Carlton Supporters Club

You must have extraordinary powers of observation to determine people’s intent from a couple of seconds of CCTV footage.

And yet eyewitnesses at the nightclub and security at Parliament House gave evidence that clearly contradicts your assessment of Higgins and Lehrmann’s state of sobriety.

Unless you sat through the entire trial and carefully considered every piece of material evidence and every sentence of testimony from Higgins, Lehrmann and all of the witnesses, you’re not really in a position to dispute Justice Lee’s findings.

Of course you can have an opinion, but it’s not worth much in this particular context.

  Mr Fairweather recalled a general smell of alcohol but did not think that the visitors were overly affected (by which he meant slurring, falling over, vomiting level drunk) so as to be refused entry (Fairweather (at [29]–[32], [62])). He considered the scale of intoxication to be “very moderate” and not “heavily intoxicated” because otherwise he would have refused entry (T1172.4–27). Mr Fairweather, although an experienced security guard, was not a breathalyser in human form. He said at the time they were “half pissed” (Ex R69). I have no doubt his evidence was given genuinely, but without prolonged examination and complete information as to what had occurred earlier in the evening (and although Mr Lehrmann may only have been “half pissed”), he mistakenly but honestly underestimated the extent of the intoxication of Ms Higgins. Similarly, Ms Anderson realised Ms Higgins was intoxicated after she observed her struggling to get her shoes back on coming through the metal detector (Anderson (at [27]–[28])) and later recorded this observation in her incident report (Ex R67).

Well I've followed this thread pretty closely and can't find anyone saying, 'One does not pash...' Even in this old bloke's day, we did plenty of 'pashing' at the disco, some times with a few different gals, but that did not signal, 'She wants a r**t.'

But from what you're saying MBB (& 3 Leos), if a person is three sheets to the wind, they're fair game, regardless of what they might say if sober. To moi this is not so much a legal issue but in fact goes far deeper than that... beyond the 'law.'

I must be quaintly old fashioned, but I think not. Simply put, and perhaps it was my upbringing, if a woman is drunk you look after her and protect her from sexual predators. And I have done this, as a young fella (and just as horny as the next) through to present day. In fact I find men who prey on drunk people to be cowardly and predatory. And this attitude is not righteousness (though to a predator it would seem so), it's just common bloody decency and a basic male responsibility. That drunk woman could be your mother, sister or daughter... how would you like the men around her to behave?

You must have extraordinary powers of observation to determine people’s intent from a couple of seconds of CCTV footage.

And yet eyewitnesses at the nightclub and security at Parliament House gave evidence that clearly contradicts your assessment of Higgins and Lehrmann’s state of sobriety.

Unless you sat through the entire trial and carefully considered every piece of material evidence and every sentence of testimony from Higgins, Lehrmann and all of the witnesses, you’re not really in a position to dispute Justice Lee’s findings.

Of course you can have an opinion, but it’s not worth much in this particular context.

Fair enough, and you're basing that assumption on the body of evidence presented to the court or just pure speculation?

She was found comatose on a couch in the Minister's office by an independent witness.  That is not in dispute.

The judge specifically mentioned the number of drinks Lehrmann bought her and the likelihood that she was given more alcohol at Parliament House.  Witnesses testified to the fact that she was nissed as a pewt including being unable to put her shoes on after going through security.

Somehow, Justice Lee's statement that he was “comfortably satisfied” that Higgins was a “very drunk young woman” is far more compelling than some random calling BS 

It's enlightening to read Justice Lee's points of proof that led him to conclude that Lehrmann had raped Higgins.

Surprised no one has mentioned three Hamstring Strains in THREE days.......

WTF   

Whether that was pre-planned or not we'll never know, but you can only do it when you have ultra mobile type rucks like TDK or Jackson as they become an extra stoppage player in the zone.

FWIW, back when we had both Kreuzer and Hampson in F50 we would do a similar thing, because they were both mobile enough around stoppages, it left the opposition not knowing which ruck would contest and which ruck would rove, I never understood why we didn't implement it more. There are some old clips floating around of Kreuzer and Hampson roving to each other for goals. The 3rd man up stifled the tactic for a while, and now having to nominate reduces some of the impact, but it still works if you have the right options available.

We need to be educated by players and coaches in the current system.

Selwood taught me something last week that I had never heard or thought of before. Adelaide were coming back against Melbourne but the clock was working against them. With about 4 minutes left Selwood said Adelaide will have to "Something" tackle. (I forgot the word). He went on to explain it was like half tackling, they couldn't afford the dead balls. Deliberately not committing to a tackle to keep the ball moving so you have a chance of winning.

HTF Fantasia keeps getting a game is beyond me.  The photos must be incriminating.