Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: General Discussions (Read 343003 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1830 –
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.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1831 –
"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.
 

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1832 –
She was pashing him in the bar and then went back with him to do some paperwork lol.

They're both liars.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1833 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
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.”
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1834 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
She was pashing him in the bar and then went back with him to do some paperwork lol.

They're both liars.


A big leap from 'pashing' to sexual intercourse with someone who is drunk. Kissing is not consent to going a lot further.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1835 –
Quote from: Baggers – on
A big leap from 'pashing' to sexual intercourse with someone who is drunk. Kissing is not consent to going a lot further.

She looked happy going back with him. She was clearly drunk but far from being close to unconscious which she claimed.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1836 –
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.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1837 –
Panel of judges ripped into both as rubbish witnesses (Lehrmann more than Higgins) Ch10 lawyers for bad advice,  Wilkinson for her speech that delayed(?) the initial trial,  Morrison for his response.

The next two cases will be interesting Reynolds v Higgins, Lehrmann separate tape trial. Talk about messy.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1838 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
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.

It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1839 –
Quote from: Lods – on
"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.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1840 –
It may be my own experience working in a system that not only dealt with external wrong-doings but accusations of wrong-doing within the system...but one of the things that really annoys me is ‘pre-judging’ an accused because of the way they look, sound or a media reported description of events.

Every accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence and a due process to determine their fate. Every accuser/ victim should also be allowed to tell their story. Sadly, that will always take a bit of courage, especially in relation to sexual assault.

Unless we sit through a court process or listen to a full judgement, we really have no idea.

Yesterday Lehrmann received his due process. Justice Lee was thorough and methodical in his summation and findings. He gave a detailed account based on evidence of every aspect of the evening. Where behaviour seemed strange, he addressed it and gave reasons why it might have occurred. Where things stretched credibility, he called it out. Where evidence was a bit dodgy, he called it out.

He determined on the basis of all probability that a rape did occur. Anyone listening to his summation would find it hard to disagree.
He was clear to point out the difference between a criminal and civil case, and the burden of proof, and that in a criminal case the same finding of guilt may not necessarily have been made.

He was actually quite critical of just about all of the parties involved in the case. He found them all a bit reckless or ‘unreliable’. They were all a bit dubious…but he found Lehrmann was not only dubious but also a ‘rapist’.

Ten and Wilkinson can consider themselves lucky. Justice Lee found Lehrmann was identifiable and therefore ‘defamed’. Had the ‘truth’ aspect failed the other parties would have been looking at a seriously large payout.

As it is the costs of this case will be extensive. Lehrmann will find he may have recovered his ‘hat’…but he will be left with little else.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1841 –
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.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1842 –
Quote from: DJC – on
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.



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.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1843 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
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.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1844 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
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.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!