DJC posts in a General "Discussion" thread about the findings of the trial and then pulls the old "Your opinion is not worth anything".
Not quite true MBB. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but opinions - yours, mine, Baggers, etc - are insignificant in comparison to a 300 page judgement based on thousands of hours of evidence.
Thry may well be able to form an opinion on someone’s state of inebriation from CCTV footage but I can’t see Lehrmann’s lawyers calling him as an expert witness to rebut the evidence of Higgins’ inebriation that Justice Lee found to be compelling.
I think you have misunderstood my position. I don't believe ms Higgins was anywhere near as inebriated as people are insinuating. I think she and he ended up doing something that they were dismissed for, and have been in reputation fix mode ever since. Her way to get around that, was to sling mud somewhere else, it has stuck, because he is a potato and was already covered in dirt.
I haven’t misunderstood your position.
The evidence presented at the trial, including Lehrmann’s credit card transactions and eyewitness accounts led Justice Lee to conclude that Higgins was inebriated to the point where consensual sex wasn’t possible.
That’s not insinuation, it’s a conclusion based on considerably more evidence than you and I have seen.
Don’t forget that Lehrmann has always maintained that he did not have sex with Higgins and neither were dismissed from their roles. Both were employed in the same roles when Higgins eventually reported the rape.
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?
Then there’s Higgins’ remark about “***ing a log.
The quote MBB mentioned is “one does not pash passively” and ‘passively’ gives a completely different meaning.
The problem is that neither Lehrmann or Higgins are likeable characters and both are motivated by self interest. And then there’s the holier than thou media personalities and networks!
I have thought a lot about the game and, apart from inaccurate kicking for goal, I can’t really explain how we lost.
The team stats tally with my impression of the game with one exception; free kicks!
Although both teams ended up with the same number of frees, we should have had more if the holding the ball rule was applied as I think it is supposed to be. We also missed out on some crucial decisions that robbed us of scoring opportunities and presented the Crows with opportunities. And then there’s the score review debacles.
That said, we didn’t play anywhere near our best footy, but I don’t think we have so far this season.
I saw the footage of Higgins walking through security with lehrmann. Neither of them were 3 sheets to the wind.
Either there are some serious drugs and alcohol consumed on arrival or the giggling half running into the building Higginsis much better at retaining her composure under the influence than I am.
I dont need a judge to tell me what that footage showed and that was two people who knew exactly what they were getting up to.
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.
Did Justice Lee come to this conclusion based on his vast experience on the current nightclub/ bar hopping scene?
I think old folk who say things like "One does not pash" are completely out of touch with the current climate.
A judge’s decision should not be influenced by their life experience. Their role is to impartially weigh up the evidence presented by witnesses to the exclusion, as far as possible, to their own foreknowledge and beliefs. The lawyers for both sides would have gone to great lengths to ensure that Justice Lee had a good understanding of nightclubbing behaviour. That shows in the snippets of evidence referred to in his judgement.
"Escaped the Lion's Den and went back for his hat"
If he is in fact a 'tool', he's not the sharpest one in the shed.
Apart from an encyclopedic knowledge of the law, an analytical mind, and an ability to detect bullcrap, it helps if a judge has a turn of phrase and a bit of the raconteur. Justice Lee summed up Lehrmann's folly perfectly with his Lion's Den analogy.
Yeah I call BS on her being passed out blackout drunk. I think they both knew what they were going back to the office for.
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.
She was pashing him in the bar and then went back with him to do some paperwork lol.
They're both liars.
I like Justice Lee's opening remarks:
“An astute observer would have gleaned from the trial this case is not as straightforward as some might suggest.”
The judge said that “only one man and one woman know the truth with certitude,” but they are “two people who are both in different ways unreliable historians”.
“People give unreliable evidence for various reasons and distinguishing between a false memory and a lie can be difficult.”
However, the bottom line is that Justice Lee found that "In his [Lehrmann's] pursuit of gratification, he did not care one way or the other whether Ms Higgins understood or agreed to what was going on."
As Higgins so eloquently put it when asked by a parliamentary staffer whether Lehrmann had raped her, “I could not have consented. It would have been like f---ing a log.”
1. Sam Walsh is an absolute star. He looked sharp in the warm up, started the game well and got better as the game wore on. Brent Harvey worked with Sam's cohort prior to the draft and, although there was a lot of talent, he always felt that Sam's work ethic would make him the best of the bunch. He's not wrong!
2. Jacob Weitering conceded the ball to Tex Walker on too many occasions. I'm not sure why but Weiters didn't go with him or gave up on the contest.
3. I no longer have any understanding of the rules of the game or how the game is officiated.
3. I know a lot of Carlton supporters think that Nathan Williamson is always against us but Andrew Adair took it to a whole new level.
4. There may be games where it makes sense to have Pittonet and De Koning in the 22. Playing the Crows isn't one of them.
5. Not many supporters, or at least those in my row, can watch a quarter of footy without having to get up for a slash, drink or what passes for food.
6. Don't count your chickens before the fat lady sings.
7. When you're travelling on an unfamiliar train line, check whether you need to change trains
I really don't know how we lost that game. We should have won comfortably but poor kicking for goal let us down and unbelievable accuracy from the Crows got them over the line.
Justice Michael Lee has found that Lehrmann raped Higgins. This is on the balance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
Lehrmann's multi-million dollar defamation case has been dismissed.
I'm not sure whether Lehrmann is now officially a scumbag but he will be significantly out of pocket.
Tried to contact Capcom a while back but didnt get a reply and thats unusual for real name(Mike) and I fear the worst as would often exchange PM's and he was always quick to reply.
Doesn't sound good. Let's hope he's just found another forum to express his support for the Bluebaggers.
I miss PaulP and I hope he's OK, and then there's a swag of posters like Mav, Raydan, LanceRomance, Tommy'sBarber, bmaurizio, Amers, capcom, c4e, chalkybill, flyboy, Jack Burton, and many others who no longer post or only occasionally post.
I suspect that social media is attracting more people away from discussion groups across the board, and footy groups in general and this place in particular are feeling the squeeze.
Social media is faster with latest news, be it fair dinkum or fake, bit there's really not much scope for the discussions that make this place interesting, informative and, at times, infuriating.
The bright side is that we seem to hardly attract any bots now
