Updated Bruce Lehrmann Pt2 * Reynolds Defamation Trial Current

Remove this Banner Ad

  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #95
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
 
Last edited:
Festerz said:
The irony of course is that it is Sam Maiden, editor of the news.com.au online site that has exposed these allegations which come from publicly available documentation on the WA Supreme Court website- allegations that effectively suggest a form of conspiracy between a serving Commonwealth Senator and one of her own employer's star opinion columnists.

Which not only highlights the ongoing animosity between Maiden and her non-journalist NewsCorp co-writer, but the degree of independence Maiden gets from her employer's normally carefully controlled/coordinated political narrative. But that's another story.

Albrechtsen got caned in various press outlets for her 'insider' role in the disgraced Sofronoff inquiry trial but that went away pretty quickly - probably everyone awaiting the outcome of the ACT Integrity Commission investigation into the conduct of Walter Sofronoff:



But this allegation, coming directly from emails and correspondence between Senator Reynolds and Albrechtsen obtained via legal discovery, is at another level entirely. It involves a serving Commonwealth Senator and former Cabinet Minister involved in personal litigation action against her former staffer (a woman who had been r*ped in that Minister's office) allegedly providing confidential personal information of that employee to a politically aligned newspaper columnist, against the express written directions of the Commonwealth Solicitor. That information subsequently being published for the express purposes of denigrating her employee and assisting the Senator's personal litigation cause.

Sadly, I'm not sure anyone in government - state or Federal - has the stomach to investigate it fully despite what it says about the ability of the media to manipulate the judicial process for political ends.

And we all know that the Press Council is a paper tiger.
Click to expand...
The other irony is, the more Linda Reynolds pursues Higgans et at. the worse her reputation becomes. She's starting off with a poor reputation. Not hard to frame her current behaviour in a very negative way - she was the boss, who employed a rapist, now suing the victim, a victim she has been publicly unsympathetic to.

Then it turns out she's been leaking confidential details about the case to a 'journalist'.

She really is a fool.
 
CD Xbow said:
The other irony is, the more Linda Reynolds pursues Higgans et at. the worse her reputation becomes. She's starting off with a poor reputation. Not hard to frame her current behaviour in a very negative way - she was the boss, who employed a rapist, now suing the victim, a victim she has been publicly unsympathetic to.
Click to expand...

I disagree with many of Reynolds' actions, but for those who spin the narrative you present, there is always the simple fact that Higgins and Sharaz crafted their own false accusation first against many individuals and entities in Parliament House and the police.

And as Lee found, this false narrative is complete bollocks and that Higgins and Sharaz curated data, politicically weaponised the story and specifically had Reynolds in their sights from a long way out.

Judging Reynolds by her behaviour after being falsely accused of something is a bit rich! It's ok for Higgins and Sharaz to leak information to the press and Gallagher and Wong, but if Reynolds fights fire with fire, she's a nasty pasty.

Whilst you say she has been publicly unsympathetic, no doubt, but only after The Project allegations. She was privately sympathetic up until this point and even had Higgins send her flowers and a thank you note.

For mine, Reynolds' smartest option was to engage in a defamation claim to stop the 'tort of conspiracy' between them against her in the social media. This worked!

Then when she got the verdict from Lee, she should have dropped the mike in vindication and got on with life.

She hasn't and if she gets bit trying to get her Carla Zampatti jacket from the Lion's Den, then stiff shit IMHO!
 
Last edited:
FIGJAM said:
Judging Reynolds by her behaviour after being falsely accused of something is a bit rich! It's ok for Higgins and Sharaz to leak information to the press and Gallagher and Wong, but if Reynolds fights fire with fire, she's a nasty pasty.
Click to expand...

Please, she's a senior lawmaker and was the Minister for Defence up against a junior staffer who was r*ped in her office.

These latest developments should see her before the NACC herself and her action against Higgins compromised.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kurve said:
Please, she's a senior lawmaker and was the Minister for Defence up against a junior staffer who was r*ped in her office.
Click to expand...

Were it just Brittany Higgins the rape victim, then you'd have an obvious point.

What it actually was though, was Higgins and Sharaz (a seasoned political media adviser with extensive federal parliament connections), went to a major television network and major publication in order to spread a narrative of a political cover-up of a junior Parliamentarian asked to choose between her career and reporting her rape to the police.

They were unbelievably successful in their intent.

Higgins did these interviews before even going to the police.

Higgins and Sharaz plotted to politicise the story with strategic airing times relative to Parliamentary Question time.

As evidence that Higgins and Sharaz had clear and obvious knowledge that the story they were perpetuating was a lie, they plucked a bogus key piece of evidence out of thin air, claimed Higgins a loss of heaps of data and then intentionally and strategically deleted masses of information from her device that would have incriminated her (lucky that checks of other witnesses' phones have retrieved that data).

Higgins and Sharaz were in touch with at least Katy Gallagher who weaponised it with Mean Girl #2 against Reynolds in a Senate Enquiry and Gallagher misled Parliament about it.

Kimberly Kitching knew about the leaking and political weaponisation of this topic in Senate Estimates (she was

Reynolds then had an obvious mental breakdown in the Senate and then had a health flare-up related to this immense stress and was hospitalised.

-----------------------

Just take stock of all of the above, because all of this eventuated over claims that have been proven to be complete bullshit!

-----------------------

Reynolds making an off the cuff "lying cow" remark, or doing some media-leaking of her own to those that Sharaz and Higgins call "friendlies", is hardly unsurprising.

It's easy to say "I wouldn't do that!" (and I think that myself in this instance!), but until you've been faced with a glaringly obvious lie by someone at you on telly, then had to deal with years of barrages from what is one of the biggest political and media issues in our lifetime, how do you actually know how you'll react? You don't know how helpless you'd feel. You don't know how angry you'd feel.
 
FIGJAM said:
Kimberly Kitching knew about the leaking and political weaponisation of this topic in Senate Estimates (she was

Reynolds then had an obvious mental breakdown in the Senate and then had a health flare-up related to this immense stress and was hospitalised.
Click to expand...

IIRC Kimberly Kitching was deceased may she RIP, if she can after Reynolds called her name out in estimates. Reynolds will get a load of bad juju for that.
 
Kurve said:
IIRC Kimberly Kitching was deceased may she RIP.
Click to expand...

I met Kimberly and she was a very nice lady. Treated like shit by members of her own party and could courageously cross the floor to warn someone of incoming bullying from the very same people.

Let's be blunt here: they just didn't trust Kitching. They accused her of leaking to the government — specifically over tipping off the Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds about questioning over what would end up being known as the Brittany Higgins case. Kitching did not believe she had "leaked" anything, just forewarned Reynolds because she was concerned the sexual assault allegations may be politicised. - Laura Tingle
Click to expand...

www.abc.net.au

The real question hanging over Kimberley Kitching's death is not who's responsible, but what the aftermath says about the Labor party

The realpolitik questions about Kitching's death aren't about whether the Labor party killed her or not, but what they reveal about the way Albanese and his team run the party, and how they manage the politics of this dreadful situation, writes Laura Tingle.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

Ultimately, your narrative political heavyweight versus junior staffer is an absolute furphy. Reynolds has been perennially positioned at the foothills of a mountain, staring down an 'all-time' political snowball, with Sharaz and Higgins standing at the peak.
 
FIGJAM said:
Reynolds making an off the cuff "lying cow" remark, or doing some media-leaking of her own to those that Sharaz and Higgins call "friendlies", is hardly unsurprising.
Click to expand...

Again, a senior lawmaker, Minister of Defence and you're downplaying the "lying cow" comment as flippant and off the cuff, and downplaying again the proved leaking of confidential information to a high profile writer who's up to her neck in skullduggery, and has been credibly accused of an obsessive malice towards Higgins.
 
FIGJAM said:
Reynolds has been perennially positioned at the foothills of a mountain, staring down an 'all-time' political snowball, with Sharaz and Higgins standing at the peak.
Click to expand...
You want to be Justice FIGJAM Lee don’t you?

It’s a little over the top comrade
 
Percel said:
You want to be Justice FIGJAM Lee don’t you?

It’s a little over the top comrade
Click to expand...

Nah champ!! I just want all participants in this shit-show to cop their rightful whack for their contribution to the shit-show.

And that does include Reynolds, but not to the extent that others here desire that to be. I have empathy to both Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown, as they're often painted in here as being culpable to the rape event, which could not be more unfair IMHO.

There are unsurprisingly many prolific contributors in here who are less involved in this Crime Board and more involved as being political shills on the SR&P Board.

It's interesting that the politically-charged 'crime buffs' in here have neglected to note that from the recent discovery, Higgins' legal defence has chosen to utilise the finding from the recent Lehrmann faceplant of a defamation trial, that Reynolds wanted to report the assault to the police as evidence that she "mishandled" the situation.

The allegations that Reynolds pressured Higgins to drop the charge, yet wanted to report whatever was known only days after the event, are mutually exclusive claims. It is why "Justice FIGJAM Lee" stated that this is the "topsy turvy" element that is pure unadulterated evidence that there was no cover-up:

666 One of the most topsy-turvy aspects of this case is that putting what occurred at this meeting and the events of the preceding days together, a clear picture emerges, but it is entirely at odds with the notion of an attempt being made to cover up an allegation of rape by discouraging it to be reported to the police.

667 Indeed, I am comfortably satisfied that the Minister considered it would protect her personal interests that the very opposite occur. She wanted the incident to be reported to the police and was doing what she could to encourage Ms Higgins to see the AFP, having failed in her attempt to direct Ms Brown to report the incident the previous Friday. As I said during the hearing, it is the only alleged cover-up of which I am aware where those said to be responsible for the covering up were almost insisting the complainant to go to the police.
Click to expand...

Without the "cover-up" element, there are no arguments with Reynolds (or Brown, or the AFP, or the security at Parliament House, or sexual assault victim Detective Superintendent Scott Moller's investigation group....the list goes on and on...).

And most importantly, without this demonstrably false political cover-up claim, would there have even been publishable articles on news.com.au and The Project in the first place, that were undertaken before a police complaint was even lodged? So who had an interest in making this all up? Who invented "evidence" and curated data to propagate this falsity?

As I said above, "I just want all participants in this shit-show to cop their rightful whack for their contribution to the shit-show.". That includes Higgins. The rape itself is abhorrent. The false claims are less abhorrent, yet have without the false claims, where is the "collateral damage"? Without the false claims, this would be a blip on this board and have ended years ago. Without the false claims, Bruce could be a better chance of being in gaol.

The publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice won the Project team, like Ms Maiden, a glittering prize; but when the accusation is examined properly, it was supposition without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact; its dissemination caused a brume of confusion, and did much collateral damage – including to the fair and orderly progress of the underlying allegation of sexual assault through the criminal justice system.
Click to expand...

Many want the false cover-up claims to be swept under the rug, but **** that shit! It's right in front of our faces and needs to be called out.
 
FIGJAM said:
I have empathy to both Linda Reynolds
Click to expand...
Why? because a rape victim was upset with her for thinking she didn't do her upmost in helping her after the fact?
 
BFew said:
Wouldn't be surprised if Lehrmann sacks his new legal team before too long.
Click to expand...
And here we are today.

Wonder who is going to stump up the $ for his legal representation (if anyone actually ever does) now that he's sacked himself?

'Bruce Lehrmann’s last minute legal bid ahead of Ten, Wilkinson appeal​

ELLIE DUDLEY
3 hours ago. Updated 33 minutes ago

Bruce Lehrmann has made the eleventh-hour decision to obtain legal representation ahead of his Federal Court appeal against judge Michael Lee’s defamation judgment, having previously indicated he was going to represent himself in court.
High-profile criminal solicitor Zali Burrows appeared before judge Wendy Abraham on Thursday morning for the matter’s first case management hearing.

The Australian understands the appointment of Ms Burrows was made under the recommendation of crown-prosecutor-turned-criminal-barrister Margaret Cunneen SC, who has been quietly assisting Mr Lehrmann throughout the appeal process.

Ms Burrows has been working closely with top appeals silk Guy Reynolds SC, who The Australian also understands has been helping Mr Lehrmann prepare for court.

In court on Thursday Ms Burrows, whose client list includes former Auburn deputy mayor and convicted fraudster Salim Mehajer, convicted drug importer Bassam Hamzy and convicted terrorist Hamdi Alqudsi, foreshadowed Mr Lehrmann will likely obtain counsel before the appeal is heard.

Justice Abraham asked Ms Burrows when the court would “be in a position to be notified” about the appointment of counsel.

Ms Burrows said: “As soon as I know, I certainly will advise the parties.”
...'
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It's amazing how many to SC's and KC's are helping Bruce out of the goodness of their heart.
 
FIGJAM said:
As I said above, "I just want all participants in this shit-show to cop their rightful whack for their contribution to the shit-show.". That includes Higgins. The rape itself is abhorrent. The false claims are less abhorrent, yet have without the false claims, where is the "collateral damage"? Without the false claims, this would be a blip on this board and have ended years ago. Without the false claims, Bruce could be a better chance of being in gaol.
Click to expand...

The main focus of this board has been the prosecution of Lehrmann for the rape of Higgins.

The link to The Project segment as I recall, didn't even go up in here.
 
FIGJAM said:
Nah champ!! I just want all participants in this shit-show to cop their rightful whack for their contribution to the shit-show.

And that does include Reynolds, but not to the extent that others here desire that to be. I have empathy to both Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown, as they're often painted in here as being culpable to the rape event, which could not be more unfair IMHO.

There are unsurprisingly many prolific contributors in here who are less involved in this Crime Board and more involved as being political shills on the SR&P Board.

It's interesting that the politically-charged 'crime buffs' in here have neglected to note that from the recent discovery, Higgins' legal defence has chosen to utilise the finding from the recent Lehrmann faceplant of a defamation trial, that Reynolds wanted to report the assault to the police as evidence that she "mishandled" the situation.

The allegations that Reynolds pressured Higgins to drop the charge, yet wanted to report whatever was known only days after the event, are mutually exclusive claims. It is why "Justice FIGJAM Lee" stated that this is the "topsy turvy" element that is pure unadulterated evidence that there was no cover-up:



Without the "cover-up" element, there are no arguments with Reynolds (or Brown, or the AFP, or the security at Parliament House, or sexual assault victim Detective Superintendent Scott Moller's investigation group....the list goes on and on...).

And most importantly, without this demonstrably false political cover-up claim, would there have even been publishable articles on news.com.au and The Project in the first place, that were undertaken before a police complaint was even lodged? So who had an interest in making this all up? Who invented "evidence" and curated data to propagate this falsity?

As I said above, "I just want all participants in this shit-show to cop their rightful whack for their contribution to the shit-show.". That includes Higgins. The rape itself is abhorrent. The false claims are less abhorrent, yet have without the false claims, where is the "collateral damage"? Without the false claims, this would be a blip on this board and have ended years ago. Without the false claims, Bruce could be a better chance of being in gaol.



Many want the false cover-up claims to be swept under the rug, but **** that shit! It's right in front of our faces and needs to be called out.
Click to expand...

What are you even wildly ranting about? The matter's still being dealt with through the courts.

Settle down.
 
DapperDon said:
Why? because a rape victim was upset with her for thinking she didn't do her upmost in helping her after the fact?
Click to expand...

Because there is significantly more to it than just the underlined. I know many wish that the underlined was all that there was, but it is demonstrably not.

Higgins herself has also proffered empathy to Reynolds and Brown in her post Lee verdict statement:

“Senator Reynolds and Fiona Brown have also been hurt and for that I am also sorry. My perceptions and feelings about what happened in the days and weeks after my rape are different from theirs. I deeply regret we have not yet found common ground."
Click to expand...

I'd argue that not having empathy towards Reynolds and Brown is a sign of poor character, even if you are of the mindset that they "shoulda, coulda, woulda" done better.

I recommend that you and others read the recent trial verdict, as it will change your outlook on things:


Justice Lee goes into great detail about Higgins' political cover-up claims and even examines the argument that Higgins had experienced 'it's the vibe' defence of Higgins that you infer:

Eschewing specifics, and primarily concentrating upon her alleged feelings rather than the actions or words of others, the initial account given to the Project team on 27 January 2021 had Ms Higgins use the highly ambiguous word “weird” (or variations, such as people were “acting weirdly”) no less than 82 times (Ex 36). The same nebulous word, in some grammatical form, was also used 34 times during the much shorter interview with Ms Maiden (Ex 50).
Click to expand...

In his closing paragraph, he even rightly allows for Higgins' feelings and whether or not PH should have done better:

To the extent there were perceived systemic issues as to avenues of complaint and support services in Parliament, this may have merited a form of fact-based critique, not the publication of insufficiently scrutinised and factually misconceived conjecture.
Click to expand...

There is not doubt that PH should have done better, but what organisation that has experienced a trauma can't grow from it and improve its systems?

If it stopped there, then there would be no issue, but it turns out she lied constantly:

But whatever the truth of the evidence she gave as to what occurred in the Ministerial Suite one night in 2019, the cogency of her evidence as to this central aspect of the case must be evaluated and closely scrutinised in the light of the fact that my findings establish that has since 2021, Ms Higgins:

(1) made false representations as to what had occurred following the incident to Ms Maiden and the Project team and thereafter more generally;

(2) asserted definitively that she retained contemporaneous evidence of the rape that she knew bolstered her credibility and rely upon it when (on the most generous view of it) it ought to have been apparent to her – as she recognised at this trial – there was an infirm basis for doing so; (Note: this is a reference to the bogus bruise photo)

(3) selectively curated material on her phone prior to giving it to the AFP; and

(4) sometimes told untruths when it suited her.
Click to expand...

You can add a 5th in there that Lee also covers, which is to the motives of Higgins and Sharaz, namely the deliberate politicisation of the story and more sensitive motive that people skirt around (I'll let you guess what that is).

I think this has significant relevance to many in here. Lee said regarding Angus Llewelyn:

I am sensible to the need to build rapport and for sensitivity in dealing with a person presenting as a victim of sexual assault, but assessing the credibility of someone making claims of serious wrongdoing (re. the cover up angle) involves some degree of detachment and testing absent from the meeting and later interactions – all the more so when concerns (or at least matters requiring caution) ought to have become apparent to an independent mind.
Click to expand...

As I said, the rape is the primary crime here and it is abhorrent. However, that does not under any circumstance give the victim carte blanche to do whatever the **** they want.
 
Kurve said:
The main focus of this board has been the prosecution of Lehrmann for the rape of Higgins.
Click to expand...

You've completely missed my point, which is that without the false allegations, this issue would have been long buried in a sea of other crime threads.

Higgins goes to police in early 2021, gets a trial going, can choose to be anonymous or not, get verdict and (I know this is controversial) then go to the media if desired and not provide false allegations against your former employer.

It's the false allegations that keep this thread going.
 
FIGJAM said:
You've completely missed my point, which is that without the false allegations, this issue would have been long buried in a sea of other crime threads.

Higgins goes to police in early 2021, gets a trial going, can choose to be anonymous or not, get verdict and (I know this is controversial) then go to the media if desired and not provide false allegations against your former employer.

It's the false allegations that keep this thread going.
Click to expand...

You realise that you're the main protagonist that's keeping it going on this board?
 
If this Instagram post is what Reynolds is suing Higgins over, it looks like Higgins now has the evidence in texts, emails and correspondences that Reynolds was in fact harassing her by leaking confidential information to Albrechtsen.

Brittany Higgins acted with ‘malice’

In a statement of claim released by the WA Supreme Court on Tuesday night, Senator Reynolds outlines her defamation case including that Ms Higgins and her husband acted with “malice” in the social media posts.

In response, Ms Higgins argues that her posts to Instagram and Twitter were justified — and will argue they were substantially true.

In July 2023, the former media adviser wrote on her Instagram account: “These are just headlines from today”.

“This is from a current Australian senator who continues to harass me through the media and in the parliament. My former boss who has publicly apologised for mishandling my rape allegation.

“Who has had to publicly apologise to me after defaming me in the workplace? This has been going on for years now. It is time to stop”.

Reynolds response to this is that she was entitled to do it and that it wasn't harassment. LOL

 

Remove this Banner Ad

Updated Bruce Lehrmann Pt2 * Reynolds Defamation Trial Current

Similar threads

Kurve
Current 'Just the greatest groomer' Senior Sergeant Paul Reynolds - Tas
Replies
2
Views
604
Kurve
Kurve
Kurve
Current Met Police Crimes - London * 1,000 officers currently suspended
Replies
9
Views
1K
Kurve
Kurve

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top