So tomorrow, I can walk into a room with my just my boss after hours and a week or so later, say she raped me and that's it? Sweet, might give it a crack and see what I can get. Might even see if I can get Justice Lee oversee proceedings.
You might need to fabricate some corroborating evidence and set up some eye witnesses first.
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 🙄
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.
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.