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

 

[Kurve]

Fiona Brown has been missed in all of this and Reynolds is fighting for her too, Brown looked awful during the case

Oh please. Reynolds went some way in to throwing Brown under a bus through the rape trial.

 

[spike101]

If?

Had a Quick Look at Marquee Lawyers website, it doesn’t exude confidence for me, perhaps Festerz is a partner?

 

[spike101]

Yes, the ABC silence on this is perplexing. Particularly as it was the ABC, or more specifically Louise Milligan and the Four Corners program 'Inside the Canberra Bubble' which first lifted the lid on abhorrent behaviours and a culture of bullying and sexual harassment within Parliamentary offices.

You might recall they were originally included in the defamation action launched by Bruce Lehrmann following his aborted rape trial but settled for $150k prior to the defamation action commencing in the Federal Court.

Perhaps it was that which led the ABC to take more of a back seat approach to its reporting of the string of legal actions resulting from Brittany Higgins rape. Leaving it to other media organisations to report on things ?

Whatever the reason, given that this latest information from WA Supreme Court discovery documents goes directly to the behaviours of a current serving Federal Senator and Shadow Minister (and former Federal Minister in whose Parliamentary office the rape of Brittany Higgins occurred) its very disappointing to see the ABC not report on this matter, even if just in a summary manner. It's clearly in the public interest and what I would expect to be the core business of the national public broadcaster with a dedicated news service.

Maybe they know Reynolds will win and don’t want to be associated with a losing cause.

 

[spike101]

Can you provide a link to verify this claim?

Because as far as I'm aware that is simply Reynolds claims of the context at this stage. Which is why that claim needs to be tested in court as part of the defamation action. And given that Reynolds was never called as a witness on this or any matter in the Lehrmann defamation action - the comments of Juctice Lee really have little bearing on the specifics of this particular matter.

Also important to take into account that Reynolds 'lying cow' comment was only made public (in the Australian newspaper of Wednesday 3 March 2021) because one of the persons in the room (all Reynolds Liberal Party staffers btw) leaked it to the press. We don't know who that person was and we don't why they provided it to the press.

But I can't imagine it would have been leaked by someone who was sympathetic to Reynolds handling of the matter. And that , to me at least, is the bigger story here.

Because if that staffer was prepared to leak details of that particular conversation to the national media to the detriment of their employer's position, what other conversations and observations might be exposed if they were prepared to front as a witness now that Reynolds is no longer in a position to exert a detrimental influence on their career?

Just saying that things may not be nearly as neatly tied up as some are claiming.

Please list the names of the people in the room at the time, this will support your research that all were Reynolds staffers.

 

[spike101]

By going to court, she only worsens her reputation. She is clearly not smart enough to see that. It doesn't matter if legally she wins, she has already tanked her reputation. She also risks more unflattering details leaking out. We have already found out Reynolds repeatedly leaked confidential correspondence about Ms Higgins’ compensation payout to Janet Albrechtsen. That's really low, and I think Higgins is saying it's a form of harassment.

It appears to me, as a layperson, that on the one hand Higgins agrees with Lee’s decision to state that on the balance of probabilities that Lehrmann r*ped her but on the other hand that she disagrees with his verdict that there was no conspiracy. Which of the two of his verdicts should we believe just the first and ignore the second ?

 

[CD Xbow]

It appears to me, as a layperson, that on the one hand Higgins agrees with Lee’s decision to state that on the balance of probabilities that Lehrmann r*ped her but on the other hand that she disagrees with his verdict that there was no conspiracy. Which of the two of his verdicts should we believe just the first and ignore the second ?

I don't know why you are asking me. That's nothing to do with my post. My post is simply about Reynolds behaviour and how I expect her to be judged harshly for pursuing a women who was r*ped in her office by her employee. She also called her a lying cow. Tacky to call a rape victim that. She also leaked confidential information to Albrechtsen, which is not the sort of behaviour I would expect from a minister. I believe this is all part of the public record and if I am wrong then I am happy to be corrected.
She is a fool.

 

[spike101]

I don't know why you are asking me. That's nothing to do with my post. My post is simply about Reynolds behaviour and how I expect her to be judged harshly for pursuing a women who was r*ped in her office by her employee. She also called her a lying cow. Tacky to call a rape victim that. She also leaked confidential information to Albrechtsen, which is not the sort of behaviour I would expect from a minister. I believe this is all part of the public record and if I am wrong then I am happy to be corrected.
She is a fool.

“We have already found out that Reynolds….”; which leads me to write that we have already found out that Higgins lied because Lee found that there was no conspiracy. There is no doubt that the major victim is Higgins but she has needlessly brought down Reynolds and Brown. I suspect she was manipulated by, firstly Sharaz, secondly by his chums in the Labor party and thirdly by Wilkinson, Fitzsimons and The Project.

 

[CD Xbow]

“We have already found out that Reynolds….”; which leads me to write that we have already found out that Higgins lied because Lee found that there was no conspiracy. There is no doubt that the major victim is Higgins but she has needlessly brought down Reynolds and Brown. I suspect she was manipulated by, firstly Sharaz, secondly by his chums in the Labor party and thirdly by Wilkinson, Fitzsimons and The Project.

You can speculate as much as you like, I'm only commenting on what we know about Reynolds behaviour that is clearly in the public domain. She will be judged harshly irrespective of the outcome of the defamation.

 

[FIGJAM]

They always exaggerate in opening addresses. Higgins didn't say she was ostracized as I recall, she said it all felt 'weird'. I can understand that, everything probably felt weird and uncomfortable.

On the above, I like to think that we are in full agreement that Higgins was r*ped and that her feelings were no doubt analysed through this lens for an extended period.

As Lee stated:

As I will explain below, what is notable about this aspect of the account of Ms Higgins is not only its inconsistency with the contemporaneous records and its falsities, particularly as to Ms Higgins’ dealings with Ms Brown, but also its imprecisions and its reliance upon speculation and conjecture. 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).

I think a part of our (and others') broader disagreements in here is that Higgins undoubtedly felt a lot of things of that post-rape experience were completely reasonable.

Once something of this magnitude is in the ether, how can you not view feelings through this lens? If Reynolds or Brown was 'short' on an occasions, was that because of the assault and the pressures put upon them from it, or because they had completely unrelated life-pressures leading into that?

That is perfectly understandable.

However, as Justice Lee also adjudged that 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;

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

(4) sometimes told untruths when it suited her.

So getting back to your post, is "ostrasised", is it over the top? Yep!

But did Higgins not convey that her experience in Perth was a negative one? She did, unequivocally!

Yet there is contemporaneous and new evidence that Higgins stated yesterday:

“Been out and about doing ground level campaigning. It’s been pretty fun actually,” she wrote in one of several messages to Mr Dillaway read out in court.

“My day has been awesome, mostly spent poolside,” read another.

Mr Bennett also tendered a series of photos showing a smiling Ms Higgins with politicians including Senator Reynolds and then-prime minister Scott Morrison during the campaign.

Ms Higgins also attended a birthday dinner thrown by Senator Reynolds just before the election, as well as a post-election debrief with champagne at the senator’s home the day after the poll.

Ultimately, this trial here is focussed even more on the post-rape treatment by Reynolds, hence the focus on Perth.

This is the very same Perth experience where Higgins 'asserted definitively' that she copped bad treatment especially in her interviews and 'asserted definitively' that she buried her white dress under her bed never to be seen again... (not a judgement of the latter, but evidence that she clearly told 'untruths' that suited her.).



It's too convenient IMHO to just wave away the 'untruths' into 'misrememberings' like some sort of Jedi mind trick. Higgins lied to suit her (and David Sharazs') motives. Those motives are seemingly taboo, because it involves a rape victim, but they exist.

Apologies again to Percel for being too "invested" in a crime thread on a crime message board and Percel and jason_recliner for the perennial use of the term "omnishambles".

 

[FIGJAM]

This is a screenshot of everyone's favourite paper, The Australian, but let's not 'play the man' and focus on the details here:



How horrible was it there actually?

Why did Higgins send Reynolds flowers with a thank you note?

At what exact point did everything turn sour (Hint: it was 29 May 2020)?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I don't think politicians should have fan clubs.

They should be scared of us.

 

[FIGJAM]

I don't think politicians should have fan clubs.

They should be scared of us.

Agree with the first line, but what the **** are you on about with the second line?!

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Agree with the first line, but what the **** are you on about with the second line?!

People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people
-Alan Moore

 

[BFew]

I don't think politicians should have fan clubs.

They should be scared of us.

What about AFL CEO's?

 

[FIGJAM]

People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people
-Alan Moore

I don’t think ‘fear’ is a good basis for any relationship.

Do you wish to inflict ‘fear’ on Reynolds as a result of Alan Moore’s theory?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I don’t think ‘fear’ is a good basis for any relationship.

Do you wish to inflict ‘fear’ on Reynolds as a result of Alan Moore’s theory?

I don't have a relationship with Reynolds, nor do I seek one.

 

[FIGJAM]

I don't have a relationship with Reynolds, nor do I seek one.

Me neither. So what is your point?

 

[Percel]

On the above, I like to think that we are in full agreement that Higgins was r*ped and that her feelings were no doubt analysed through this lens for an extended period.

As Lee stated:



I think a part of our (and others') broader disagreements in here is that Higgins undoubtedly felt a lot of things of that post-rape experience were completely reasonable.

Once something of this magnitude is in the ether, how can you not view feelings through this lens? If Reynolds or Brown was 'short' on an occasions, was that because of the assault and the pressures put upon them from it, or because they had completely unrelated life-pressures leading into that?

That is perfectly understandable.

However, as Justice Lee also adjudged that Higgins:



So getting back to your post, is "ostrasised", is it over the top? Yep!

But did Higgins not convey that her experience in Perth was a negative one? She did, unequivocally!

Yet there is contemporaneous and new evidence that Higgins stated yesterday:



Ultimately, this trial here is focussed even more on the post-rape treatment by Reynolds, hence the focus on Perth.

This is the very same Perth experience where Higgins 'asserted definitively' that she copped bad treatment especially in her interviews and 'asserted definitively' that she buried her white dress under her bed never to be seen again... (not a judgement of the latter, but evidence that she clearly told 'untruths' that suited her.).

View attachment 2066923

It's too convenient IMHO to just wave away the 'untruths' into 'misrememberings' like some sort of Jedi mind trick. Higgins lied to suit her (and David Sharazs') motives. Those motives are seemingly taboo, because it involves a rape victim, but they exist.

Apologies again to Percel for being too "invested" in a crime thread on a crime message board and Percel and jason_recliner for the perennial use of the term "omnishambles".

All good comrade, you do you

 

[Kurve]

Oh lordy ...

 

[FIGJAM]

Oh lordy ...

All of that is a steaming pile of shit!

Albo was at the event too if he wanted to mention it?!

I’m sure Lee will laugh that shit off because he’s a class act, but could sue this complete moron if he wanted to.

Lee found that there was no political cover up because…wait for it…there was clearly no ****en cover up!

Nice to know that tin foil hat wearing idiots aren’t the exclusive domain of the far right.

 

[Kurve]

but could sue this complete moron if he wanted to.

Yeh I think he's really asking for it here, let's see how long it stays up for.

Anyway, not a good look for the judiciary to be swanning about at media events. They should in the very least, try to keep the appearance of complete independence.

 

[FIGJAM]

Anyway, not a good look for the judiciary to be swanning about at media events. They should in the very least, try to keep the appearance of complete independence.

My take is that the bloke who conducted one of the biggest trials in Australian legal history, did so fully live streamed and under the guise of “let sunlight be the best disinfectant”, should be able to have a free dinner with zero questions on his integrity.

I note this complete nutter didn't mention that Sofronoff leaked his report to both Janet Albrechtsen and Elizabeth Byrne of the ABC. Or that the Prime Minister was at this event. Just focuses on that which suits his extremist viewpoint. Like many others in here...

 

[Kurve]

Just focuses on that which suits his extremist viewpoint. Like many others in here...

You're exaggerating.

 

[Kurve]

I note this complete nutter didn't mention that Sofronoff leaked his report to both Janet Albrechtsen and Elizabeth Byrne of the ABC.

Sofronoff gave it to Albrechtsen first.

Or that the Prime Minister was at this event.

It isn't surprising that Albo would attend the event, I can't appreciate the comparison between Albo and a prominent member of the judiciary tasked with sorting this mess out, particularly after Sofronoff is to face the Integrity Commission over the question of corruption and collusion with the media.

 

[Festerz]

Sofronoff gave it to Albrechtsen first.

FFS Are we still disputing the manner in which Sofronoff and Albrechtsen conspired in his so called 'Independent' Inquiry into the ACT Justice System? Why is this even in dispute?

Justice Stephen Kaye’s damning decision on the subject of Walter Sofronoff’s (and Albrechtsen's) conduct laid it out for all to see.

So, again, lets go through it all for the umpteenth time. As outlined in detail by Geoffrey Watson SC, Director at the Centre for Public Integrity:

Sofronoff’s inquiry was set up to get to the bottom of problems in the criminal justice system, but the inquiry itself was compromised by bias. Confidence in the legal system is founded upon an assumption of independent, bias-free decision-making. The judgment of Kaye tells us that assumption is false – the conduct and result of Sofronoff’s inquiry shatters whatever confidence there was in the system.

The law was not the only important institution shown to be flawed – so was the fourth estate, our free press. Not only did the commission bellyflop, it went down together with our “national broadsheet”, the Australian.

The constant contact between Sofronoff and Albrechtsen, as set out in the judgment is striking. It started even before the inquiry opened. It continued with intensity. Sofronoff and Albrechtsen shared more than 50 telephone calls for over 7.5 hours. They exchanged a huge number of text messages, many in a single day. Some emails were sent “secretively” to a private email address. Much of the traffic was initiated by Sofronoff. Meanwhile, Albrechtsen continued banging out negative articles about Drumgold on a daily basis.

The content of their contact was equally surprising. Even before the hearings started, Sofronoff sent Albrechtsen parts of the evidence with comments critical of Drumgold. During the public hearing, Albrechtsen even proposed to Sofronoff that he put particular questions to a witness – and Sofronoff agreed!

It gets worse. During the crucial phase during which Sofronoff was drafting his report, he was actually sending successive versions to Albrechtsen. Changes were made, but Kaye did not make a finding as to why the changes were made or who suggested them. We do know, however, that Sofronoff’s final report closely matched Albrechtsen’s anti-Drumgold narrative. Kaye found it would be reasonable to think that Sofronoff was under Albrechtsen’s “influence”.

Sofronoff's conduct is now the subject of separate investigation by the Independent ACT Integrity Commission and has been for 4 months now.

https://www.integrity.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/2428754/Media-Alert-5-April-2024.pdf

Meanwhile The Australian's columnist Janet Albrechtsen's politically motivated obsession in defending Bruce Lehrmann and attacking his rape victim Brittany Higgins continues via the leaking of confidential and personal information in her front page articles in The Australian newspaper and website, including in relation to Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds defamation action against her.

FMD it's like Groundhog Day in this thread the way the same facts have to be restated again and again and again.

(Not having a go at you Kurve - just sympathising with the BS you have to keep going through.)