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

 

[FIGJAM]

Reynolds has recently thanked Morrison for some reason or another but I don't believe she's sincere, she's out to get him as well for apologising to Higgins in Parliament.

There's little doubt in my mind that Reynolds is a bit of a bitch, but then she didn't engage in a cover up or bully anyone.

Hence why if I were Higgins and Sharaz's lawyer/s, I'd have advised them to find some common ground and thrown Reynolds a bone, because the risk of fighting it is potentially financially (and emotionally) devastating.

 

[Kurve]

There's little doubt in my mind that Reynolds is a bit of a bitch, but then she didn't engage in a cover up or bully anyone.

This isn't a partisan take here, I wouldn't trust Reynolds at all. Her behaviour through the rape trial was beyond inappropriate and she chose a side there against a rape victim, out of spite and vindictiveness. It's part of who she is.

Hence why if I were Higgins and Sharaz's lawyer/s, I'd have advised them to find some common ground and thrown Reynolds a bone, because the risk of fighting it is potentially financially (and emotionally) devastating.

That would be smart IMO but Reynolds doesn't want to be thrown a bone.

 

[FIGJAM]

This isn't a partisan take here, I wouldn't trust Reynolds at all. Her behaviour through the rape trial was beyond inappropriate and she chose a side there against a rape victim, out of spite and vindictiveness. It's part of who she is.

She was and is just looking after her own interest IMHO!

I know it's hard to say that without being accused of a "Reynolds supporter", or having rocket scientist state "Oh yeah, Reynolds is the real victim in this!", but she was ultimately falsely accused of shit.

Everyone is going to react differently in such circumstances and her seemingly more on the self-interested side of the ledger has reacted in a way that looks like she's siding with Bruce, but she's just pissed with the cover-up narrative that Justice Lee identified in the civil trial.

And for choosing to side against a rape victim, she openly said on the Spotlight program that she had NFI what happened that night and wanted to take the matter to the police the second she caught whiff of a potential assault. Maybe she did the latter as a self-interested reaction, but it was hardly like she she disbelieved Higgins. Then Higgins bought Reynolds flowers with a thank you for her support. Sorry, but the narrative of Reynolds being pro-Bruce just doesn't gel.

 

[FIGJAM]

Lisa Wilkinson arguing against Justice Lee's findings:

Lisa Wilkinson returns fire in Lehrmann defamation appeal

The high-profile presenter has responded to Bruce Lehrmann’s bid to overturn his devastating defamation defeat.

www.theage.com.au

The judge found the media parties had proven on the balance of probabilities that Lehrmann r*ped his then-colleague Higgins in Parliament House in 2019. He dismissed the former staffer’s lawsuit.

However, Lee also found that Ten and Wilkinson would not have been able to rely on a fallback defence of qualified privilege if the truth defence had failed.

Qualified privilege is a defence protecting some publications of public interest where a media outlet and its journalists can show they acted reasonably. Lee found Ten and Wilkinson had not acted reasonably in airing the sexual assault allegation.
Lee said that “[The Project’s producer] Mr [Angus] Llewellyn, like Ms Wilkinson, started from the premise that what Ms Higgins said about her allegations was true.

“They resolved from the start to publish the exclusive story and were content to do the minimum required to reduce unacceptable litigation risk,” he said.

Based upon her Logies speech and post verdict comments that were slammed by Justice Lee and Media Watch, plus these new angles, she lives in a fantasy land where her and The Project team did a stellar job, rather than a hack job at best and intentionally deceitful job at worst. And it's almost certainly the latter...

 

[Festerz]

As an issue of law, it's impt that a decision on the matter of consent is clarified for future rape cases (incl the current Toowoomba matter).

Well done to Lisa W counsel for raising it in response to the Lehrmann appeal (as a matter of contention)!

 

[FIGJAM]

As an issue of law, it's impt that a decision on the matter of consent is clarified for future rape cases (incl the current Toowoomba matter).

Well done to Lisa W counsel for raising it in response to the Lehrmann appeal (as a matter of contention)!

Justice Lee covered the issue of consent in extremely fine detail, as well as the fact that Higgins provided contradictory evidence to the AFP/Police, at trial and to the media.

The primary contradictory issues is the fact that Higgins stated her famous “I could not have consented. It would have been like f***ing a log.” comment, which Wilkinson's legal team have been instructed to focus on, versus her claim under oath that she repeatedly said "no on a loop" among other things.

494 These representations, which suggest she was passive and hence incapable of consenting, reflect an interaction somewhat different from one where Ms Higgins had repeatedly, and unequivocally, said “no on a loop”. This must be qualified by noting that consistently with the notion of passivity, there was alleged immobility, in that she also said at trial (as I have reproduced in context above), that she: “couldn’t scream for some reason… it was just, like, trapped in my throat; I couldn’t do it. I know I felt really, like, waterlogged and heavy and I couldn’t – I couldn’t move”; and later: “I couldn’t, like, scream like you see in, like, the horror movies, like, I couldn’t – I don’t know. I don’t know why I couldn’t” (T629).

495 In pointing this out, I am conscious that shortly after the incident, on 1 April 2019, Ms Higgins also told AFP officers that “Bruce had said something about finishing – I said something about “no don’t” or “no don’t” (Ex R77 (at 4)). As I will explain, however, this was said by Ms Higgins while she was conveying a number of untruths to AFP officers which seemed to paint her actions in what she, at the time, perceived to be a better light and at a time she was not intending to proceed with a criminal complaint.

496 What is one to make of this?

497 It might have been said to be a possible pointer to a lack of reliability of this aspect of her evidence given at trial, but the point was not relied upon by those acting for Mr Lehrmann, presumably because what commonsense and the agreed facts go some way in explaining is that a tension or inconsistency of this type must not be dealt with superficially and there may be an entirely benign explanation for its existence.

498 If Ms Higgins had been the victim of the assault she recounted, this could simply reflect the lability and frailty of memory following such an event and how someone can come to process trauma and later recount a consolidated memory of a highly distressing incident which has come to dominate her life in recent times. Whatever the truth of what happened, I have little doubt Ms Higgins’ current account at trial reflects how I expect she would have wanted to act in such a situation, that is, to demonstrate active and repeated resistance to her assaulter.

499 I will come back to this issue, but before leaving it, it is worth recalling her almost ebullient reaction when told the news by Ms Maiden that Mr Lehrmann denied that any sex took place and, as she said in chief (T703.22):

DR COLLINS: And just explain what was going through your mind as you heard for the first time that Mr Lehrmann’s position was that he had not had any sexual contact with you?---I was really relieved. I thought that, like, we were going to have this very nuanced debate about consent and alcohol and all this kind of stuff, and I was really shocked and kind of happy at the time that he was saying that nothing had happened, because to my mind it was so preposterous …

500 There is, of course, no nuanced debate about consent if a woman repeatedly says no and a man proceeds on regardless. Or, going back to the words Ms Higgins used to Mr Dillaway, there is no need in such circumstances to only “feel like” what happened was not consensual. There is, however, the real possibility of some form of nuanced debate if a woman is barely lucid, she later processes what occurred, and she realises she has been assaulted while initially lacking proper awareness of what was going on.

Ultimately, Justice Lee has analysed this issue to the nth degree and ultimately he has exhibited 'nuance' (to use his oft used term) to arrive at a balance of probability judgement on something that he cannot know as an absolute fact. And it's that very balance of probability scenario that permitted Lee to judge that "Mr Lehrmann r*ped Ms Higgins".

 

[HirdsTheWord]

This isn't a partisan take here, I wouldn't trust Reynolds at all. Her behaviour through the rape trial was beyond inappropriate and she chose a side there against a rape victim, out of spite and vindictiveness. It's part of who she is.



That would be smart IMO but Reynolds doesn't want to be thrown a bone.

knowing what you know in hindsight, would you trust anyone involved in this case?

Every single person involved is shady as all hell IMO.

 

[BFew]

Bruce's response was entirely expected.

Network Ten demands Bruce Lehrmann pays $200k

Network Ten has demanded Bruce Lehrmann cough up a $200,000 security payment before his defamation appeal can take place.

www.dailymail.co.uk

'Channel Ten demanded Bruce Lehrmann cough up $200,000 - and he hit them with an unexpected response ' ​

'PUBLISHED: 16:27 AEST, 21 June 2024 | UPDATED: 16:27 AEST, 21 June 2024
...
Network Ten has demanded Bruce Lehrmann cough up a $200,000 security payment before his defamation appeal can take place - but he has refused to pay.

In a filing in the Federal Court on Friday, the TV network argued that Justice Michael Lee's decision in Lehrmann's lawsuit against Ten and The Project should be upheld.
...
he will represent himself in the appeal.

Network Ten is believed to have made the demand to Lehrmann via email.

Lehrmann responded to Ten: 'I am firmly of the view that my appeal grounds have significant legal merit and are of a high public interest.

'I decline your request.'

Network Ten is expected to make a formal application for the security payment in court.
...'

 

[FIGJAM]

Interesting article from this thread's favourite rag, The Australian, on potential change in sexual assault cases:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/australian-law-reform-commission-probe-to-deal-with-issues-from-brittany-higgins-and-bruce-lehrmann-saga/news-story/5c877e2502c3f7c0914c1fbf08aac472

A wide-ranging probe to overhaul the nation’s sexual assault laws will “deal with every issue” that arose after Brittany Higgins accused Bruce Lehrmann of raping her in Parliament House and will examine whether civil remedies, with lower standards of proof, can bring justice for complainants.
Two long-term judges presiding over the review – Australian Law Reform Commission president Mordecai Bromberg and part-time commissioner Marcia Neave – said on Monday the inquiry would investigate the “non-engagement” of rape victims with criminal solutions, and examine whether there were alternative civil remedies that could bring them justice.

The commission’s review was announced earlier this year by Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, and will investigate evidence frameworks, court processes, jury directions and consent laws.

The commissioners are required to consult a hand-picked “lived-experience advisory group” of sexual-assault survivors who will provide insights on how to achieve better outcomes for those who report attacks.

Speaking at a University of Melbourne webinar, Justice Bromberg, a Federal Court judge, said that although the inquiry would not make specific reference to Mr Lehrmann’s aborted rape trial and subsequent defamation loss, it would “deal with every issue that really arises out of that particular example”.

“I suppose the Brittany Higgins situation is somewhat of an example of how differently the criminal justice system and the civil justice system dealt with, what were in essence, the same facts or the same conduct,” Justice Bromberg said.

Ms Higgins in 2021 reported Mr Lehrmann to police for raping her on the couch of Liberal senator Linda Reynolds. The matter went to trial in the ACT Supreme Court in 2022, during which Ms Higgins was cross-examined for multiple days and emerged from court in tears, while Mr Lehrmann reserved his right to silence.

The case was ultimately aborted due to juror misconduct, and a retrial was not ordered due to Ms Higgins’ fragile mental health.

Mr Lehrmann last year sued Network Ten and presenter Lisa Wilkinson for airing an interview with Ms Higgins on The Project in 2021 that detailed the assault but did not name him as the attacker. As the plaintiff, he was compelled to give evidence and be cross-examined. Federal Court judge Michael Lee ultimately found Mr Lehrmann to be an unreliable witness and said, on the balance of probabilities, he did rape Ms Higgins.

Mr Lehrmann’s appeal of Justice Lee’s judgment is ongoing.

Asked during the webinar whether the commission’s inquiry would make reference to the “disaster of the Brittany Higgins criminal case”, Ms Neave said she would probe where there were civil alternatives to the criminal justice system that could provide closure for survivors.

“There’s no right of silence in the civil justice system,” she said. “There are things in the civil justice system you might want to think about.”

Ms Neave, a former Victorian Supreme Court judge, said there were aspects of Justice Lee’s judgment that she “really liked” but said there were “a few other bits that have given rise to another appeal”.

Justice Bromberg said the inquiry would focus on “improving both the experience and outcome of victim survivors without ... compromising the rights of the accused”.

He said the desires of victim survivors would take primacy in the inquiry, and those desires could be achieved through civil alternatives. “One of the things that we’re focused on, of course, is a real understanding of what victim survivors want, and what justice outcomes might be desired by different victim survivors,” he said. “Not all victim survivors want a conviction through the criminal justice system.

“The civil justice system ought to be examined in particular in order to see whether some of the justice system outcomes victim survivors want could be provided through the civil system.”

Justice Bromberg said only a “very small proportion” of rape victims reported their assault.

“Statistical information suggests that it’s only about 13 per cent,” he said. “That suggests that something in the order of perhaps eight or nine perpetrators of 10 are not made accountable at all and are not brought to justice at all. It also tells us that in terms of access to justice for victim survivors, currently, because of the non-engagement and the barriers that exist to that engagement, access to justice or victim survivors, is very low.”

Ms Neave said that while the inquiry would take into account the opinions of legal professionals, they had “historically not used data very well”. “When you talk to police and prosecutors and judges, they have views about how the system is working,” she said. “We need to know their views, we need to know their impressions. But lawyers have historically not used data very well. Often the data doesn’t exist, and so we need to check what we’re told against the data.”

I've said many times in the past that a more inquisitorial system would be best for these sensitive matters.

I take some issue with the criminal jury being given the "same facts" as the civil trial, because there was even more evidence available to Justice Lee.

The criminal jury are, I assume, armed with pens and notepads, before adjourning under some pressure, being expected to nail a life-changing result in days, or weeks at the most, riding an emotional roller coaster.

Justice Lee had months and a team of staff to work through the micro issues, presumably with the aid of technology and a perfect timeline flow chart (something I feel AI could be very useful for going forward).

I know which judgement system that I'd rather be faced with either as complainant or a defendant.

 

[FIGJAM]

Another article from this thread's favourite rag, The Australian. Not as good in quality as the above article, but any article that dismantle's Sharraz's incendiary involvement is worth a repost

Sharaz claiming that Justice Lee "made his name" from this case is both offensive and comically ironic at the same time.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...-story/73a3fcb24266ce9c495166dc9366d12cSharaz

STEPHEN RICE
3 hours ago
Demand on Justice Lee talk: ‘Will he discuss Lehrmann case?’

Brittany Higgins’ husband David Sharaz has written to organisers of a Women in Media event featuring Justice Michael Lee demanding to know whether the Federal Court judge will discuss the Lehrmann rape defamation case “for which he has made his name”.
Justice Lee was highly critical of Mr Sharaz in his judgment in the Lehrmann case, citing his appearance in Ms Higgins’ life as the point at which her allegation of rape by Bruce Lehrmannjumped to false claims of a political cover-up by the Liberal Party.
The distinguished judge has accepted an invitation from Women in Media to take part in a “candid conversation” with former ABC chair and Women in Media Patron Ita Buttrose at its national conference on 9 August.
“This unique session promises to offer profound insights into the intersection of media, law, and society, with a particular focus on the themes of truth and trust,” Women in Media says on its website.
The $495 per head session will “explore critical issues affecting both the media and judicial landscapes (and) offers an unparalleled opportunity for attendees to gain perspectives from both the legal bench and the media hot seat on maintaining and fostering public trust”.
“The combined expertise of Justice Lee and Ita Buttrose offers a comprehensive view of how the media and legal systems intersect and the critical role trust plays in both arenas,” Women in Media general manager Kym Middleton says in the notes for the program.
“This session is more than just an exploration of problems; it’s about empowering women in media to lead with integrity and champion the truth. Justice Lee and Ita Buttrose bring unparalleled insights that will inspire and equip attendees to contribute positively to our media landscape.”
However, Mr Sharaz appears to be alarmed that the conversation may turn to the long-running Lehrmann case over which Justice Lee presided.
“So he will not discuss the Lehrmann case for which he has made his name, and for which you’re booking him for,” Mr Sharaz demands to know.
It is understood Women in Media told Mr Sharaz that there was no expectation that Justice Lee would speak about the case, and that he was appearing to discuss the intersection of media, law and society.
A spokesperson for Women in Media told The Australian: “The content that Justice Lee chooses to share with attendees is a matter for Justice Lee. While we appreciate people might have their own views about speakers at the conference, programming decisions are a matter for Women in Media.”
Mr Sharaz was contacted for comment but had not responded at time of publication.
In his judgment in the Lehrmann defamation case, Justice Lee points repeatedly to Mr Sharaz’s involvement in the saga, finding that Lisa Wilkinson and her team from The Project “were prepared to assist in the plans of Mr Sharaz and Ms Higgins to use the allegations for immediate political advantage”.
The judge notes “the lack of rigour with which Ms Higgins’s account was examined and questioned during the meeting and thereafter” and begins his discussion of Mr Sharaz’s involvement under the heading ‘The Development of the Cover-up Narrative’.
That cover-up or “victimisation” allegation was perceived by The Project team as being the most important aspect of its program and its deployment meant the account achieved much notoriety and public interest, Justice Lee noted.
“The articulation of the core aspects of this claim commenced shortly before Ms Higgins’s boyfriend, Mr Sharaz, made the necessary arrangements for Ms Higgins to tell her account.”
Mr Sharaz clearly had a political motivation, Justice Lee said, pointing to his conversations in a five-hour meeting between Wilkinson, her producer, Angus Llewellyn, and Ms Higgins.
Mr Sharaz announced he and Ms Higgins had chosen the timeline for the story to break because it was a parliamentary sitting week. “I’ve got a friend in Labor, Katy Gallagher on the Labor side, who will probe and continue it going,” he said.
Former ABC chair Ita Buttrose is patron of Women in Media.
Mr Sharaz took the story to Wilkinson because he felt an “affinity” with her, having briefly done work experience with her on Nine’s Today show. The tone of the interactions between Mr Sharaz and the Ten journalists was set by the first email he sent to Wilkinson in January 2021.
“Mr Sharaz could hardly have chosen a more glaring heading,” Justice Lee noted: “MeToo, Liberal Party, Project Pitch.”
Mr Sharaz wrote: “I’ve got a sensitive story surrounding a sexual assault at Parliament House; a woman who was pressured by the Liberal Party and female cabinet minister not to pursue it.”
Justice Lee said Mr Sharaz had reinforced “a conspiratorial and political theme” to the story.
One email had a “timeline” of Ms Higgins’s allegations sent to journalists selected by Mr Sharaz. Despite Ms Higgins’s claim that the document was hers, Justice Lee found that Mr Sharaz was one of the authors.
His intentions in making and pursuing his “Project Pitch” were manifest, Justice Lee said, not only from his initial assertion that this was a story all about the Liberal Party and a female minister in the context of the “MeToo” movement, but in the light of his expressed intention to liaise with an opposition frontbencher to deploy the allegations against the government in question time.

 

[CM86]

knowing what you know in hindsight, would you trust anyone involved in this case?

Every single person involved is shady as all hell IMO.

I believed and supported the rape victim then and I still do now.
I think any invectives towards the rape victim for not handling things 'the right way', comes from a place of hate or a lack of understanding/empathy or even sympathy of trauma.

Have you changed your position on anything around this, with hindsight?

 

[Festerz]

An issue touched on in previous posts but gets a good summary run through in the Nine papers today:

Where a defamation case is tried determines the likelihood of success:

How your postcode could affect your success in a defamation case

Some big changes are coming to defamation laws which mean it may be easier to win a case in some parts of the country than others.

www.smh.com.au

University of Sydney Professor David Rolph, an expert in defamation law, said that “in a country of 27 million people it’s not really defensible to have substantially different defamation laws” in the states and territories.

“Disconformity increases cost and complexity and might encourage forum-shopping,” Rolph said.

Forum-shopping involves a plaintiff bringing their claim in the jurisdiction they consider most likely to deliver them a favourable outcome.

And if you happen to be a politician from WA seeking financial revenge or restorative justice (depending on your perspective of why Reynolds is taking action), you are in luck:

For the record, West Australian Liberal senator Linda Reynolds was born and raised in Perth and is suing her former staffer Brittany Higgins and her husband David Sharaz for defamation in the WA Supreme Court over social media posts.

Reynolds does not have to establish that the allegedly defamatory posts have caused, or are likely to cause, serious harm to her reputation in order to bring the claim. Higgins and Sharaz cannot rely on defences such as public interest, but it is unlikely that defence would have been useful in that case.

“The effect of the first stage of the reforms (of defamation law introduced in other jurisdictions in 2021) … was to make suing for defamation more difficult for plaintiffs by introducing serious harm to reputation as an element of the cause of action,” Rolph said.

“In Western Australia and the Northern Territory, where those reforms are yet to be enacted, it is obviously easier for plaintiffs to bring a claim in defamation.”

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I believed and supported the rape victim then and I still do now.
I think any invectives towards the rape victim for not handling things 'the right way', comes from a place of hate or a lack of understanding/empathy or even sympathy of trauma.

Have you changed your position on anything around this, with hindsight?

Not really tbh

I said ages ago in this thread that if this rape was tried at civil level, than he would likely be found guilty. Turns out that’s exactly what happened, even if it was in a round about way.

At a criminal level was always the issue with its higher burden. I still think in a criminal trial setting he would not be charged with a guilty verdict.

 

[CM86]

Not really tbh

I said ages ago in this thread that if this rape was tried at civil level, than he would likely be found guilty. Turns out that’s exactly what happened, even if it was in a round about way.

At a criminal level was always the issue with its higher burden. I still think in a criminal trial setting he would not be charged with a guilty verdict.

Is it your opinion that Higgins was r*ped by Lehrmann? Yes or no is fine.

 

[FIGJAM]

I think any invectives towards the rape victim for not handling things 'the right way', comes from a place of hate or a lack of understanding/empathy or even sympathy of trauma.

So anyone who doesn't conform completely with your point of view is "hateful", "ignorant" or "unempathetic"?

Does that include Justice Lee?

 

[CM86]

I know it's hard to say that without being accused of a "Reynolds supporter", or having rocket scientist state "Oh yeah, Reynolds is the real victim in this!"

this thread's favourite rag, The Australian,

Another article from this thread's favourite rag, The Australian.

So anyone who doesn't conform completely with your point of view is "hateful", "ignorant" or "unempathetic"?

Does that include Justice Lee?

Can I suggest that if you're genuinely impacted by people's view of you in this forum, and the posts they make in regards to your 'love for Linda' and 'Hate for Higgins', that you shouldn't keep posting stupid baiting shit like this?

You're free to post whatever you like.
But you must be aware of the kind of response you're attempting to elicit, and how you've seemed to be genuinely hurt or upset by those responses repeatedly in the past.

 

[FIGJAM]

Can I suggest that if you're genuinely impacted by people's view of you in this forum, and the posts they make in regards to your 'love for Linda' and 'Hate for Higgins', that you shouldn't keep posting stupid baiting shit like this?

You're free to post whatever you like.
But you must be aware of the kind of response you're attempting to elicit, and how you've seemed to be genuinely hurt or upset by those responses repeatedly in the past.

You're the one "baiting" HirdsTheWord with statements that are the effect of 'if you believe the opposite of me then you have the following negative traits'.

It's bolllocks! HirdsTheWord has just discussed various issues pragmatically.

 

[CM86]

You're the one "baiting" HirdsTheWord with statements that are the effect of 'if you believe the opposite of me then you have the following negative traits'.

It's bolllocks! HirdsTheWord has just discussed various issues pragmatically.

No.
If you actually took issue with what I posted, you'd engage with what I actually posted. You wouldn't need to invent things I've not actually said, to disagree with.


I'll just suggest again that you shouldn't insist people walk around you on eggshells, while you strut around like a FIGJAM.

You don't have to take my advice. You're totally free to do whatever you want. It's only advice for if you've actually been impacted previously.

 

[FIGJAM]

No.
If you actually took issue with what I posted, you'd engage with what I actually posted. You wouldn't need to invent things I've not actually said, to disagree with.


I'll just suggest again that you shouldn't insist people walk around you on eggshells, while you strut around like a FIGJAM.

You don't have to take my advice. You're totally free to do whatever you want. It's only advice for if you've actually been impacted previously.

Going off on tangents as usual!

Just keep subtly offending people that have slightly different opinions to you. It really helps get your point across...

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Is it your opinion that Higgins was r*ped by Lehrmann? Yes or no is fine.

It isn't a yes or no answer.

I think it's highly probable that Higgins was r*ped by Lehrmann, but am i certain beyond all reasonable doubt? No.

I'm comfortable to say that he probably did it BUT i won't go so far as to say that he actually did do it.

 

[CM86]

Going off on tangents as usual!

Just keep subtly offending people that have slightly different opinions to you. It really helps get your point across...

I was being genuine and you're just taking it as an attack, so you're attacking in response.

I talked about it, because I myself modify my behaviour on these forums around if and how it impacts me.

This thread for example is very difficult for me. Because of that I have deliberately avoided it for large periods of time.
I've also made posts I soon after deleted because they were either too personal or too abusive, that I realised I only made because of the impact this topic has on me.
I really struggle sometimes with the horrible things I've seen posted. Horrible sometimes through just a general lack of understanding, and horrible sometimes due to malice.

I came back into this thread yesterday, I read the posts from the page that I was last on, and then skipped to the latest page.
I disagreed with your posts on this page, but avoided engaging with any of them due to walking on egg shells.

In reply you posted bait at me. I was frustrated, but still wanted to try and help you so I made a suggestion. You viewed it as an attack.
Don't put out bait and get upset when it's taken.

I realise there is no point in me trying to help, as you won't take any of this as genuine.
Not a problem. I'm going to just engage with you as I would with anyone else now.

 

[CM86]

It isn't a yes or no answer.

I think it's highly probable that Higgins was r*ped by Lehrmann, but am i certain beyond all reasonable doubt? No.

I'm comfortable to say that he probably did it BUT i won't go so far as to say that he actually did do it.

Is it my opinion that Higgins was r*ped by Lehrmann?
Yes.

I'm not in a court of law, I'm not restricted to legal terminology or legal criminal standards to have an opinion based on all the available evidence.


My opinion is that Lehrmann r*ped Higgins.


Some people, for whatever reason, don't have the same opinion as me.




In my opinion, your reply is basically saying that Lehrmann didn't rape Higgins. But that you feel you need to be more careful with how you phrase it.
I'd be more interested in a conversation around your opinion of the evidence and facts that makes it so you can't say that he actually did do it.

 

[Percel]

Bruce loses, has to cough up 2 million to Ten…

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/bruce-lehrmann-faces-10m-legal-bill-after-defamation-loss-to-network-10-lisa-wilkinson/news-story/92476e6b683f388d82e01920cd78947d

 

[CM86]

Bruce loses, has to cough up 2 million to Ten…

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/bruce-lehrmann-faces-10m-legal-bill-after-defamation-loss-to-network-10-lisa-wilkinson/news-story/92476e6b683f388d82e01920cd78947d

Expensive hat...

 

[Percel]

Expensive hat...

Madness isn’t it, should have just Fez’d up