Updated Bruce Lehrmann * Justice Lee - "Mr Lehrmann r*ped Ms Higgins."

[Kurve]

Historical Rape Allegation Against Fmr AG Christian Porter
The Alexander Matters matters

Just a reminder, this is the crime board and we need to be aware that there will be victims of crime either watching this thread or engaging in here from time to time. A degree of respect in all discussions is expected.

LINK TO TIMELINE
CJS INQUIRY
FINAL REPORT – BOARD OF INQUIRY – CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Joint media statement – Chief Minister and Attorney-General

LINK TO FEDERAL COURT DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS

 

[jason_recliner]

Of course there's going to be CCTV showing Higgins and Lehrmann arriving at Parliament House, there would be cameras everywhere covering all the roads going in and out, the entire front and back would be covered and every inch of grass.

Besides, Cotchins Hair Piece reckons even he's seen it. Maybe he shouldn't have said that.

I don't think anybody is doubting that there's CCTV footage. I took it to be referring to the footage supposedly indicating that Higgins looked drunk.

 

[Kurve]

Is Moller seriously claiming that no CCTV of the pair's entrance to Parliament House existed? Or that AFP did not access that footage as part of their inquiry? I mean that is just frikkin' bizarre if true.

For all the attention Moller has placed emphasising through the inquiry the importance of a 'thorough investigation' it defies belief that they didn't access any and all CCTV footage of the pair and include it.

I'm leaning towards Drumgold having seen it. How and why it vanished though is curious.

 

[Kurve]

I don't think anybody is doubting that there's CCTV footage. I took it to be referring to the footage supposedly indicating that Higgins looked drunk.

This is what I was responding to:

'Mr Drumgold claimed CCTV footage showed Ms Higgins and Mr Lehrmann arriving at Parliament House on the night of her alleged rape. The police were certain the video never existed, but Mr Drumgold was insistent he had personally watched it on a USB drive provided by police but then returned to them.'

 

[Lady O]

This is what I was responding to:

'Mr Drumgold claimed CCTV footage showed Ms Higgins and Mr Lehrmann arriving at Parliament House on the night of her alleged rape. The police were certain the video never existed, but Mr Drumgold was insistent he had personally watched it on a USB drive provided by police but then returned to them.'

I think Moller suggested that Drumgold may have seen a re-creation on TV which was mistaken for the real thing.

 

[Kurve]

I think Moller suggested that Drumgold may have seen a re-creation on TV which was mistaken for the real thing.

Yes, Moller did suggest that but I think it might have been a dig to belittle Drumgold and pass it off as a joke and the Australian has run with it as a serious proposition. It just doesn't seem to make sense.

Aside, I don't recall seeing a re-creation of the two arriving at PH on Four Corners or anywhere else.

 

[jason_recliner]

This is what I was responding to:

'Mr Drumgold claimed CCTV footage showed Ms Higgins and Mr Lehrmann arriving at Parliament House on the night of her alleged rape. The police were certain the video never existed, but Mr Drumgold was insistent he had personally watched it on a USB drive provided by police but then returned to them.'

Yes, me too.

 

[Festerz]

Aside, I don't recall seeing a re-creation of the two arriving at PH on Four Corners or anywhere else.

There wasn't. It was a made up diversion by the AFP Officer.

You might recall that the CC footage from outside Parliament House on that morning - who had access to it and who didn't was a specific complaint lodged by Ms Higgins in the 4 Corners program.

The issue being that footage is under the control of Parliament House. And access to that footage was critical to the claim made by Ms Higgins that she was heavily intoxicated and therefore incapable of providing informed consent to sexual intercourse under ACT law.

THAT is why the DPP would have been interested in seeing the footage and why he would have a strong reason to remember seeing it in the brief of evidence provided by the AFP.

And the AFP claim that they never had that CCTV footage and that it was not in any material supplied to the DPP during the course of deliberations on whether to commence a prosecution (where a key point of claim is proof of intoxication) is absolutely bizarre - to the point of being unbelievable.

Not to mention the fact that we heard in previous evidence at this Inquiry that the AFP wanted to bring in an 'expert witness' to judge the intoxication level of Ms Higgins but this was disallowed by the DPP as no such 'independent expert witness' actually existed.

 

[Big_Birdy]

The CCTV was referenced today. It exists, the AFP had/have it. Ms Higgins continually asked to see it. The AFP were reluctant to show her (obviously). But they eventually did, as they wanted their investigation to be 'victim centric'.

 

[Kurve]

The CCTV was referenced today. It exists, the AFP had/have it. Ms Higgins continually asked to see it. The AFP were reluctant to show her (obviously). But they eventually did, as they wanted their investigation to be 'victim centric'.

Was that specific to them arriving at PH, CCTV within the building or both do you know?

 

[Festerz]

The AFP were reluctant to show her (obviously).

I'm a bit slow sometimes.

But why is it 'obvious' that the AFP wouldn't show CCTV footage to the alleged victim on whose behalf they are meant to be investigating?

But they eventually did, as they wanted their investigation to be 'victim centric'.

Again, I don't understand this.

How is the police investigating an alleged crime showing evidence to the complainant being 'victim centric'?

I would expect a competent police investigation compiling an evidence brief to show critical video evidence to an alleged victim and complainant to understand the context of the video as part of the evidence gathering process.

I mean what investigator would not want a complainant's view of that evidence in the context of their report?

Makes zero sense to me.

 

[Big_Birdy]

Was that specific to them arriving at PH, CCTV within the building or both do you know?

Not 100% but I think inside as they entered.

 

[Big_Birdy]

I'm a bit slow sometimes.

But why is it 'obvious' that the AFP wouldn't show CCTV footage to the alleged victim on whose behalf they are meant to be investigating?



Again, I don't understand this.

How is the police investigating an alleged crime showing evidence to the complainant being 'victim centric'?

I would expect a competent police investigation compiling an evidence brief to show critical video evidence to an alleged victim and complainant to understand the context of the video as part of the evidence gathering process.

I mean what investigator would not want a complainant's view of that evidence in the context of their report?

Makes zero sense to me.

She is a witness. She also said she had issues with recollection on the night. If she watched the footage her evidence would be an issue because it has been influenced by the footage.

That same reason answers your second question.

 

[Festerz]

AFP lead investigator got the sensational headline in The Australian newspaper that he wanted about political pressure being applied to lay charges.

Does it really matter if it was fabricated?

 

[Kwality]

For all the attention Moller has placed emphasising through the inquiry the importance of a 'thorough investigation' it defies belief that they didn't access any and all CCTV footage of the pair and include it.

I'm leaning towards Drumgold having seen it. How and why it vanished though is curious.

FWIW:

Mr Drumgold’s co-counsel Skye Jerome said she “was sure” she saw the footage, although they watched it on separate occasions, and told investigators she hoped “nothing unlawful” had happened to the footage.

Ms Jerome said she recalled a woman and a man standing at a gate with a buzzer and walking through the gate.

Her account of what she saw has been partially redacted by the inquiry.

“I recall that the omitted CCTV footage depicted Ms Higgins and Mr Lehrmann [redacted] at APH (Australian Parliament House). I recall that Mr Lehrmann stood in front of Ms Higgins who was a little unsteady/shifted her body weight. I recall that I briefly saw the pair [redacted].”

If it existed, the footage would have countered the view of police that Ms Higgins was not as heavily intoxicated – “10/10 drunk” – as she had claimed.

Ms Jerome says in her statement that police had shown her other CCTV footage and “focused their observations of a sober woman entering Parliament House”.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/dpp-shane-drumgolds-cctv-evidence-tampering-claim-vexatious/news-story/48f7410c08f2f9862e8a95b438960c3b

 

[Kwality]

AFP lead investigator got the sensational headline in The Australian newspaper that he wanted about political pressure being applied to lay charges.

Does it really matter if it was fabricated?

From the link above:

'The claim of “political interference” was noted in diary notes made by the ACT Police Manager of Criminal Investigations, Detective Superintendent Scott Moller that detailed his conversations with ACT Deputy Chief Police Officer Michael Chew.'

Political interference started out with the Federal Parliament & in this case it appears to me to be office politics. Could political interference have more than one meaning here?


Does it really matter if it was fabricated?
The amount of guesswork/second guessing by all involved will be receive the attention of Sofronoff.

 

[Kurve]

If it existed, the footage would have countered the view of police that Ms Higgins was not as heavily intoxicated – “10/10 drunk” – as she had claimed.

The footage exists, it isn't possible imo that it didn't.

At that age, after what she drank through the evening with independent witness which was copious imo and mixing with shots as the evening wore on, I don't doubt it at all that she was as intoxicated as she ever has been.

 

[Kurve]

AFP lead investigator got the sensational headline in The Australian newspaper that he wanted about political pressure being applied to lay charges.

Does it really matter if it was fabricated?

Moller kept talking about the enormous pressure 'they' were under which we can assume bled down in to the ranks who clearly didn't have the stomach for it given it caused many of them to call in sick. How that happened is interesting if they weren't all having a massive whinge about it but when Moller was asked to specify where that pressure came from, he responded with vague comments about the press. Moller yesterday, couldn't specify exactly where that pressure came from.

Having worked among the AFP back in the day, I'll refrain from repeating what they were called but 'buffoons' in comparison is pretty mild. State police will be having a laugh at all this.

 

[fortunatecrow]

Perhaps both saw the Four Corners re stage of the event.

'Mr Drumgold claimed CCTV footage showed Ms Higgins and Mr Lehrmann arriving at Parliament House on the night of her alleged rape. The police were certain the video never existed, but Mr Drumgold was insistent he had personally watched it on a USB drive provided by police but then returned to them.'

'Superintendent Moller, however, said it appeared that Mr Drumgold “had confused footage from a Four Corners release where they developed a recreation of the event with the investigators recovered CCTV footage”.'

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/dpp-shane-drumgolds-cctv-evidence-tampering-claim-vexatious/news-story/48f7410c08f2f9862e8a95b438960c3b

I know I am missing the actual point of this thread but it is astonishing that the authorities don't know who, when, is in the office of the Defence Minister. Any espionage agencies surely would be licking their lips/laughing at the absence of effective surveillance and security.

 

[gymjam]

No escaping it in this thread sadly. Cut and paste slabs posted regularly. Added to that is the fact that the Australian newspaper has posted more stories and published more lines on the whole Lehrmann-Higgins issue than other media outlets put together. There is no escaping their huge focus and coverage.

There is no doubt that they and Albrechtsen are pushing hard on an agenda and a narrative that suits its main subscriber base. Others just need to use some basic critical thinking skills to sort out the wheat from the chaff, even if that means blocking out every second adjective used in their articles.

Speaking of which...

Mr Sofronoff issued a ‘please explain’ to The Australian newspaper over the publication of a photograph of the Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold enjoying a beer in his driveway.

“On the 19th of May, The Australian newspaper published a photograph of Mr Drumgold. He was at home in relaxed clothing, in apparent privacy having a beer and someone took a photograph of him without his knowledge, and then published the photo with an ironic caption “Crown Lager or Drumgold Bitter – Prosecutor calls beer o’clock,’’ Mr Sofronoff said.

“I’m stumped, trying to think of a proper purpose for doing this. Hiding to take a photo of a man who thinks he’s enjoying privacy and then publishing the photo with a put down. But my real worry is that the witnesses who have been willing to help me will think that this is part of the price of being stopped at their home, photographed, taken unawares, being made fun of in the national media.”

Mr Sofronoff said his concern was if that was the “personal cost, why would anybody willingly be a part of this?”

“This kind of publication risks interfering with the course of my inquiry, it risks interfering with my ability to fulfil my statutory duty,’’ he said.

“On the other hand, if the publication of a photo of this kind serves a proper purpose, then we all have to live with its consequences. Some people, as I say, they’re going to get hurt by this inquiry and in an unavoidable way.

“With these thoughts in mind, I’ve written to the editor of The Australian today, seeking her help to understand the purpose, which the photo was used for, and I’ll consider my course when I get a response.”


Gutter stuff from The Australian. Again.

What is interesting to me is the fact that Drumgold made a decision to swig his cool lager in a publicly viewable place, in his driveway. He must have known media hounds would be at the ready with their long distance cameras, silly decision on his behalf.

 

[gymjam]

Moller kept talking about the enormous pressure 'they' were under which we can assume bled down in to the ranks who clearly didn't have the stomach for it given it caused many of them to call in sick. How that happened is interesting if they weren't all having a massive whinge about it but when Moller was asked to specify where that pressure came from he responded with vague comments about the press. Moller yesterday, couldn't specify exactly where that pressure came from.

Having worked among the AFP back in the day, I'll refrain from repeating what they were called but 'buffoons' in comparison is pretty mild. State police will be having a laugh at all this.

And AFP operate under totally different laws and constraints.

 

[gymjam]

I'm a bit slow sometimes.

But why is it 'obvious' that the AFP wouldn't show CCTV footage to the alleged victim on whose behalf they are meant to be investigating?



Again, I don't understand this.

How is the police investigating an alleged crime showing evidence to the complainant being 'victim centric'?

I would expect a competent police investigation compiling an evidence brief to show critical video evidence to an alleged victim and complainant to understand the context of the video as part of the evidence gathering process.

I mean what investigator would not want a complainant's view of that evidence in the context of their report?

Makes zero sense to me.

Investigations are not carried out on the victim's behalf is my understanding. Investigations are to discover verifiable facts vs what the complainant asserts vs what the alleged assailant asserts.

 

[Kurve]

Investigations are not carried out on the victim's behalf is my understanding. Investigations are to discover verifiable facts vs what the complainant asserts vs what the alleged assailant asserts.

They are actually carried out on the victim's behalf and a victim can request an investigation.

 

[gymjam]

They are actually carried out on the victim's behalf and a victim can request an investigation.

Yes and once an investigation commences the parameters change is my understanding.

Did you manage to catch the texts BH sent to her boyfriend about a month prior to 'the night' in question, that were included yesterday? Something about there needed to be a sex scandal?

 

[Kurve]

Yes and once an investigation commences the parameters change is my understanding.

You moved the goal posts.

 

[gymjam]

You moved the goal posts.

How did I manage that? An investigation doesn't commence until after the complainant lodges a formal complaint.