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]

Sarah Basford Canales
Linda Reynolds says she never “agreed” to keep private two confidential letters relating to Brittany Higgins’ civil claims she leaked to a columnist at The Australian, a court has heard.

The two letters sent to Reynolds’ lawyer in June and December 2022 - both marked confidential and subject to legal professional privilege - outlined the proposed terms of Reynolds’ involvement in the civil claim.

Higgins settled a personal injury claim against the government on 12 December 2022. It was later revealed in the Bruce Lehrmann defamation trial the settlement amounted to $2.445m.

In the June letter, the Commonwealth’s legal team requested all parties to keep details confidential.

In the December letter, Reynolds was instructed not to attend mediation with Higgins, make any public comment, and maintain confidentiality so the Commonwealth would be in “best position to achieve a resolution”.

Reynolds asked Higgins’ lawyer, Rachael Young SC, to repeat her questions on a number of occasions when being asked whether she understood the meaning of legal professional privilege and the parliamentary business resources regulation.

The senator claimed she had some understanding but added the letters showed the federal government “wanted to lock me down”.

On the morning of 12 December 2022, the day of the mediation, Reynolds used her personal Gmail account to send the June letter to the Australian columnist, Janet Albrechtsen.

Reynolds told the court she had never “signed” the letter and therefore was not subject to its confidentiality clause.

Young disputed this, pointing to the regulations and passages within the letters instructing her not to.

“What was top of my mind was the fact that I was not going to sign [it],” Reynolds said. “I hadn’t signed an agreement to be locked down.”

Albrechtsen and another journalist published an article on the Australian website, dated 14 December 2022 - the next day.

 

[GrayRanga]

I appreciate a lot of that, although I do think some of it is a bit OTT.

I'm just trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who has had demonstrably false allegations made about them and how I'd act.

What I find funny is how quickly politicians are held up as a 'bastion of morality' in one breath and then classed as "the snake pit" in the next breath. We're dealing with normal humans here.

I backed Brown's choices and methods, even though I would have done things differently. She ultimately has had a nervous breakdown from this.

I'm not backing Reynolds' current legal action, as well as some other things that she's done. But she's made the choice to clear her name from false accusations and that is something that is very human and that I can understand.

Wait s sec!

These are not "demonstrately false accusations" until the Court determines in this Court Case that they are.

Until the Court determines that they are, they are only allegations

For someone who is such a prolific poster on this and associated threads, you seem to have a limited understanding of Court processes.

This a totally separate trial to the Lehrmann trial and the trial judge in this case will adjudicate on the evidence presented to him in this case, which may or may not include Lee's findings.

Funny how you defend Reynold's actions of clearing her name but you seem to be unable to take a simlilar stand with Higgins, who was definately at the other end of the power band who was allegedly r*ped in her work environment who was trying to clear her name and obtain some iota of justice where she was considered to be a political hot potato

 

[Festerz]

Sarah Basford Canales
Linda Reynolds says she never “agreed” to keep private two confidential letters relating to Brittany Higgins’ civil claims she leaked to a columnist at The Australian, a court has heard.

The two letters sent to Reynolds’ lawyer in June and December 2022 - both marked confidential and subject to legal professional privilege - outlined the proposed terms of Reynolds’ involvement in the civil claim.

Higgins settled a personal injury claim against the government on 12 December 2022. It was later revealed in the Bruce Lehrmann defamation trial the settlement amounted to $2.445m.

In the June letter, the Commonwealth’s legal team requested all parties to keep details confidential.

In the December letter, Reynolds was instructed not to attend mediation with Higgins, make any public comment, and maintain confidentiality so the Commonwealth would be in “best position to achieve a resolution”.

Reynolds asked Higgins’ lawyer, Rachael Young SC, to repeat her questions on a number of occasions when being asked whether she understood the meaning of legal professional privilege and the parliamentary business resources regulation.

The senator claimed she had some understanding but added the letters showed the federal government “wanted to lock me down”.

On the morning of 12 December 2022, the day of the mediation, Reynolds used her personal Gmail account to send the June letter to the Australian columnist, Janet Albrechtsen.

Reynolds told the court she had never “signed” the letter and therefore was not subject to its confidentiality clause.

Young disputed this, pointing to the regulations and passages within the letters instructing her not to.

“What was top of my mind was the fact that I was not going to sign [it],” Reynolds said. “I hadn’t signed an agreement to be locked down.”

Albrechtsen and another journalist published an article on the Australian website, dated 14 December 2022 - the next day.

'I never signed anything contracting me to not be a POS in relation to how I humiliate and expose my junior staffer on the front pages of the national newspaper.'

'A young woman another court found WAS r*ped by another one of my staffers in MY Parliamentary office in Parliament House. A young woman trying to escape the horrors of what happened that night and since, who is now pregnant and living abroad. A woman I have mortgaged my house to pursue, humiliate, shame and bankrupt.'

FMD.

This woman, an experienced Australian Federal Senator and former Senior Minister, is claiming she is out to restore her reputation.

Someone tell Senator Reynolds that if her goal was truly to restore her reputation (and I don't believe that for a minute- this is all about base level revenge and retribution) she has failed miserably.

 

[Festerz]

A fundraiser just launched, and Reynolds team has subpoena'd all exchanges between Higgins and the fundraising page.

It's raised over $33,000 already.

Higgins’ communications with fundraising page subpoenaed by Reynolds’ legal team – as it happened

All the day’s news as it unfolded

www.theguardian.com

An action that is backfiring spectacularly in terms of 'restoring her reputation'.

 

[Lady O]

Wait s sec!

These are not "demonstrately false accusations" until the Court determines in this Court Case that they are.

Until the Court determines that they are, they are only allegations

For someone who is such a prolific poster on this and associated threads, you seem to have a limited understanding of Court processes.

This a totally separate trial to the Lehrmann trial and the trial judge in this case will adjudicate on the evidence presented to him in this case, which may or may not include Lee's findings.

Funny how you defend Reynold's actions of clearing her name but you seem to be unable to take a simlilar stand with Higgins, who was definately at the other end of the power band who was allegedly r*ped in her work environment who was trying to clear her name and obtain some iota of justice where she was considered to be a political hot potato

Gray Ranga said: "Funny how you defend Reynold's actions of clearing her name but you seem to be unable to take a simlilar stand with Higgins, who was definately at the other end of the power band who was allegedly r*ped in her work environment who was trying to clear her name and obtain some iota of justice where she was considered to be a political hot potato"

I believe she obtained $2.3M of justice. Most of which was not for the rape itself, but for enabling Labor to gain some points and assisting them to win the election, by blaming Liberal politicians for failing to support her and threatening her job!

 

[Kurve]

Does anybody know if Wong and Gallagher are to be called?

 

[Kurve]

I believe she obtained $2.3M of justice. Most of which was not for the rape itself, but for enabling Labor to gain some points and assisting them to win the election, by blaming Liberal politicians for failing to support her and threatening her job!

Oh it's this nonsense again. Dreyfus would have overseen this settlement to the letter of the law.

Here's the breakdown:

Higgins received $2.445m, more than half of which was in respect of her loss of earning capacity, as well as legal costs, medical expenses, domestic assistance and “$400,000 for hurt, distress and humiliation suffered by Ms Higgins”.

 

[Lady O]

Oh it's this nonsense again. Dreyfus would have overseen this settlement to the letter of the law.

Here's the breakdown:

Higgins received $2.445m, more than half of which was in respect of her loss of earning capacity, as well as legal costs, medical expenses, domestic assistance and “$400,000 for hurt, distress and humiliation suffered by Ms Higgins”.

Very generous!!

 

[Kurve]

Very generous!!

I'm on the record in here, before Higgins claim was settled, stating that Higgins would get close enough to what her lawyers had calculated as reasonable. I did not need to factor in any bonus from the Labor Party to get a high figure.

Higgins had an excellent future with the Liberal Party before this happened and was well positioned to keep moving up, she can never go back.

 

[GrayRanga]

Gray Ranga said: "Funny how you defend Reynold's actions of clearing her name but you seem to be unable to take a simlilar stand with Higgins, who was definately at the other end of the power band who was allegedly r*ped in her work environment who was trying to clear her name and obtain some iota of justice where she was considered to be a political hot potato"

I believe she obtained $2.3M of justice. Most of which was not for the rape itself, but for enabling Labor to gain some points and assisting them to win the election, by blaming Liberal politicians for failing to support her and threatening her job!

Albo was sworn-in as prime minister on 23 May 2022

Higgins signed the deed of release on December 2022

Therefore Labor did not use this "to gain some points and assisting them to win the election, by blaming Liberal politicians for failing to support her and threatening her job"

Why are you telling porkies?

 

[Kurve]

Saxon Mullins now part of a conspiracy to damage Reynolds.

Beyond ‘stretch of imagination’ Brittany Higgins fundraising page part of conspiracy to damage Linda Reynolds, court told​

Communications between Higgins and sexual assault survivor advocate subpoenaed during defamation trial as Reynolds’ lawyer accuses former staffer of trying to ‘capture public opinion’.

Beyond ‘stretch of imagination’ Brittany Higgins fundraising page part of conspiracy to damage Linda Reynolds, court told

Communications between Higgins and sexual assault survivor advocate subpoenaed during defamation trial as Reynolds’ lawyer accuses former staffer of trying to ‘capture public opinion’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Festerz]

Gray Ranga said: "Funny how you defend Reynold's actions of clearing her name but you seem to be unable to take a simlilar stand with Higgins, who was definately at the other end of the power band who was allegedly r*ped in her work environment who was trying to clear her name and obtain some iota of justice where she was considered to be a political hot potato"

I believe she obtained $2.3M of justice. Most of which was not for the rape itself, but for enabling Labor to gain some points and assisting them to win the election, by blaming Liberal politicians for failing to support her and threatening her job!

How much payment would you settle for instead of vindication by the courts 'Lady' O?

To be r*ped by your coworker in your workplace, having been plied with drinks

To have your truth ridiculed by the national police force, whose senior members not only intimidate you when your front them to tell your story but tell their superiors they will resign if your allegations ever make it to court.

And then, even now, more than five years later, have your story disbelieved and ridiculed. Plastered over the front page of a national newspaper and used by a politically aligned gossip columnist who is desperate to protect your rapist and his political allies.

Having your rapist secretly paid to give 'his view' on national TV and provided with $4000/fortnight for luxury accommodation in one of the most expensive cities in the world for 12 months including That 'masseuses' and cocaine bags as a reward from a national TV broadcaster.

And of course having your name dragged through the mud by every anonymous blogger and troll artist on every social media platform in the country. Including this thread.

Spending several weeks in a criminal trial giving your evidence against your rapist who refuses to take the dock. Only to have your trial destroyed by the actions of a malicious juror.

Only to be dragged back through the courts yet again in a civil trial to tell your story again for the most viewed trial in Australian history, by your rapist who, after having been found to be a liar and most likely to have r*ped you, tells us all he can't pay a bloody cent of what he owes.

And having won that battle you have to do it all over again for your former employer who wants her pieces of silver for being called out for failing to give you the support you needed.

Tell us 'Lady O' - what would you take as payment for that never ending pile of dogshite?

And tell us again about 'JUSTICE'.

And tell us why any woman anywhere would dare put her faith in this 'Justice' system again when it comes to being sexually assaulted and abused by a work colleague, a friend, or a family member. She will not only not be believed, but she will be ridiculed by those she trusts and those with power.

FMD She should have just moved on and said nothing. Right? Would have saved her, you and the rest of us a lot of bother.

Silly girl.

 

[Lady O]

Albo was sworn-in as prime minister on 23 May 2022

Higgins signed the deed of release on December 2022

Therefore Labor did not use this "to gain some points and assisting them to win the election, by blaming Liberal politicians for failing to support her and threatening her job"

Why are you telling porkies?

"Ms Higgins’ allegations referred to early 2019 and the settlement was in mid-December 2022, some 3.5 years later.

Ms Higgins engaged lawyers and she made a claim for compensation arising from her allegations of being sexually assaulted in Parliament House and there being an inadequate workplace response.

The claim is wholly within the Legal Services Direction’s “monetary claim” provisions; however, the direction requirements seem to have been ignored as follows:

1. The outcome breaches the direction on confidentiality. The media release on the day of the settlement reported that the government agreed to Ms Higgins’ request for confidentiality as to the terms and the amount. There was no valid reason to agree to that request.
2. Her payment, as reported in the media, was around $3 million. Ms Higgins said that it was less.

Articles critical of the payment – and directed to matters going to liability and proof, clearly identified within the above extracts from the Legal Services Directions – have pointed to:

• the lack of any discernible legal basis for a large payment, or even any payout;
• the absence of any evidence to support any claim;
• the subsequent release of information such as the CCTV footage at the Parliament House security check that shows both parties to be sober enough, and
• Chief of staff Fiona Brown’s detailed, persuasive demonstration that work management had been fully supportive of Ms Higgins.

All of these matters strongly support an argument that had the matter gone to court Ms Higgins would have lost.

Despite concerns as to the justification for a payment increasing as more information came to light, the government has pushed back against any transparency or accountability.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus was interviewed early this month. He said that he was the decision maker, that he was “absolutely comfortable” with the payment, that it complied with the Legal Services Directions, and that it was absolutely standard that in some cases there was confidentiality as has happened here, that it was very common to settle cases with confidentiality, that it’s very common for it to be in the Commonwealth’s interests that there be confidentiality.

He then suggested that this was a mediated settlement. He emphasised that Finance Minister Katy Gallagher had no part to play.

Ms Gallagher has stated that she had no contact with the Attorney-General about the payment.

There can be settlement negotiations between parties with no mediator present. If there was, as suggested by the attorney, a mediator, who was she or he?

A “meaningful prospect of liability by the Commonwealth” is required under the directions. By what steps was that established in the absence of two Coalition senators and chief of staff Brown?

In December it was public knowledge that Ms Higgins was not able to give evidence. DPP Mr Drumgold SC told us that. How then were her claims to be tested?

This year it has been reported that Ms Higgins is able to give evidence for the media defendants to Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation claims.

While it’s wonderful that she has made such a strong recovery, it does call into question the bases of any settlement that included future inability to work etcetera.

Compare what the attorney-general said early this month with the legal requirements and factual matters set out above. Try as I might, I am unable to reconcile the two.

I wonder whether the attorney-general gave any instructions – as he can – to those acting for the government at the settlement meeting. If so, what were they?"

 

[Kurve]

"Ms Higgins’ allegations referred to early 2019 and the settlement was in mid-December 2022, some 3.5 years later.

Ms Higgins engaged lawyers and she made a claim for compensation arising from her allegations of being sexually assaulted in Parliament House and there being an inadequate workplace response.

The claim is wholly within the Legal Services Direction’s “monetary claim” provisions; however, the direction requirements seem to have been ignored as follows:

1. The outcome breaches the direction on confidentiality. The media release on the day of the settlement reported that the government agreed to Ms Higgins’ request for confidentiality as to the terms and the amount. There was no valid reason to agree to that request.
2. Her payment, as reported in the media, was around $3 million. Ms Higgins said that it was less.

Articles critical of the payment – and directed to matters going to liability and proof, clearly identified within the above extracts from the Legal Services Directions – have pointed to:

• the lack of any discernible legal basis for a large payment, or even any payout;
• the absence of any evidence to support any claim;
• the subsequent release of information such as the CCTV footage at the Parliament House security check that shows both parties to be sober enough, and
• Chief of staff Fiona Brown’s detailed, persuasive demonstration that work management had been fully supportive of Ms Higgins.

All of these matters strongly support an argument that had the matter gone to court Ms Higgins would have lost.

Despite concerns as to the justification for a payment increasing as more information came to light, the government has pushed back against any transparency or accountability.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus was interviewed early this month. He said that he was the decision maker, that he was “absolutely comfortable” with the payment, that it complied with the Legal Services Directions, and that it was absolutely standard that in some cases there was confidentiality as has happened here, that it was very common to settle cases with confidentiality, that it’s very common for it to be in the Commonwealth’s interests that there be confidentiality.

He then suggested that this was a mediated settlement. He emphasised that Finance Minister Katy Gallagher had no part to play.

Ms Gallagher has stated that she had no contact with the Attorney-General about the payment.

There can be settlement negotiations between parties with no mediator present. If there was, as suggested by the attorney, a mediator, who was she or he?

A “meaningful prospect of liability by the Commonwealth” is required under the directions. By what steps was that established in the absence of two Coalition senators and chief of staff Brown?

In December it was public knowledge that Ms Higgins was not able to give evidence. DPP Mr Drumgold SC told us that. How then were her claims to be tested?

This year it has been reported that Ms Higgins is able to give evidence for the media defendants to Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation claims.

While it’s wonderful that she has made such a strong recovery, it does call into question the bases of any settlement that included future inability to work etcetera.

Compare what the attorney-general said early this month with the legal requirements and factual matters set out above. Try as I might, I am unable to reconcile the two.

I wonder whether the attorney-general gave any instructions – as he can – to those acting for the government at the settlement meeting. If so, what were they?"

Do you have a link please?

 

[GrayRanga]

"Ms Higgins’ allegations referred to early 2019 and the settlement was in mid-December 2022, some 3.5 years later.

Ms Higgins engaged lawyers and she made a claim for compensation arising from her allegations of being sexually assaulted in Parliament House and there being an inadequate workplace response.

The claim is wholly within the Legal Services Direction’s “monetary claim” provisions; however, the direction requirements seem to have been ignored as follows:

1. The outcome breaches the direction on confidentiality. The media release on the day of the settlement reported that the government agreed to Ms Higgins’ request for confidentiality as to the terms and the amount. There was no valid reason to agree to that request.
2. Her payment, as reported in the media, was around $3 million. Ms Higgins said that it was less.

Articles critical of the payment – and directed to matters going to liability and proof, clearly identified within the above extracts from the Legal Services Directions – have pointed to:

• the lack of any discernible legal basis for a large payment, or even any payout;
• the absence of any evidence to support any claim;
• the subsequent release of information such as the CCTV footage at the Parliament House security check that shows both parties to be sober enough, and
• Chief of staff Fiona Brown’s detailed, persuasive demonstration that work management had been fully supportive of Ms Higgins.

All of these matters strongly support an argument that had the matter gone to court Ms Higgins would have lost.

Despite concerns as to the justification for a payment increasing as more information came to light, the government has pushed back against any transparency or accountability.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus was interviewed early this month. He said that he was the decision maker, that he was “absolutely comfortable” with the payment, that it complied with the Legal Services Directions, and that it was absolutely standard that in some cases there was confidentiality as has happened here, that it was very common to settle cases with confidentiality, that it’s very common for it to be in the Commonwealth’s interests that there be confidentiality.

He then suggested that this was a mediated settlement. He emphasised that Finance Minister Katy Gallagher had no part to play.

Ms Gallagher has stated that she had no contact with the Attorney-General about the payment.

There can be settlement negotiations between parties with no mediator present. If there was, as suggested by the attorney, a mediator, who was she or he?

A “meaningful prospect of liability by the Commonwealth” is required under the directions. By what steps was that established in the absence of two Coalition senators and chief of staff Brown?

In December it was public knowledge that Ms Higgins was not able to give evidence. DPP Mr Drumgold SC told us that. How then were her claims to be tested?

This year it has been reported that Ms Higgins is able to give evidence for the media defendants to Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation claims.

While it’s wonderful that she has made such a strong recovery, it does call into question the bases of any settlement that included future inability to work etcetera.

Compare what the attorney-general said early this month with the legal requirements and factual matters set out above. Try as I might, I am unable to reconcile the two.

I wonder whether the attorney-general gave any instructions – as he can – to those acting for the government at the settlement meeting. If so, what were they?"

Very nice cut and paste

Care to cite where you took this from (usual practice in this forum) or did you think it up one your own?

Still doesn't hide the fact that you were attempting to delude the Forum by stating that "Most of which was not for the rape itself, but for enabling Labor to gain some points and assisting them to win the election, by blaming Liberal politicians for failing to support her and threatening her job!"

 

[Festerz]

"Ms Higgins’ allegations referred to early 2019 and the settlement was in mid-December 2022, some 3.5 years later....etc.

This is a straight cut and paste from Hugh Selby's anti Higgins rants, right. I meanWTAF?

Are you he?

 

[GrayRanga]

This is a straight cut and paste from Hugh Selby's anti Higgins rants, right. I meanWTAF?

Are you he?

i believe Hugh Selby is a Barrister, supplimenting earnings from his Court work by writing for a free local paper.

The advertising rates for that paper must be massive that they can afford to pay a tame Barrister on staff to report on Canberra's Courts.

I mean to say, do you really believe that Lady O has been admitted to the Bar?

 

[FIGJAM]

Wait s sec!

These are not "demonstrately false accusations" until the Court determines in this Court Case that they are.

I'm satisfied that the main false allegation of a political cover up has been proven to an identical standard as the balance of probabilities as the rape decision against Lehrmann. Justice Lee has maintained one of the most meticulous records of information in Australian legal history and you can go and seek out the evidence that shows that Higgins didn't want to proceed with a legal case and why she didn't (spoiler; it's not pressure from any politician or staffer).

But I think you're missing my point; whether you, I, Lee or Totter thinks the allegations are true or false, they are sure as **** false to Reynolds and Brown, who have the lived experience of trying to to everything be the book. Thus my point is that need to view things through that lens.

For someone who is such a prolific poster on this and associated threads, you seem to have a limited understanding of Court processes.

I find it odd that those that share your POV always want to 'mansplain' court processes to the rest of us. FWIW, I act as an expert witness in Federal Court on family law matters, so I'm not totally oblivious to the Court.

As for prolific poster, I am indeed, but I also think Kurve and I's numbers would be well down if her and I had a lot less one line arguments between the two of us.

This a totally separate trial to the Lehrmann trial and the trial judge in this case will adjudicate on the evidence presented to him in this case, which may or may not include Lee's findings.

Yep! As I've said previously; 'Nil all! Play on!!".

Funny how you defend Reynold's actions of clearing her name but you seem to be unable to take a simlilar stand with Higgins, who was definately at the other end of the power band who was allegedly r*ped in her work environment who was trying to clear her name and obtain some iota of justice where she was considered to be a political hot potato

Firstly, everything that I ever say on this topic must be with this in mind; Higgins was a junior staffer r*ped by a grub with some degree of seniority over her and that is abhorrent. I also appreciate that Higgins may have felt pressure herself internally not to proceed with the police investigation (you can go and read her text messages to Dillaway as to her thought processes).

What arose in the first trial was the text exchange with her Dad, after the police investigation that never even started and before she met Sharaz, which evidenced a woman in trauma reaching out. It was the 'smoking gun' that the rape allegation IMHO.

I did however hang back for a long time in the previous trial waiting for the 'smoking' gun that showed any semblance of direct pressure on her to withdraw her complaint by Reynolds or Brown or anyone and it didn't arise. Or that she was considered a "political hot potato". For the avoidance of doubt, Brown and Reynolds literally argued over taking Higgins to the police, arguably too soon IMHO....and then took her there!

I'll be more than happy to admit that there is evidence of a political cover up and if Higgins still maintains that there was one, then of course I am happy for her if she proves it and clears her name. She's got a refreshed platform. I'm ultimately just want the truth.

 

[GrayRanga]

I'm satisfied that the main false allegation of a political cover up has been proven to an identical standard as the balance of probabilities as the rape decision against Lehrmann. Justice Lee has maintained one of the most meticulous records of information in Australian legal history and you can go and seek out the evidence that shows that Higgins didn't want to proceed with a legal case and why she didn't (spoiler; it's not pressure from any politician or staffer).

But I think you're missing my point; whether you, I, Lee or Totter thinks the allegations are true or false, they are sure as **** false to Reynolds and Brown, who have the lived experience of trying to to everything be the book. Thus my point is that need to view things through that lens.



I find it odd that those that share your POV always want to 'mansplain' court processes to the rest of us. FWIW, I act as an expert witness in Federal Court on family law matters, so I'm not totally oblivious to the Court.

As for prolific poster, I am indeed, but I also think Kurve and I's numbers would be well down if her and I had a lot less one line arguments between the two of us.



Yep! As I've said previously; 'Nil all! Play on!!".



Firstly, everything that I ever say on this topic must be with this in mind; Higgins was a junior staffer r*ped by a grub with some degree of seniority over her and that is abhorrent. I also appreciate that Higgins may have felt pressure herself internally not to proceed with the police investigation (you can go and read her text messages to Dillaway as to her thought processes).

What arose in the first trial was the text exchange with her Dad, after the police investigation that never even started and before she met Sharaz, which evidenced a woman in trauma reaching out. It was the 'smoking gun' that the rape allegation IMHO.

I did however hang back for a long time in the previous trial waiting for the 'smoking' gun that showed any semblance of direct pressure on her to withdraw her complaint by Reynolds or Brown or anyone and it didn't arise. Or that she was considered a "political hot potato". For the avoidance of doubt, Brown and Reynolds literally argued over taking Higgins to the police, arguably too soon IMHO....and then took her there!

I'll be more than happy to admit that there is evidence of a political cover up and if Higgins still maintains that there was one, then of course I am happy for her if she proves it and clears her name. She's got a refreshed platform. I'm ultimately just want the truth.

TL;DR

 

[Lady O]

Do you have a link please?

What's the full story behind the Higgins payout? | Canberra CityNews

What is the full story behind the payout to Brittany Higgins? Did the government follow the rules? HUGH SELBY's pieced together all the prevailing directions and legislation and still finds the attorney-general's justification wanting.

citynews.com.au

 

[FIGJAM]

TL;DR

UR;AC

 

[Kurve]

I did however hang back for a long time in the previous trial waiting for the 'smoking' gun that showed any semblance of direct pressure on her to withdraw her complaint by Reynolds or Brown or anyone and it didn't arise. Or that she was considered a "political hot potato". For the avoidance of doubt, Brown and Reynolds literally argued over taking Higgins to the police, arguably too soon IMHO....and then took her there!

They argued over going behind her back. So Reynolds is telling porkies again claiming she has always respected Higgins agency, she didn't. Read it:

 

[FIGJAM]

They argued over going behind her back. So Reynolds is telling porkies again claiming she has always respected Higgins agency, she didn't. Read it:

Did Reynolds deny that the above conversation ever happened? And did she not ultimately respect Higgins' agency after Brown won out?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills on this issue, because it's oft used as evidence of a political cover-up or mishandling, when they're simply arguing over the semantics as to when to get the police involved (if indeed Higgins stated that there was an assault which was not known at that time).

Justice Lee was equally perplexed by this angle, stating "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.".

 

[Kurve]

Did Reynolds deny that the above conversation ever happened? And did she not ultimately respect Higgins' agency after Brown won out?

Did Reynolds deny it? Surprise, surprise.

As I said, I've relied on Brown's word over others right through this thread and way before I even knew these notes existed.

 

[GrayRanga]

UR;AC