’ does not involve any current or former member of parliament

www.theguardian.com

Would be good if the NACC investigated elements of Higgins' payout and the strategic suppression of any sort of voice to Reynolds, Brown and Cash, but odds are it's unrelated.

 

[Festerz]

Possibly Lehrmann PH case related?

Anti-corruption officers raid Parliament House but remain tight-lipped on target of ‘ongoing investigation’

Exclusive: Nacc says ‘operational activity’ does not involve any current or former member of parliament

www.theguardian.com

Possibly. This may or may not be related to the unprecedented AFP Parliament House raid and investigation but last week Parliamentary Services secretary Rob Stefanic used an internal staff email to announce a sudden spell of leave. His deputy, who was an interim deputy commissioner for the NACC until January this year, will act in his place.

Sudden ‘period of leave’ for head of Department of Parliamentary Services

Former anti-corruption commissioner steps in after Rob Stefanic announces decision to take leave

www.theguardian.com

Remember that Stefanic was the person attacked by the AFP Commissioner Andrew Coleman for his (and his Depts) role in actions taken subsequent to Lehrmann's (alleged) Parliament House rape of Ms Higgins in 2019:

“AFP inclusion in any initial response to the incident could have resulted in early notification of an alleged criminal offence, more appropriate handling of the alleged victims welfare and better scene management,’’ Commissioner Colvin wrote.

“It remains unclear why the AFP wasn’t notified at the time of the incident. And I contend this is unacceptable.”

Stefanic was also criticised for the handling of Parliament House footage at the time of the incident and in recent months has been the subject of intense criticism and allegations in relation to conflict of interest matters.