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

[FIGJAM]

The "Brown and Reynolds as victims here too" issue is well and truely down the pecking order of issues that need to be addressed in the aftermath of this situation.

I haven't really focussed on this deeply on any of my posts, but rather focussed on the weaponisation and politicisation of both the event and false allegations of a cover-up, all without a live police investigation and all without the media entities in question ever properly investigating the claims.

It's caused a world of problems that have been comprehensively detailed in Justice Lee's verdict, which I'm tipping that most haven't read yet.

 

[FIGJAM]

Figjam, can you understand the angst of women in this discussion.

Of course!

As I've said though, there is more to this discussion than sexual assault. There are proven false allegations of a cover-up and the political weaponisation of a lazily complicit media to discuss in here. That I am very vocal on the latter, does not mean that I am any less empathetic on the rape component.

Can, I ask if you agree with Reynolds thought process of trying to freeze Higgins assets in France?

I disagree with her undertaking defamation proceedings in the first place, although I do empathise with her with regards to having false allegations flung at you for years on end.

Her lawyers attempting to freeze Higgins' assets seems like typical legal argy bargy, but it's not a good look. If Reynolds won the case, Higgins and Sharaz will no doubt want to come home, so I'd assume they'd pay. Any payout wouldn't be that much in my view, so yeah, I reckon they should have not done that.

 

[western royboy]

Of course!

As I've said though, there is more to this discussion than sexual assault. There are proven false allegations of a cover-up and the political weaponisation of a lazily complicit media to discuss in here. That I am very vocal on the latter, does not mean that I am any less empathetic on the rape component.


I disagree with her undertaking defamation proceedings in the first place, although I do empathise with her with regards to having false allegations flung at you for years on end.

Her lawyers attempting to freeze Higgins' assets seems like typical legal argy bargy, but it's not a good look. If Reynolds won the case, Higgins and Sharaz will no doubt want to come home, so I'd assume they'd pay. Any payout wouldn't be that much in my view, so yeah, I reckon they should have not done that.

Given the situation considered in totality and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it’s pretty easy to see how Brittany Higgins somehow formed a view (incorrectly I might add) that at the time her job have been under threat.

I can understand Reynolds’s being pissed off but I can’t in anyway support the action she and her lawyers have taken - it’s petty and pathetic and a huge waste of $$ but just increases the human cost.

Mistakes were made here at every juncture. It is an “omnishambles”.

That Reynolds’s wants to persist with the Legal action after everything we have witnessed is a reflection on her and no one else. The only people “winning” are the lawyers…again.

 

[FIGJAM]

Given the situation considered in totality and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it’s pretty easy to see how Brittany Higgins somehow formed a view (incorrectly I might add) that at the time her job have been under threat.

I can understand Reynolds’s being pissed off but I can’t in anyway support the action she and her lawyers have taken - it’s petty and pathetic and a huge waste of $$ but just increases the human cost.

Mistakes were made here at every juncture. It is an “omnishambles”.

That Reynolds’s wants to persist with the Legal action after everything we have witnessed is a reflection on her and no one else. The only people “winning” are the lawyers…again.

I don't disagree on much of that.

What I found interesting was the following excerpt from the verdict that involves Higgins' father. Firstly, because it is damning of Lehrmann from the rape finding perspective. Secondly, because it is damning of Shiraz from the cover-up narrative perspective.

545 Finally, was a representation made to her father which falls into a somewhat different category because it occurred much later. Mr Higgins gave raw and palpably believable evidence that after the trip to Canberra at the end of March 2019, he did not hear from his daughter and felt something was wrong (T1469.41–47). He then explained on 2 February 2020, his daughter sent him a message that said: “When you are free this week, we probably need to have a chat. So much has gone on in the past year, and I haven’t fully kept you in the loop. You have to keep your cool, though, and back me up” (Ex R882; T1470.15–19). Mr Higgins and his daughter subsequently had a call (T1476.32–33) during which Ms Higgins told him that “the inappropriate [thing] that had happened at Parliament House was that she had been raped…” (T1470.35–36). Again, this sort of statement must be put in its proper context, but one wonders why a daughter would say such a thing to a clearly loving father absent a genuine belief a sexual assault had taken place. For completeness, it is worth stressing these apparently candid communications with her father might be thought to have cogency because they occurred before the person later charged with the responsibility of “pitching” The Project of the cover-up, Mr Sharaz, came into her life on 29 May 2020 (MC (at 63)), the important Four Corners programme, and the subsequent development of the cover-up narrative.

Lee made no bones about wanting Sharaz in the dock for questioning. From what he said here and at trial, I think he views him as the main instigator to Higgins' 'job threat development' at the early 2021 interviews. During the trial he queried Sharaz's influence over someone in a vulnerable state.

I know some want to just go "Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins." and move on. But there's so much more going on that needs addressing, from those guiding Higgins, to those falsely accused and especially media and their literal lack of an ethical code.

 

[Saint]

Why can’t Higgins be a victim of rape and Brown and Reynolds a victim of false allegations?

The rape was covered up. The only real discussion point is to what extent Reynolds and Brown participated, or could be proven to have participated.

Or is that just how the system works?

Referring Higgins' settlement to NACC suggests Reynolds has an interest in not seeing Higgins receive compensation or justice. Or why else refer it? What's Reynolds' motivation there?

 

[FIGJAM]

The rape was covered up.

It wasn't:

https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0369

 

[western royboy]

I don't disagree on much of that.

What I found interesting was the following excerpt from the verdict that involves Higgins' father. Firstly, because it is damning of Lehrmann from the rape finding perspective. Secondly, because it is damning of Shiraz from the cover-up narrative perspective.



Lee made no bones about wanting Sharaz in the dock for questioning. From what he said here and at trial, I think he views him as the main instigator to Higgins' 'job threat development' at the early 2021 interviews. During the trial he queried Sharaz's influence over someone in a vulnerable state.

I know some want to just go "Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins." and move on. But there's so much more going on that needs addressing, from those guiding Higgins, to those falsely accused and especially media and their literal lack of an ethical code.

Brittany can make her own decisions…but the introduction of Sharaz is where the politicisation of it began. Maybe I’m judging him harshly but he appears slimy at best. FFS Brittany piss him off!

As a rape victim (vastly different circumstances but same, same but different) I hate the way she has been manipulated.

For Reynolds’s to refer her payout to the NACC is again pathetic and says more about Reynolds.

I am aghast at the lack of concern of the supposed Security at PH. Plenty of arse covering going on there but no one with any care or compassion.

Draw your own conclusions as to what it says about the culture of the joint but it must be a shambles if those two were allowed access well after midnight on a Friday Night.

 

[FIGJAM]

I am aghast at the lack of concern of the supposed Security at PH.

Agree with this. Incredibly half-arsed on the welfare check in in particular.

I sadly think it's nor brought up as much as security are not related to a political party.

As a rape victim (vastly different circumstances but same, same but different) I hate the way she has been manipulated.

Sorry to hear about your circumstances. I agree that I think she's been manipulated.

For Reynolds’s to refer her payout to the NACC is again pathetic and says more about Reynolds.

I respectfully disagree with this, as it refers to only a component of the payout that refers to there being mistreatment (ie. cover-up narrative) that may have eventuated as a result of Higgins' manipulation, that remained unchecked by most of the media and definitely unchecked by Parliament House. The AFP had concerns over that component of Higgins' story, but Parliament House were too keen to be seen to be doing something, but didn't even speak to Brown and Reynolds. The corruption action doesn't mean that they are to claw money back from Higgins. It's just a fair question to ask (it's our taxes after all!).

 

[Festerz]

They knew Higgins was rapped.
They should have reported it. They didn't.
They put it all on Higgins, the victim.


That is suppression.

There is no reason for Reynolds not to have reported it.
There is no reason for Reynolds to create a random reason to fire Lehrmann, while insisting that it was a totally normal occurrence.
They knew. They did nothing. They put all of the pressure on Higgins, and then they prevented the investigation until she broke and dropped the case.

Have to disagree on this.

Yes, imho and as covered in my previous posts there is culpability on the security staff and the Dept of Parliamentary Services in the manner in which they handled the late night entry of Lehrmann and Higgins and their suspicions that sexual activity had occurred. This would most likely have resulted in an immediate formal notification to the AFP of a potential sexual assault having taken place (given the state of intoxication of Ms Higgins) and a thorough investigation of the circumstances and evidence. This may well have resulted in a more substantive evidence base for the subsequent rape trial.

I am still none the wiser as to who rushed the clean up of the office without questioning the security officers on duty as to the details of what had happened beyond the 2 line note in their incident record. It remains an issue of concern as was highlighted in the AFP Commissioners letter to the head of Parliament House.

HOWEVER

The decision to make a formal allegation of sexual assault to police is a decision/action that lies with the rape victim. And after initially reporting the matter to police two days after the assault took place, Ms Higgins herself asked police to halt their investigations for work related reasons.

The evidence from Brown and accepted by Justice Lee in the Lehrmann defamation trial is that Reynolds effectively demanded her Chief of Staff unilaterally report the suspected rape to the AFP (for what Lee described as politically motivated reasons). It was Fiona Brown who resisted Reynolds' bullying and quite rightly demanded that the decision to report the rape was something that was up to the rape victim and not them.

Fiona Brown was protecting the agency and rights of Brittany Higgins the rape victim by leaving the decision of reporting up to her and refusing the demands of her boss (Senator Reynolds) that they make their own report to the AFP.

So when it comes to the reporting of the alleged rape to police, I think that the evidence presented in the defamation trial does not support the claim that there was any untoward influence to suppress the reporting of the rape by Reynolds - far from it. Nor did she or Ms Brown try to cover up any investigation by the AFP.

The issue of whether Reynolds reported the rape allegations to Morrison etc. was not expressly covered in the defamation trial but, as evidenced by questions asked by the Canberra Times of Michaelia Cash, it was pretty clear that the allegations were known in political circles well before the news.com.au article and Project interview surfaced. And I reckon you would have to be extraordinarily naive or the deepest of Liberal Party shills to make a claim that Reynolds did not notify Morrison's Office as soon as she heard of the allegations of what had taken place in her office.

Which then leads to the question of whether any directives were then made to have Ms Higgins move out of Canberra to Perth during the election campaign period - not just for her welfare but for political convenience.

But that issue (who knew what and when within the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party) and the questions it raises are a separate set of issues and remain substantially unanswered. They probably will remain that way unless the Reynolds defamation action makes it to the WA Supreme Court.

(EDIT: words in highlighted text edited from the active to the passive voice)

 

[FIGJAM]

Which then leads to the question of whether any directives were then made to have Ms Higgins move out of Canberra to Perth during the election campaign period - not just for her welfare but for political convenience.

 

[Over The Post]

I read the full judgement on the day it came out, I'm surprised there is still discussion/argument on the subject of half the posts here. It's all there in black and white.

 

[Festerz]

I'm not interested in playing the game of cutting pasting selected slabs of text out of context of a full judgement to be quoted for scoring political points as seems to be happening here.

BUT, for completeness and to make the point that what the judgement says that is of relevance to my previous post and what it doesn't, I've cut and pasted my own section of the final paragraph of that summary judgement, in the section related to the 'move to Perth' that was strangely omitted from the above post:



So bearing in mind what Justice Lee was making a judgement on/and what he was not in this defamation case against Ten and Ms Wilkinson, Lee's 'obvious' observation is that 'those within the know' would have been acutely aware of the political damage that would have been done pre-election if details of the rape rape had become publicly.
A point I bluntly referenced in my earlier post:

The issue of whether Reynolds reported the rape allegations to Morrison etc. was not expressly covered in the defamation trial but, as evidenced by questions asked by the Canberra Times of Michaelia Cash, it was pretty clear that the allegations were known in political circles well before the news.com.au article and Project interview surfaced. And I reckon you would have to be extraordinarily naive or the deepest of Liberal Party shills to make a claim that Reynolds did not notify Morrison's Office as soon as she heard of the allegations of what had taken place in her office.

And as Justice Lee observes with his usual irony, when Mr Finkelstein, the Prime Minister's Principal Private Secretary, made contact with the lowly placed Ms Higgins, he was not doing it 'to simply assess whether she was doing well.'

The point being there was obviously a heightened political interest in Ms Higgins actions post her rape that was politically motivated. But, as I stated in my previous post, unfortunately with the early abortion of the Gaetjens Inquiry we will never know who in the Liberal Party knew what when and what they did in response.

The fact that the decision of where to move was of course the decision of Ms Higgins. Not even Ms Higgins disputes that fact so I'm not sure why it is presented as a gotcha statement in relation to my previous post. Justice Lee merely makes that point in response to Higgins statement that she felt like she was being 'forced to move' when a move out of Canberra was already in motion for employment reasons and there was no evidence presented of pressure to move to a particular location above others.

But Ms Higgins clearly believed that she was under pressure to make a move to Perth. And that a phone call from the PMs Private Secretary to 'check on her welfare' contributed to that pressure. Justice Lee accepts and understands that sentiment and belief but makes the point that he was no evidence presented by Ten and Ms Wilkinson in their defamation defence (remembering that Ms Higgins was not a party to the defamation actions) to support the reality of that belief in the context of the defamation trial.

Get it?

So I restate my statement/opinion made in my previous post:

Which then leads to the question of whether any directives were then made to have Ms Higgins move out of Canberra to Perth during the election campaign period - not just for her welfare but for political convenience.

But that issue (who knew what and when within the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party) and the questions it raises are a separate set of issues and remain substantially unanswered. They probably will remain that way unless the Reynolds defamation action makes it to the WA Supreme Court.

And further to that is the issue of what was driving the PMs Principal Private Secretary to make contact with Ms Higgins at a time when she was still in trauma following her rape and juggling the life altering decisions not just where to live and work until the election, but how to deal with being raped by her fellow worker who denied it even happened.

What role did Ms Reynolds play in that call to Ms Higgins by Mr Finkelstein being made? Was it to put more subtle pressure on Ms Higgins with respect to her withdrawn rape report to police and to support a move to Perth so that she could be kept under the guidance of both her and Senator Cash during the election?

Those questions too remain unanswered. And I'm not sure who would benefit from them being explored more deeply - certainly not Ms Higgins.

 

[Festerz]

I read the full judgement on the day it came out,

Really - all 126,000 words?

At a public conference several days after the judgement was delivered, Lehrmann's own lawyer Steve Whybrow SC freely admitted he had only read sections of it.

Can I recommend Tolstoy's War And Peace as your next daily read? Although at 587,287 words it might take you a weekend.

But the simple act of reading words and the cognitive task of taking the time to understand what they are saying in context are two different things, done over totally different time scales. Especially if the text is written from the context of a different culture/perspective than you're versed in.

 

[FIGJAM]

I'm not interested in playing the game of cutting pasting selected slabs of text out of context of a full judgement to be quoted for scoring political points as seems to be happening here.

Firstly, I am not "scoring political points". I don't give a stuff about any political party, especially the coalition, who are full of some peculiar breeds of people.

Secondly, I cut and pasted what I thought was a large slab from the verdict, to avoid you or others stating that it was "out of context". I'm not going to cut and paste 16 paragraphs, but the specific edit cuts to the heart of your question and extinguishes the claim "directives were then made to have Ms Higgins move out of Canberra". She was literally given the option to work from home in Canberra, or in the office!

As for Higgins' state of mind at or around the time of the allegation and subsequent weeks, putting myself in her shoes, there would be no doubt that I would be intensely paranoid if I loved the job the way she did. That would mean a full paranoia over all political angles. Who knows what? Why is Finklestein checking in on me...what's his angle? Should I stay in Canberra, go to Goldy or go to Perth and is my job under threat if I choose the wrong one? What happens 'when' we lose? I'd ruminate on all of this 24/7 after such a trauma!

At the end of the day though, despite some worries that might have had some merit in reality, her case was pretty much done by the book and the main problem in this case post-assault isn't the 'general worry' that she faced working at Parliament House, it's the leap from that worry, that "coincidentally" developed after she met Davad Sharaz on 29 May 2000, to claims that there was definitively "corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice", which was undeniably politically weaponised and which has ultimately shown there to be a host of false claims with many people thrown under a bus in the meantime, that was taken and passed off as as gospel by the media organisations who published them, who either didn't check the claims outright and/or gave people an intentionally short period to respond and/or didn't bother to track down correct contact details.

The omnishambles stems from the 2021 media articles. Not before.

I read the full judgement on the day it came out, I'm surprised there is still discussion/argument on the subject of half the posts here. It's all there in black and white.

Amen to that!!!

 

[Number37]

They’re two completely ******* different issues, champ! You’re the one conflating them.

Yes, he found that she was raped. I celebrate that! Suffer in your jocks, Bruce!!

But Lee also made a number of other judgements within his verdict, which you should probably read.


Can you explain why Higgins recognised the hurt experienced by Brown and Reynolds?

Why can’t Higgins be a victim of rape and Brown and Reynolds a victim of false allegations?

I’ve never said there is any degree of equivalence for the record. Just that there is more than one issue in this mess that needs addressing.

Reynolds, Brown and all the others were more than happy and willing to play the game.
To all of them it was a game.
Reynolds is just a typical glass jawed right winger who wants to have a sook because she lost.
Reynolds is not a victim.
Brown is not a victim.

Higgins was raped in Reynolds' office.
Brown was her COS.
Neither of them treated a rape and a rape victim the way a rape and rape victim should be treated.
That everybody in the govt from the PM down didn't know anything about this rape is an indictment on both of them.
Why didn't anyone else know?
Nobody else knew because they didn't want anybody to know.

I have no idea why you keep pushing the narrative that Reynolds has been wronged.
She hasn't been wronged.
Her behavior from the time Higgins was raped right through until today has been deplorable.
She might yet win a defamation action but it won't change the fact that Higgins was raped in her office.
Everybody is going to remember that.
The reputational damage she will suffer is a result of someone being raped in her office.

 

[FIGJAM]

Reynolds, Brown and all the others were more than happy and willing to play the game.
To all of them it was a game.

Neither of them treated a rape and a rape victim the way a rape and rape victim should be treated.
That everybody in the govt from the PM down didn't know anything about this rape is an indictment on both of them.
Why didn't anyone else know?
Nobody else knew because they didn't want anybody to know.

Her behavior from the time Higgins was raped right through until today has been deplorable.
She might yet win a defamation action but it won't change the fact that Higgins was raped in her office.

You can't just keep posting your above opinions as fact and then hurling abuse at me.

I read the full judgement on the day it came out, I'm surprised there is still discussion/argument on the subject of half the posts here. It's all there in black and white.

Please follow Over The Post's advice and read the verdict. Here's the link:

https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0369

 

[Over The Post]

Really - all 126,000 words?

At a public conference several days after the judgement was delivered, Lehrmann's own lawyer Steve Whybrow SC freely admitted he had only read sections of it.

I don't quite know why I'm rising to the bait, but there you are.

Yes, all however many words it was. Some sections read repeatedly until I fully understood them.

Whybrow said he didn't read it because he was over the whole deal.

"Think of it as a 300-page book that you got proscribed in Year 11 for a subject you're sick of. It's not something that I've managed to get to yet," the barrister said.

 

[Number37]

You can't just keep posting your above opinions as fact and then hurling abuse at me.

Really?
Which part of this is 'hurling abuse at you'??

Reynolds, Brown and all the others were more than happy and willing to play the game.
To all of them it was a game.

Neither of them treated a rape and a rape victim the way a rape and rape victim should be treated.
That everybody in the govt from the PM down didn't know anything about this rape is an indictment on both of them.
Why didn't anyone else know?
Nobody else knew because they didn't want anybody to know.

Her behavior from the time Higgins was raped right through until today has been deplorable.
She might yet win a defamation action but it won't change the fact that Higgins was raped in her office.

You can't just keep posting your above opinions as fact and then hurling abuse at me.

It's not my opinion that Higgins was raped in Reynolds office. Higgins was raped in Reynolds office.
It's not my opinion that nobody was told that Higgins was raped in Reynolds office. They've all denied knowledge.
You keep pointing to the judgment like it vindicates the behavior of Reynolds.
How does it vindicate Reynolds's behavior??
It does not, in any way, vindicate Reynolds' behavior.
That you keep bleating on about what Lee says about a cover up, is just you clutching at the one and only thing that doesn't make Reynolds' behavior look like anything but abhorrent.

Clearly from the judgment you should be able to deduce that any alleged, or actual, cover up was not material to the outcome.
The cover up is just a minor, almost irrelevant, sideshow.
Why do you keep clinging to it? Like it matters?

You telling other people to read the judgment is just you trying to convince people to read the judgment the way you want them to.
Your views on the subject are clear. You have pushed the same narrative over and over.
Even with a finding now that Higgins was raped, you still push the same narrative.

Higgins was raped.
All the other stuff is irrelevant.
If Reynolds had any decency she would apologise for her behavior.
But she doesn't have any decency, her conduct is just a continuation of the culture wars that she has been fighting and that people like you want to use to distract everyone else from the real issues.

Reynolds' behavior, and the culture wars that people like you encourage, is the reason that a rape trial was aborted.
This grub never stood on trial for raping someone, because of culture wars.
You are here everyday championing the abandonment of a rape trial because someone might have had their feelings hurt because they were accused of covering up a rape. A rape that actually happened.

Your use of words like 'probably raped' is a clear give away of your position.

 

[Festerz]

FACT: most of Justice Higgins' verdict is opinion - based on the evidence. And that includes the rape of Miss Higgins, which he concludes did happen, 'on the balance of probabilities' given all the evidence before him.

Another Judge in the same trial with the same evidence before them might well have formed a very different narrative of what was presented before them. As proof of that we often see that in Supreme and High Court full bench judgements made by the most experienced and highly revered legal minds in the country where there are dissenting opinions on a decision - often on fundamental aspects of law and an understanding of the evidence.

Yes, Justice Lee has presented a well documented and transparent process of a judicial trial and subsequent judgement that is (to my knowledge) unprecedented in Australian law. Had they the time or the inclination, anyone could have tuned in to watch the full suite of evidence being presented live or on delay and anyone can still access the full suite of affidavits and evidence presented as part of the trial. It has provided the opportunity for an untrained lay person to understand the reasoning of his decision.

What is a fact is that the the opinion of a learned and experienced KC presenting an opinion on matters of law and rules of evidence is going to be exponentially superior in terms of contextual logic than anyone here.

But remember we are in the backwaters of a highly respected footy forum where I'm guessing most of the posters (including me) have never actively practiced law.

s**t posters with generally f-all understanding of the law cutting and pasting curated segments from other places to give our opinions a credibility and gravitas they don't deserve. argumentum ab auctoritate

One fact remains. A polished turd is still a turd.

 

[FIGJAM]

Really?
Which part of this is 'hurling abuse at you'??

None of that is, because the part I edited out were the parts that are factually incorrect and you can read up why your claims are factually incorrect in the verdict.

Higgins was raped.
All the other stuff is irrelevant.

I could not disagree with the bolded more.

I guess the key question and sticking point is, why is the other stuff relevant?

If you take a step back and look at the place of this case in the annals of Australian criminal history, by way of sheer media coverage, it might have just about everything else covered and possibly with some distance.

There are bigger crimes, such as the matter of Britain stealing an entire continent from our First Nations people. More iconic crimes, such as the Ned Kelly gang's last stand. More gruesome ones such as Port Arthur, Snowtown, Milat, Russell Street etc.

The only case that I can think that had any degree of comparability in terms of lengthy media firestorm, was that of the death of Azaria Chamberlain and subsequent heavy media scrutiny on her poor mother Lindy.

With this story here, we have a budding young Parliamentarian Higgins being predatorily lured back to Parliament House to be raped by her fat, disgusting grub-of-a-colleague Lehrmann. This is indeed an explosive story and one worth telling and hopefully governments learning from.

Here's where it gets sensitive, because without downplaying the extremely heavy gravity of the crime, that story in isolation would not garner 3.25+ years of consecutive front page headlines.

What's obviously kicked it down the road for that long, was a Sharaz-led Higgins going directly to the media without a live criminal allegation in place, making claims that has now proven to be false, that she was pressured by specific individuals (who she named) to force her to choose between a criminal complaint and her job. The story now got an extra layer on it

Trouble is of course, is that the cover-up angle was factually incorrect and this was the first of the missteps in the omnishambles.

Then there was the second major coinciding issue was with the medias outlets failing to do their basic jobs and engage in basic media ethics, in not checking the claims. This let to Lee stating that this "...caused a brume of confusion, and did much collateral damage – including to the fair and orderly progress of the underlying allegation of sexual assault through the criminal justice system".

I know you and some others want to compartmentalise the rape and completely ignore or divorce the rest of the various issues from the broader event, but there are many of us who can't. We want to hold our media accountable, particularly when it comes to propagating false claims that have caused an inordinate amount of damage.

 

[Wallace52]

Whybrow said he didn't read it because he was over the whole deal.

"Think of it as a 300-page book that you got proscribed in Year 11 for a subject you're sick of. It's not something that I've managed to get to yet," the barrister said

That’s too funny. Maybe it was uninteresting because he wasn’t getting paid? Just a thought.

 

[Number37]

None of that is, because the part I edited out were the parts that are factually incorrect and you can read up why your claims are factually incorrect in the verdict.



I could not disagree with the bolded more.

I guess the key question and sticking point is, why is the other stuff relevant?

If you take a step back and look at the place of this case in the annals of Australian criminal history, by way of sheer media coverage, it might have just about everything else covered and possibly with some distance.

There are bigger crimes, such as the matter of Britain stealing an entire continent from our First Nations people. More iconic crimes, such as the Ned Kelly gang's last stand. More gruesome ones such as Port Arthur, Snowtown, Milat, Russell Street etc.

The only case that I can think that had any degree of comparability in terms of lengthy media firestorm, was that of the death of Azaria Chamberlain and subsequent heavy media scrutiny on her poor mother Lindy.

With this story here, we have a budding young Parliamentarian Higgins being predatorily lured back to Parliament House to be raped by her fat, disgusting grub-of-a-colleague Lehrmann. This is indeed an explosive story and one worth telling and hopefully governments learning from.

Here's where it gets sensitive, because without downplaying the extremely heavy gravity of the crime, that story in isolation would not garner 3.25+ years of consecutive front page headlines.

What's obviously kicked it down the road for that long, was a Sharaz-led Higgins going directly to the media without a live criminal allegation in place, making claims that has now proven to be false, that she was pressured by specific individuals (who she named) to force her to choose between a criminal complaint and her job. The story now got an extra layer on it

Trouble is of course, is that the cover-up angle was factually incorrect and this was the first of the missteps in the omnishambles.

Then there was the second major coinciding issue was with the medias outlets failing to do their basic jobs and engage in basic media ethics, in not checking the claims. This let to Lee stating that this "...caused a brume of confusion, and did much collateral damage – including to the fair and orderly progress of the underlying allegation of sexual assault through the criminal justice system".

I know you and some others want to compartmentalise the rape and completely ignore or divorce the rest of the various issues from the broader event, but there are many of us who can't. We want to hold our media accountable, particularly when it comes to propagating false claims that have caused an inordinate amount of damage.

F me.
You still don't get it.

Reynolds tells the PM that there was a rape in her office.
The PM discloses that a person was raped in a Minister's office.

Would any of that other sideshow happen?
No.


All of this other sh!t happened because nobody wanted it known that there was a rape in a Minister's office.

The worst thing that happened because the rape wasn't disclosed is not that a Minister or staffer was accused of a cover up. The worst thing that happened is that a criminal prosecution and trial was compromised. So much was a criminal prosecution and trial compromised that it was aborted.

A person was raped in the parliamentary office of a Minister.

 

[FIGJAM]

F me.
You still don't get it.

Reynolds tells the PM that there was a rape in her office.
The PM discloses that a person was raped in a Minister's office.

Oh, now I get it!

You've completely got no concept of due process!! Makes sense now...

There was an alleged rape in the office.

The correct due process was followed internally and then externally through the AFP. Then they might like to investigate and give the alleged perpetrator a chance to respond.

It is not part of the process for the Chief of Staff, Minister, the Prime Minister, God, or anyone else to announce this alleged rape to the world at this point.

Going to the media before the police is disruptuve to an investigation and completely unacceptable. And this goes for the both the government and alleged victims.

Would any of that other sideshow happen?
No.

Not to the extent of the false allegations, no.

But the government coming forward to announce a crime while a criminal investigation had barely started, would put undue pressure on the investigators.

Moller, who investigated the case after Higgins the second time around, said he was heavily pressured from every angle, including in the legal fraternity. That's disgusting!

All of this other sh!t happened because nobody wanted it known that there was a rape in a Minister's office.

If Higgins doesn't drop the charges in 2019, which she did all by herself, and if the AFP found enough evidence to proceed with a charge against Lehrmann, then everybody in Australia would have known about it. In the fullness of time and after due process.

But again, the government can't announce things through the media first, to not interfere with the investigation, but to also allow the alleged victim their right not to proceed.

The worst thing that happened because the rape wasn't disclosed is not that a Minister or staffer was accused of a cover up.

Again, you're putting the cart before the horse; the government should not be disclosing the alleged rape to the media.

They were responsible for disclosing it to the AFP, which they did.

The Minister and Brown (and others) weren't falsely accused of a cover-up because the rape allegation wasn't publicly announced; they were falsely accused of a cover-up by Higgins and Sharaz because of misremembering, embellishment of smaller things over time, being influenced by each other, or even intentionally lying. Only they can disseminate that.

The worst thing that happened because the rape wasn't disclosed is that a criminal prosecution and trial was compromised. So much was a criminal prosecution and trial compromised that it was aborted.

We're in agreement that the criminal trial was compromised. So was Justice Lee.

But you differ in Lee and myself about the causation of the compromised trial. It was the false allegations:

"1097 The publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice won the Project team, like Ms Maiden, a glittering prize; but when the accusation is examined properly, it was supposition without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact; its dissemination caused a brume of confusion, and did much collateral damage – including to the fair and orderly progress of the underlying allegation of sexual assault through the criminal justice system."

 

[CM86]

We want to hold our media accountable

That's simply not true.
You don't seem to have any interest in media accountability outside of this specific aspect of this specific case.
You defend Sofronoff and Albrechtsen with their collaborations during the inquiry and articles attacking Higgins.
You defend Reynolds and Albrechtsen. "Who gives a *" and "tin foil hat" I think were your exact words.
You defend the private recording of Higgins lawyer played on SkyNews in tiny snippets, to create a destructive narrative.
Where's your outrage at Higgin's private life being forcefully obtained by the AFP, being leaked all over the media??

And that's just a handful of things from this case alone.
Have you ever talked about the media being used to coverup Robodebt and attack victims? Of course not.


You defend Reynolds trying to sue Higgins (insisting it's vitally important). But you don't even know what the social media posts were.




The only reason Higgin's has anything close to justice is because of The Project interview.
Otherwise she would be just another victim of rape, failed by the system.

 

[CM86]

Oh, now I get it!

You've completely got no concept of due process!! Makes sense now...

There was an alleged rape in the office.

The correct due process was followed internally and then externally through the AFP. Then they might like to investigate and give the alleged perpetrator a chance to respond.

It is not part of the process for the Chief of Staff, Minister, the Prime Minister, God, or anyone else to announce this alleged rape to the world at this point.

Going to the media before the police is disruptuve to an investigation and completely unacceptable. And this goes for the both the government and alleged victims.



Not to the extent of the false allegations, no.

But the government coming forward to announce a crime while a criminal investigation had barely started, would put undue pressure on the investigators.

Moller, who investigated the case after Higgins the second time around, said he was heavily pressured from every angle, including in the legal fraternity. That's disgusting!



If Higgins doesn't drop the charges in 2019, which she did all by herself, and if the AFP found enough evidence to proceed with a charge against Lehrmann, then everybody in Australia would have known about it. In the fullness of time and after due process.

But again, the government can't announce things through the media first, to not interfere with the investigation, but to also allow the alleged victim their right not to proceed.



Again, you're putting the cart before the horse; the government should not be disclosing the alleged rape to the media.

They were responsible for disclosing it to the AFP, which they did.

The Minister and Brown (and others) weren't falsely accused of a cover-up because the rape allegation wasn't publicly announced; they were falsely accused of a cover-up by Higgins and Sharaz because of misremembering, embellishment of smaller things over time, being influenced by each other, or even intentionally lying. Only they can disseminate that.



We're in agreement that the criminal trial was compromised. So was Justice Lee.

But you differ in Lee and myself about the causation of the compromised trial. It was the false allegations:

"1097 The publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice won the Project team, like Ms Maiden, a glittering prize; but when the accusation is examined properly, it was supposition without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact; its dissemination caused a brume of confusion, and did much collateral damage – including to the fair and orderly progress of the underlying allegation of sexual assault through the criminal justice system."