Updated The Bruce Lehrmann Trials Pt2 * Toowoomba Rape Trial

[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

LINK TO FEDERAL COURT DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I'm not asking you for your legal opinion, or for your opinion of the legal outcomes.

My opinion is that Lehrmann raped Higgins. (You didn't ask for my opinion, I'm just stating it as an example - pre-emptive).
Your opinion is that he probably did, probably didn't.
In terms of binary outcomes like raped or not raped, that's an opinion that Higgins wasn't raped.
Which is OK to have, but would be great if it could be expanded on with reasoning.



I ask for your opinion on if it happened or not. You reply with criminal convictions and the need for a jury to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt.



Why don't we skip this and just pretend it's all hypotheticals.


Hypothetically, if you didn't believe Higgins was raped, what's some of the evidence that you think would support Lehrmann's innocence?

you want a yes and no answer.

I don't believe there is a yes and no answer, without a criminal conviction.

we disagree, get over it? people aren't always going to agree with the way you look at things. It isn't going to begin with me my man.

 

[CM86]

you want a yes and no answer.

I don't believe there is a yes and no answer, without a criminal conviction.

we disagree, get over it.

I've repeatedly pointed out that I accept you won't give an answer to it, and that I'd just like to discuss the reasoning behind it.


I literally just posed it as a hypothetical, so we can ignore if you believe Lehrmann raped Higgins or not.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I've repeatedly pointed out that I accept you won't give an answer to it, and that I'd just like to discuss the reasoning behind it.


I literally just posed it as a hypothetical, so we can ignore if you believe Lehrmann raped Higgins or not.

I don't believe either of them? They are both not credible witnesses.

Thats why a justice system is in place.

I have told you several times my view is that Lehrmann probably did it. But I am not 100% convinced.

You just don't like the answer I'm giving you lol.

 

[CM86]

I don't believe either of them? They are both not credible witnesses.

Thats why a justice system is in place.

I have told you several times my view is that Lehrmann probably did it. But I am not 100% convinced.

You just don't like the answer I'm giving you lol.

OK.

I'll try to be clear one more time. And I won't be insulting, because I'm starting to think it's a problem with me.

I am not 100% convinced.

Why?
(Not based on criminal convictions, jury decisions or guilty beyond reasonable doubt).

 

[CM86]

I don't know what it is, but there is clearly something wrong with me.

I keep trying to make clear posts that express my thoughts and positions. Including questions or inquiries that I also feel are clear.

In fact, often I feel like it's so obvious, that I feel the 'feigned ignorance' is deliberate, so I become 'hostile' in my responses.


But, this keeps happening to me with a lot of posters.
So if it's a problem with a varied group of people or me as an individual... It's probably me.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

OK.

I'll try to be clear one more time. And I won't be insulting, because I'm starting to think it's a problem with me.



Why?
(Not based on criminal convictions, jury decisions or guilty beyond reasonable doubt).

Mainly because there is a complete lack of physical evidence. Thats why.

The circumstantial evidence is not compelling enough for me to be 100% sure, though I would be happy to say it probably did happen.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I don't believe either of them? They are both not credible witnesses.

Thats why a justice system is in place.

I have told you several times my view is that Lehrmann probably did it. But I am not 100% convinced.

You just don't like the answer I'm giving you lol.

So it's going to take a few months to walk back your previous positions on this Lehrmann character.

One step at a time!

 

[HirdsTheWord]

So it's going to take a few months to walk back your previous positions on this.

One step at a time!

huh?

Dunno what previous position you think im changing.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

huh?

Do you think Linda Reynolds is the real victim here?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Do you think Linda Reynolds is the real victim here?

wtf are you on about now?

Who even mentioned Reynolds?

You're like that guy who takes a big swing, misses and hits a kid.

 

[CM86]

Mainly because there is a complete lack of physical evidence. Thats why.

The circumstantial evidence is not compelling enough for me to be 100% sure, though I would be happy to say it probably did happen.

That's reasonable.

Do you think there have been other cases or incidents etc, where there wasn't a complete lack of physical evidence of something, but you still knew that it had occurred?

Because rape is one of those notoriously difficult things to completely prove with physical evidence.
Many cases are only received years after the incident/s, in which there is no longer any physical evidence, and it's very difficult to even have compelling 'circumstantial evidence'.
But there must be some of those cases where you would still say that the person was raped. Rather than the qualifier of 'probably', I assume?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

That's reasonable.

Do you think there have been other cases or incidents etc, where there wasn't a complete lack of physical evidence of something, but you still knew that it had occurred?

Because rape is one of those notoriously difficult things to completely prove with physical evidence.
Many cases are only received years after the incident/s, in which there is no longer any physical evidence, and it's very difficult to even have compelling 'circumstantial evidence'.
But there must be some of those cases where you would still say that the person was raped. Rather than the qualifier of 'probably', I assume?

Not off the top of my head. But there are probably some.

Criminal cases relying entirely on circumstantial evidence are pretty rare to get a guilty conviction.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

wtf are you on about now?

Who even mentioned Reynolds?

You're like that guy who takes a big swing, misses and hits a kid.

View attachment 2031890

Sorry, I thought we were all adults here.

 

[CM86]

Not off the top of my head. But there are probably some.

Do you think there is any aspect of this case that makes you more hesitant to believe it DID happen, compared to others where you would accept that it DID happen?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Do you think there is any aspect of this case that makes you more hesitant to believe it DID happen, compared to others where you would accept that it DID happen?

I'm not sure of a similar case to this one, so to draw a parallel is unlikely apologies.

When a judge says the prosecution is not a reliable witness. I think is highly telling.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Sorry, I thought we were all adults here.

then act like one?

You are treated how you approach others. Do better if you want better.

You come rambling in saying something about me changing my tune, which is false, than something about Reynolds, when she wasn't even mentioned?

 

[Lady O]

Couldn't agree more!

That said, I'm glad he did, as despite the trauma that he re-inflicted on Higgins, he did allow Lee to forensically get to the bottom of everything and find what I consider to be the the smoking gun, which was the text exchange between Higgins and her Dad, that might not have been emphasised in the criminal trial.

What Bruce also did of benefit (outside of bankrupting itself!) was drag Network 10 and Wilkinson over the coals for their shoddy journalistic practices and blind belief on their primary focus, which was the false political cover-up angle and practically fact checked nothing. They'll have to pay the bulk of the money for putting a program to air that shouldn't have happened (at least in the way that it did).

I consider to be the the smoking gun, which was the text exchange between Higgins and her Dad,

I thought in the civil trial, when her Dad was asked about her telling him she was raped, he denied it?

 

[Festerz]

When a judge says the prosecution is not a reliable witness. I think is highly telling.

What is telling is your failure to understand the context of that statement, despite the fact that Justice Lee made it quite clear that it was not a statement that was universal in application to the full circumstances of the Lehrmann rape trial.

To back it up He even referenced the defunct legal maxim:

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Look it up because I can't be fecked explaining it to you. It has been referenced here several times by me. But it's clear you only want to hear what aligns with your own prejudices.

In any case, the words that mattered most from Justice Lee in relation to Bruce Lehrmann and Brittany Higgins were these ones at paragraph 620 of his judgment in the Lehrmann defamation trial:

"Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins."


Not sure why you and others like Lady O are yet again trying to pretend otherwise. It just reflects on your own prejudices.


Meanwhile, in other news, the ABS released data today showing that the sexual assault victimisation rate in Australia has gone up 27% in just three years. I wonder why?

 

[MPMonkeys]

Who was it in here that poo poo'd the idea that Kerry Stokes was backing Lehrmann from the shadows?

it’s a ridiculous idea and I’m not sure why tin foil hatters still persist with this.

Do you really think Wilkinson would be going after Ten for costs if she knew Lehrmann had money?

 

[Kurve]

it’s a ridiculous idea and I’m not sure why tin foil hatters still persist with this.

It's not ridiculous at all. Kerry Stokes could have easily asked his lawyers to back Lehrmann for free and if it failed, he'd sort them out.

Easy as and that way he stays in the shadows.

It's very naive to think this doesn't go on.

 

[MPMonkeys]

It's not ridiculous at all. Kerry Stokes could have easily asked his lawyers to back Lehrmann for free and if it failed, he'd sort them out.

Easy as and that way he stays in the shadows.

It's very naive to think this doesn't go on.

It’s preposterous. I’m not a conspiracy theorist.

 

[Kurve]

It’s preposterous.

You're being preposterous.

 

[MPMonkeys]

You're being preposterous.

So Stokes funds Lehrmann but then when the case loses, he walks away?

Honestly.

 

[Kurve]

So Stokes funds Lehrmann but then when the case loses, he walks away?

Honestly.

Yesssssss that's how it can work in the big bad world

 

[MPMonkeys]

Yesssssss that's how it can work in the big bad world

So Lehrmann agrees to a scenario where if he wins, Stokes takes the credit but if he loses he is on his own.

Really?