21
22
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: AFL Rd 5 2024 Post Game Prognostications Carlton vs Adelaide
Last post by DJC -They kicked 16-4 which is crazy accurate.
The 2 weeks prior they scored 8-15 and 4-10.
Yes, but as other posters have mentioned, they had nine shots from directly in front and within 40 metres. That accounted for eight goals and one behind. The ease with which they hit targets and were paid frees directly in front or on slight angles is damning.
At the other end, we scored two behinds from shots taken within 10 metres 🙄
23
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: General Discussions
Last post by DJC -I'm not sure whether there's a transcript of the Judge's decision online yet, but he addresses all these issues.
(State of inebriation, activity at the bar, the entrance to Parliament). He goes into specific detail as to why he gives weight to some aspects and little weight to others.
It is a remarkable exercise in critical thinking, analysis, and a logical progression from evidence to conclusions … with a bit of humour thrown in.
I particularly appreciated his efforts to explain the points of proof required to reach his findings.
24
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: General Discussions
Last post by Lods -(State of inebriation, activity at the bar, the entrance to Parliament). He goes into specific detail as to why he gives weight to some aspects and little weight to others.
25
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: AFL Rd 5 2024 Post Game Prognostications Carlton vs Adelaide
Last post by madbluboy -The 2 weeks prior they scored 8-15 and 4-10.
26
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: General Discussions
Last post by DJC -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.
27
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: General Discussions
Last post by Baggers -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.
If you read the trial notes and the judges notes it is recorded approximately how much alcohol Higgins consumed... be enough to eventually put me under the table. They're the facts. Consensual sex was virtually impossible... but I hark back to one of my original points, what kind of bloke seeks to take advantage of a drunk woman?
28
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: General Discussions
Last post by DJC -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.
29
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: General Discussions
Last post by madbluboy -30
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: General Discussions
Last post by DJC -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!
Justice Lee’s “omnishambles” is very apt.