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
If anyone is lucky to keep their spot, it’s Elijah Hollands rather than Ollie. He seemed well off the pace before his injury but he still would have been stiff to be dropped.
The VFL team having a bye didn’t help our fringe players to press their claims and it would be their work at training that would catch the MC’s eyes. Perhaps Binns, Cowan and Pitto were the standouts.
There are a couple of problems with bringing Pitto back. De Koning is playing his best footy and, at worst, is breaking even with opposition rucks. Dropping his time in the ruck from >80% to <50% will reduce his effectiveness, both in the ruck and around the ground. Pitto might do well in the ruck but he doesn’t contribute much around the ground. The other issue is the structural change playing two rucks would require, particularly in the context of Pitto’s inability to have an impact in the forward line and take marks around the ground.
We haven’t named our best 23, but it must be close to 23 out of our best 28.
The big thing out of this victory - is our boys stayed engaged in the contest. Even the final moments of the match where Crippa called TDK out of the ruck contest that threw Jackson into a tangent and made a big error. What a move by Crippa.
The positioning around that stoppage was interesting with De Koning standing goal side rather than in a defensive position. I'd love to know whether that was part of a plan to convince Jackson to go for an attacking hitout.
The players often talk about rehearsing scenarios - was that one they'd planned?
Jackson usually does his best work around the ground, but Tom nullified that totally. It was Tom who took the important marks, not Jackson. However, Tom's ruckwork probably wasn't as good as Jackson's on the day. Freo seemed to have 'worked out' our midfield structure and limited it.
Tom can be happy with his day's work, but not the way our midfield functioned.
I posted this in RR’s “Apparent improvement by umpires” thread but it’s relevant here too;
“A quick analysis of the centre bounces from our game.
The ball was bounced 20 times and was thrown up once for a 666 warning. 17 bounces were perfect, two deviated slightly from the vertical (De Koning got both hitouts) and one was recalled when McKay and Jackson couldn't get near it. De Koning won 12 hitouts and got one clean possession, Jackson won three hitouts and McKay won two. There were no free kicks for ruck infringements and I didn't see anything that warranted a free kick. Not a bad day's work by the umpires ... and Tom.”
