Bruce Lehrmann revealed as man charged with two counts of rape in Toowoomba

[Saint]

i give you credit for running a handy pro-reynolds narrative. a "general clean" would not have cleaned the mess that was allegedly left after the rape.

Huh?

The problem is not what mess was cleaned, it was "why did somebody want the office cleaned that morning in particular?". Who ordered that, and why?

That's part 1 of the cover-up.

Reynolds and her CoS have had a long time to get their story straight and unlikely put anything into any record at the time.

They've heard everything Higgins has to say and would know how to align their story so it doesn't contradict hers.

I'm not sure what the actual harm would be. Politician covered something up? A bit like Justice Lee saying Lehrman wouldn't get damages because he was getting the reputation he deserved from what was said about him.

Maybe just show Reynolds' Robodebt testimony and conclude that yes, indeed, she's capable of covering up Got illegal acts and being completely indifferent to the suffering of ordinary people. Accusing her of another cover-up on top of the other is just giving her the reputation she deserves.

 

[Festerz]

 

[Not Important]

Huh?

The problem is not what mess was cleaned, it was "why did somebody want the office cleaned that morning in particular?". Who ordered that, and why?

That's part 1 of the cover-up.

Reynolds and her CoS have had a long time to get their story straight and unlikely put anything into any record at the time.

They've heard everything Higgins has to say and would know how to align their story so it doesn't contradict hers.

I'm not sure what the actual harm would be. Politician covered something up? A bit like Justice Lee saying Lehrman wouldn't get damages because he was getting the reputation he deserved from what was said about him.

Maybe just show Reynolds' Robodebt testimony and conclude that yes, indeed, she's capable of covering up Got illegal acts and being completely indifferent to the suffering of ordinary people. Accusing her of another cover-up on top of the other is just giving her the reputation she deserves.

except you missed ‘figs’ point - ie it was a ‘general clean’ that is routine, scheduled, not done out of a need etc etc

 

[Saint]

except you missed ‘figs’ point - ie it was a ‘general clean’ that is routine, scheduled, not done out of a need etc etc

Carlos Ramos was the cleaner on that night and he stated in the criminal trial that there was a general clean for a party and he had NFI why he needed to clean Reynolds' office, as it was in mint condition.

This statement is not consistent with that.

"He had NFI why he need to clean Reynolds' office" is not the same as "it was routine and scheduled"

 

[Not Important]

This statement is not consistent with that.

"He had NFI why he need to clean Reynolds' office" is not the same as "it was routine and scheduled"

well we disagree.

 

[FIGJAM]

i give you credit for running a handy pro-reynolds narrative. a "general clean" would not have cleaned the mess that was allegedly left after the rape.

Carlos Ramos had to phone in and ask if he was in the right suite, it was that clean. That is in the criminal trial transcript and the transcript of the X conspiracy that you posted and I quoted.

Then he gave the joint a wipe down. The couch was leather. There was no steam clean. And Reynolds was in Perth and had NFI about this at that point.

Anyway pal, I ain't pro-Reynolds. I'm pro-fact!

 

[FIGJAM]

Huh?

The problem is not what mess was cleaned, it was "why did somebody want the office cleaned that morning in particular?". Who ordered that, and why?

That's part 1 of the cover-up.

As Ramos explained at trial, any post office hours drinks and/or a kick-on within Parliament House typically got out of cycle cleaning done. They don't work in a regular office like many of us and this can be done.

It wasn't brought up in the recent trial, at all! I'd like to know from those who keep harping on about it, why didn't it get brought up once?

What I'm also trying to work out logically, is why was there a peculiar assumption by the whole of Reynolds' staff of a sexual assault? A couple of 20-somethings might have just been dropping in to grab s**t and/or maybe have an extra beer or two. Why the sudden leap to a panicked assumption that they need to get a CSI team (ie. Carlos!) in there to eradicate assault evidence?

There are some idiocies in this saga and fortunately Justice Lee carved through them like a sharp-witted scalpel. He'd have debunked this myth in a millisecond!

 

[Brian Oblivion]

As Ramos explained at trial, any post office hours drinks and/or a kick-on within Parliament House typically got out of cycle cleaning done. They don't work in a regular office like many of us and this can be done.

It wasn't brought up in the recent trial, at all! I'd like to know from those who keep harping on about it, why didn't it get brought up once?

What I'm also trying to work out logically, is why was there a peculiar assumption by the whole of Reynolds' staff of a sexual assault? A couple of 20-somethings might have just been dropping in to grab s**t and/or maybe have an extra beer or two. Why the sudden leap to a panicked assumption that they need to get a CSI team (ie. Carlos!) in there to eradicate assault evidence?

There are some idiocies in this saga and fortunately Justice Lee carved through them like a sharp-witted scalpel. He'd have debunked this myth in a millisecond!

I get the feeling that before this incident / event - that this sort of after hours access to Parliament House by young drunken staffers may not have been an uncommon occurrence. Hence how they were allowed in in the first place. I bet it wouldn't be happening now.

 

[QuietB]

I get the feeling that before this incident / event - that this sort of after hours access to Parliament House by young drunken staffers may not have been an uncommon occurrence. Hence how they were allowed in in the first place. I bet it wouldn't be happening now.

Given they were bumping uglies in the prayer room I’m sure it was not “uncommon” at all.

 

[Not Important]

Carlos Ramos had to phone in and ask if he was in the right suite, it was that clean. That is in the criminal trial transcript and the transcript of the X conspiracy that you posted and I quoted.

Then he gave the joint a wipe down. The couch was leather. There was no steam clean. And Reynolds was in Perth and had NFI about this at that point.

Anyway pal, I ain't pro-Reynolds. I'm pro-fact!

well if she was in perth that would definitely show she was completely out of touch and had no way of knowing.

a cleaner says it was a "normal clean". you’ve convinced me. btw, brittany also said she vomited in the toilet. yep! "normal clean"

the joint was cleaned the next day. you claim it was a leather couch. whether that’s so or not it’s of much less import to me than the cleaning - much more than a ‘general’ clean - that occurred the next morning.

of course, you aren’t a reynolds apologist. don’t know how could i have possibly arrived at that conclusion.

 

[Maggie5]

well if she was in perth that would definitely show she was completely out of touch and had no way of knowing.

a cleaner says it was a "normal clean". you’ve convinced me. btw, brittany also said she vomited in the toilet. yep! "normal clean"

the joint was cleaned the next day. you claim it was a leather couch. whether that’s so or not it’s of much less import to me than the cleaning - much more than a ‘general’ clean - that occurred the next morning.

of course, you aren’t a reynolds apologist. don’t know how could i have possibly arrived at that conclusion.

I would still like to know who called him and who he called stating it was clean.

Leather couches can still get dirty, you should see the mess kids made with a creamy cake on Saturday.

 

[FIGJAM]

well if she was in perth that would definitely show she was completely out of touch and had no way of knowing.

Of course she had some way of knowing, just that she probably didn’t.

a cleaner says it was a "normal clean". you’ve convinced me. btw, brittany also said she vomited in the toilet. yep! "normal clean”

He was the cleaner and testified under oath that it was normal.

As for toilet damage, speaking from extensive personal experience, some vomits are complete catastrophes and some are quite manageable.

the joint was cleaned the next day. you claim it was a leather couch. whether that’s so or not it’s of much less import to me than the cleaning - much more than a ‘general’ clean - that occurred the next morning.

Pretty sure there are photos online of the standard couch that is leather.

Higgins’ partner Sharaz said he’d get a photo of one of the standard couches from one of the other offices as a part of the politicisation (Justice Lee’s classification in the verdict) of their story.

Either way, Ramos wasn’t a steam cleaner and wasn’t asked to steam clean anything even if he was.

of course, you aren’t a reynolds apologist. don’t know how could i have possibly arrived at that conclusion.

I’m not “apologising” for anyone. I’d have slammed Brown, Reynolds, ScoMo and anyone else if they actually covered anything up. It’s just they didn’t!

 

[western royboy]

Of course she had some way of knowing, just that she probably didn’t.


He was the cleaner and testified under oath that it was normal.

As for toilet damage, speaking from extensive personal experience, some vomits are complete catastrophes and some are quite manageable.


Pretty sure there are photos online of the standard couch that is leather.

Higgins’ partner Sharaz said he’d get a photo of one of the standard couches from one of the other offices as a part of the politicisation (Justice Lee’s classification in the verdict) of their story.

Either way, Ramos wasn’t a steam cleaner and wasn’t asked to steam clean anything even if he was.



I’m not “apologising” for anyone. I’d have slammed Brown, Reynolds, ScoMo and anyone else if they actually covered anything up. It’s just they didn’t!

I’m no rocket scientist, but I’ve sone concerns about two people entering Parliament House Offices in the early morning, clearly affected by alcohol, with a clearly bullshit reason for being there and then one leaving 45 minutes later whilst the other is found naked to what ever degree on said office some time later and then passed off as if it was normal.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

I’m no rocket scientist, but I’ve sone concerns about two people entering Parliament House Offices in the early morning, clearly affected by alcohol, with a clearly bullshit reason for being there and then one leaving 45 minutes later whilst the other is found naked to what ever degree on said office some time later and then passed off as if it was normal.

I totally agree as a fellow non-rocket scientist however there is a way this situation could be passed off as normal and that is if two drunken staffers attending Parliament House for some after hours shenanigans was actually a "normal occurrence" at the time - hence the security staff letting them in. Also raincoat is an anagram of Croatian.

 

[Festerz]

I’m no rocket scientist, but I’ve sone concerns about two people entering Parliament House Offices in the early morning, clearly affected by alcohol, with a clearly bullshit reason for being there and then one leaving 45 minutes later whilst the other is found naked to what ever degree on said office some time later and then passed off as if it was normal.

The affidavits, incident reports and diaries of both security guards presented to the Lehrmann defamation trial and still available online makes it pretty clear that they DID have concerns after Brittany Higgins and Mr Lehrmann turned up at 1:41 am in the morning in March, 2019.

One of the security guards (Nikola Anderson) gave evidence that she thought Ms Higgins was very intoxicated when entering the building.

When Lehrmann departed the Parliament House without Ms Higgins, security guards wanted to know where Ms Higgins was.

“When exiting Parliament House you’re not meant to walk back through the metal detector. You were meant to walk through the electronic doors. The man walked through the metal detector,‘’ security guard Mark Fairweather states in an affidavit.

“As a man walked past me. I said... ‘Oi, Are you coming back?’ . He said ‘No’, I observed that he said this hastily.”

“He did not seem to want to stop and talk. He was looking down on his phone. He flicked his green pass onto the desk and before I could ask him any more questions. I remember the flick. I felt it was rude and I was annoyed by it.

“I wanted to ask him questions about the woman because I wanted to secure the suite.”

A female security guard was sent to do a welfare check about 90 minutes later.

“I found her naked and she had her you-know-what showing,‘’ security guard Nikola Anderson said.

Mr Fairweather said he then said, “I f**king knew it.

“I had a thought when the man and the woman were going up to the suite that they may not have been going up to the suite to work. When Anderson told me that she found her naked I thought they had had sex or had been drinking rather than working.

“I was irritated because I did not want stains left on the minister’s couch or a mess left in her office or bathroom,” he said.

“I finished work at 7am on the 28th March 23 of March 2019. I did an incident statement because I was not happy with them coming in at that time on a Saturday morning and I had my suspicions about what they’d been doing in the minister’s suite."

It was THIS incident report from a security guard of an expected sexual encounter in the Ministerial suite (where Ms Higgins being expected by at least one of them of being highly intoxicated) that led to a subsequent order being made for the suite to be thoroughly cleaned on the Sunday morning- including to look for used condoms. It was also cleaned the next day (Monday)

So it was definitely NOT a normal cleaning - but prompted by the incident report of the security guards.

 

[Chief]

As Ramos explained at trial, any post office hours drinks and/or a kick-on within Parliament House typically got out of cycle cleaning done. They don't work in a regular office like many of us and this can be done.

This is like 20 years ago. Time warp city.

 

[FIGJAM]

I’m no rocket scientist, but I’ve sone concerns about two people entering Parliament House Offices in the early morning, clearly affected by alcohol, with a clearly bullshit reason for being there and then one leaving 45 minutes later whilst the other is found naked to what ever degree on said office some time later and then passed off as if it was normal.

This is like 20 years ago. Time warp city.

I couldn't agree with you both more, but it's closer to a 40 year gap in culture IMHO.

As I've said before, I knew a speech writer for the Rudd / Gillard governments and some of the stories told were like you've just been transported into the film set for Wall Street, with elements of Mad Men.

I think a lot of people have viewed this event through the lens of their 2020's completely open plan hot-desking office, with much stronger HR regulations and an almost weekly social cause to celebrate.

Hopefully this has already instigated mountains of change.

 

[Saint]

I couldn't agree with you both more, but it's closer to a 40 year gap in culture IMHO.

As I've said before, I knew a speech writer for the Rudd / Gillard governments and some of the stories told were like you've just been transported into the film set for Wall Street, with elements of Mad Men.

I think a lot of people have viewed this event through the lens of their 2020's completely open plan hot-desking office, with much stronger HR regulations and an almost weekly social cause to celebrate.

Hopefully this has already instigated mountains of change.

This stuff goes on at 1am at all sorts of office buildings, open plan or not. Many of them don't have security to write it down. I know a person who used a Big 4 boardroom regularly for events such as this.

They would never leave the person there alone. That's terrible behaviour no matter where or in what circumstance (As Justice Lee pointed out).

 

[peetoo]

hopefully it’ll be one of many questions reynolds will have to answer under cross-examination.

In the court of public opinion, there was a cover up. I guess this would just set the extent. I don’t think anything would change the public’s mind

 

[peetoo]

I couldn't agree with you both more, but it's closer to a 40 year gap in culture IMHO.

As I've said before, I knew a speech writer for the Rudd / Gillard governments and some of the stories told were like you've just been transported into the film set for Wall Street, with elements of Mad Men.

I think a lot of people have viewed this event through the lens of their 2020's completely open plan hot-desking office, with much stronger HR regulations and an almost weekly social cause to celebrate.

Hopefully this has already instigated mountains of change.

Turnbull knew. Tried to change culture. In the end ther counted the opinion polls to roll him (thanks for the million bucks Malcolm)

 

[peetoo]

Lehrman claimed he was actually working on defence contracts that’s why he was there late (and after a skinful)

Join the dots to our defence contract shambles

 

[peetoo]

The affidavits, incident reports and diaries of both security guards presented to the Lehrmann defamation trial and still available online makes it pretty clear that they DID have concerns after Brittany Higgins and Mr Lehrmann turned up at 1:41 am in the morning in March, 2019.

One of the security guards (Nikola Anderson) gave evidence that she thought Ms Higgins was very intoxicated when entering the building.

When Lehrmann departed the Parliament House without Ms Higgins, security guards wanted to know where Ms Higgins was.

“When exiting Parliament House you’re not meant to walk back through the metal detector. You were meant to walk through the electronic doors. The man walked through the metal detector,‘’ security guard Mark Fairweather states in an affidavit.

“As a man walked past me. I said... ‘Oi, Are you coming back?’ . He said ‘No’, I observed that he said this hastily.”

“He did not seem to want to stop and talk. He was looking down on his phone. He flicked his green pass onto the desk and before I could ask him any more questions. I remember the flick. I felt it was rude and I was annoyed by it.

“I wanted to ask him questions about the woman because I wanted to secure the suite.”

A female security guard was sent to do a welfare check about 90 minutes later.

“I found her naked and she had her you-know-what showing,‘’ security guard Nikola Anderson said.

Mr Fairweather said he then said, “I f**king knew it.

“I had a thought when the man and the woman were going up to the suite that they may not have been going up to the suite to work. When Anderson told me that she found her naked I thought they had had sex or had been drinking rather than working.

“I was irritated because I did not want stains left on the minister’s couch or a mess left in her office or bathroom,” he said.

“I finished work at 7am on the 28th March 23 of March 2019. I did an incident statement because I was not happy with them coming in at that time on a Saturday morning and I had my suspicions about what they’d been doing in the minister’s suite."

It was THIS incident report from a security guard of an expected sexual encounter in the Ministerial suite (where Ms Higgins being expected by at least one of them of being highly intoxicated) that led to a subsequent order being made for the suite to be thoroughly cleaned on the Sunday morning- including to look for used condoms. It was also cleaned the next day (Monday)

So it was definitely NOT a normal cleaning - but prompted by the incident report of the security guards.

This is pre consent laws. Should evidence of sexual activity with an intoxicated person now suggest rape in an officials mind? It should according to law. If rape is suspected, there should be no cleaning done

Soceity had more respect for soft furnishings, has this changed?

 

[FIGJAM]

This stuff goes on at 1am at all sorts of office buildings, open plan or not. Many of them don't have security to write it down. I know a person who used a Big 4 boardroom regularly for events such as this.

They would never leave the person there alone. That's terrible behaviour no matter where or in what circumstance (As Justice Lee pointed out).

Well yeah, I ain't saying the private sector is now squeaky clean! Still plenty of shenanigans. It's just not as bad as it once was.

 

[Festerz]

Should evidence of sexual activity with an intoxicated person now suggest rape in an officials mind? It should according to law. If rape is suspected, there should be no cleaning done

To be clear, and as a follow up to my cut and paste of the affidavits of the two security officers present, the two security guards made it clear that they suspected that sexual activity or rape had occurred but did NOT put this in their incident report that led to the cleaning taking place. So there was no reason, based on that report, of those who ordered the office cleaning within DPS to suspect it was a potential rape scene.

But as Chief alluded to, we are talking 2019 here not 1999. The moral concept of heavy intoxication being a barrier to informed consent for sexual assault was well established even if not formally legislated.

As I see it this basic lack of a duty of care demonstrated that weekend towards Ms Higgins by the DPS security staff in:

a. allowing Lehrmann and Higgins into the building while one of them was clearly intoxicated in the early hours of the morning;​

​

b. allowing them unsupervised access to a high security area of the building hidden from view;​

​

c. allowing Lehrmann to exit the building without demanding a full explanation of what had happened and his reason for a hasty exit without his intoxicated work partner;​

​

d. Mr Fairweather not explicitly outlining the details of the incident in his incident report submitted to DPS, including an explicit reference to his strong suspicion that sexual activity had taken place in Linda Reynolds office and Mr Lehrmann's rapid departure from the building leaving Ms Higgins 'passed out' and substantially undressed on a Ministerial couch.​

​

e. The evidence given by both security officers about a general unwritten but accepted policy of allowing access to Parliament House for drunk members and staff, even after hours and when non-work related reasons are suspected.​

not only played a fundamental role in independent legal counsel advising the government to sign the multi-million dollar deed of settlement with Ms Higgins, but (as the AFP Commissioner said in subsequent correspondence to the DPS) prevented a proper and immediate investigation into what was more than likely a rape situation, before the room was professionally cleaned.

But the blame cannot and should not fall solely on DPS security guards, relatively low down in the food chain.

As the Jenkins Report noted, Ministers and MPs must bear the ultimate responsibility for the fundamental failure to provide a safe workplace for parliamentary employees - a culture that ultimately led to the after-hours rape of a young woman by her fellow worker in Senator Reynolds office.

 

[peetoo]

To be clear, and as a follow up to my cut and paste of the affidavits of the two security officers present, the two security guards made it clear that they suspected that sexual activity or rape had occurred but did NOT put this in their incident report that led to the cleaning taking place. So there was no reason, based on that report, of those who ordered the office cleaning within DPS to suspect it was a potential rape scene.

But as Chief alluded to, we are talking 2019 here not 1999. The moral concept of heavy intoxication being a barrier to informed consent for sexual assault was well established even if not formally legislated.

As I see it this basic lack of a duty of care demonstrated that weekend towards Ms Higgins by the DPS security staff in:

a. allowing Lehrmann and Higgins into the building while one of them was clearly intoxicated in the early hours of the morning;​

​

b. allowing them unsupervised access to a high security area of the building hidden from view;​

​

c. allowing Lehrmann to exit the building without demanding a full explanation of what had happened and his reason for a hasty exit without his intoxicated work partner;​

​

d. Mr Fairweather not explicitly outlining the details of the incident in his incident report submitted to DPS, including an explicit reference to his strong suspicion that sexual activity had taken place in Linda Reynolds office and Mr Lehrmann's rapid departure from the building leaving Ms Higgins 'passed out' and substantially undressed on a Ministerial couch.​

​

e. The evidence given by both security officers about a general unwritten but accepted policy of allowing access to Parliament House for drunk members and staff, even after hours and when non-work related reasons are suspected.​

not only played a fundamental role in independent legal counsel advising the government to sign the multi-million dollar deed of settlement with Ms Higgins, but (as the AFP Commissioner said in subsequent correspondence to the DPS) prevented a proper and immediate investigation into what was more than likely a rape situation, before the room was professionally cleaned.

But the blame cannot and should not fall solely on DPS security guards, relatively low down in the food chain.

As the Jenkins Report noted, Ministers and MPs must bear the ultimate responsibility for the fundamental failure to provide a safe workplace for parliamentary employees - a culture that ultimately led to the after-hours rape of a young woman by her fellow worker in Senator Reynolds office.

Explained so much better than my one liner