Christian Porter

Remove this Banner Ad

the_interloper said:
It will never be heard? What makes you say that, there'll be some sort of settlement?
Click to expand...

IMO it is mutually assured destruction.

If Porter proceeds sure the government gets to bash the ABC. So the ABC take some hits.

But if the ABC need to prove guilt what they present in an open court is going to end Porter forever.

For pissy damages why would Porter do that to himself? The criminal investigation is closed and it will not reopen.

IMO this is a political play. Hide behind the court case, weather the storm, delay for as long as possible, quietly withdraw when it suits.
 
Last edited:
QuietB said:
IMO it is mutually assured destruction.

If Porter proceeds sure the government gets to bash the ABC. So the ABC take some hits.

But if the ABC need to prove guilt what they present in an open court is going to end Porter forever.

For pissy damages why would Porter do that to himself? The investigation is closed and it will not reopen.

IMO this is a political play. Hide behind the court case, weather the storm, delay for as long as possible, quietly withdraw when it suits.
Click to expand...

He said in his presser the first he heard of the rape was a year ago.
There is a line of people that can testify that they spoke to Porter about the rape as far back as 1988.
James Hook has publicly stated that he confronted Porter in 1992.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Number37 said:
It's not a rape case, it's a defamation case.
They don't have to prove he is guilty.
They only have to demonstrate a factual basis for the printed allegation.
IMO that won't be very difficult.
Click to expand...

Quite right its a defamation case around a rape allegation that has been played out in the court of public opinion. that has found Porter guilty.

Depends what is found in the ABC emails etc. & supplied to Porters team.
The ABC legal team have a number of defences & in 6 weeks time we will know.
Until then its all speculation, particularly the issue of malice.

What is playing out here has too many similarities with the Pell appeal.
 
Number37 said:
He said in his presser the first he heard of the rape was a year ago.
There is a line of people that can testify that they spoke to Porter about the rape as far back as 1988.
James Hook has publicly stated that he confronted Porter in 1992.
Click to expand...

This is the bit Porter should be especially concerned about.

There are any number of people lined up to be a part of this. Is Porter certain of what is out there? Does he know what diary records there are? Who they were shared with? How many second hand accounts there are, how credible they are and how prominent the people sharing those accounts are? Does he know what medical records there are, how far back they go and what they record?

If a 31 page dossier was prepared then there is clearly a lot of material.

Maybe the whole thing is just discovery for Porter?
 
QuietB said:
This is the bit Porter should be especially concerned about.

There are any number of people lined up to be a part of this. Is Porter certain of what is out there? Does he know what diary records there are? Who they were shared with? How many second hand accounts there are, how credible they are and how prominent the people sharing those accounts are? Does he know what medical records there are, how far back they go and what they record?

If a 31 page dossier was prepared then there is clearly a lot of material.

Maybe the whole thing is just discovery for Porter?
Click to expand...

If Porter has launched proceedings without seeing that dossier, he is a fool.
 
Number37 said:
He said in his presser the first he heard of the rape was a year ago.
There is a line of people that can testify that they spoke to Porter about the rape as far back as 1988.
James Hook has publicly stated that he confronted Porter in 1992.
Click to expand...

Where has James Hooke stated that? Has he added to the statement below?

265FE4CA-88D2-4F92-8D92-7376DD872EEB.jpeg
 
QuietB said:
This is the bit Porter should be especially concerned about.

There are any number of people lined up to be a part of this. Is Porter certain of what is out there? Does he know what diary records there are? Who they were shared with? How many second hand accounts there are, how credible they are and how prominent the people sharing those accounts are? Does he know what medical records there are, how far back they go and what they record?

If a 31 page dossier was prepared then there is clearly a lot of material.

Maybe the whole thing is just discovery for Porter?
Click to expand...
unfortunately the person who prepared the dossier is no longer able to be cross-examined about its contents which makes things difficult for the defence i would have thought.
 
Number37 said:
Porter has a well known reputation as a sleaze.
Nothing good can come out of it for him if it gets to trial.
There's history between Gleeson & Porter that adds a litle spice to what may happen in court.
Porter would be crazy to put himself in the position where Gleeson could tear him a new one in full public view.
Click to expand...
doesn't his reputation only have meaning in sentencing? so the first step is to get a verdict of guilt.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I th
Big_Birdy said:
Where has James Hooke stated that? Has he added to the statement below?

View attachment 1084019
Click to expand...
I think it's the "clear recollections of relevant discussions with Christian Porter in 1992..." part.

It all comes down what we're those "relevant discussions"? Was it Porter bragging that he had sex with Hook's girlfriend before Jim or Hook confronting Porter about the allegation?

If its either its big given Porter said he had intimate relationship with her and never knew of the claim til this year.

*edit- should say he said he "never" had an intimate relationship with her
 
Last edited:
Dry Rot said:
You seem to know a lot about the alleged rapist of Higgins.

What is your prediction about how all this will play out? Will he be extradited?

We can only hope his other 3 victims come forward now.
Click to expand...

There's lots of information about him out there, as you would expect.
Extradition would be a certainty if they have enough evidence.
 
BigTacoBandit said:
I th
I think it's the "clear recollections of relevant discussions with Christian Porter in 1992..." part.

It all comes down what we're those "relevant discussions"? Was it Porter bragging that he had sex with Hook's girlfriend before Jim or Hook confronting Porter about the allegation?

If its either its big given Porter said he had intimate relationship with her and never knew of the claim til this year.
Click to expand...

Does it have any relevance to defamation action.
 
Kwality said:
Quite right its a defamation case around a rape allegation that has been played out in the court of public opinion. that has found Porter guilty.

Depends what is found in the ABC emails etc. & supplied to Porters team.
The ABC legal team have a number of defences & in 6 weeks time we will know.
Until then its all speculation, particularly the issue of malice.

What is playing out here has too many similarities with the Pell appeal.
Click to expand...

It would be a judge only trial so no need to worry about a jury and what they might or might not think.
Therefore...Court of public opinion finding of guilt is non binding, meaningless and irrelevant.

It is up to Porter's team to prove he was defamed.
ABC only needs to show it was a substantiated allegation that they printed.

Substantiated allegation isn't the same as proving he is guilty of rape.

Miraculously... Porter's reappearance came not long after the NSW cops said there was insufficient evidence.
Conveniently ... can't argue there is no substance to the printed allegation if there was an ongoing independent inquiry ordered by Morrison.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Christian Porter

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top