Updated The Bruce Lehrmann Trials Pt2 * Toowoomba Rape Trial

[Kurve]

Here is PART 1

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

 

[Percel]

Expensive hat...

Madness isn’t it, should have just Fez’d up

 

[BFew]

For those wondering how Lehrmann was paying for his lawyer in court today.
He isn't.

Paul Svilans (Mark O’Brien Legal) was representing Lehrmann pro-bono.

Lehrmann ordered to pay Network Ten $2 million in legal costs

'It might be the deal of the century,' his lawyer said.

www.canberratimes.com.au

'Lehrmann ordered to pay Network Ten $2 million in legal costs'​

'June 27 2024 - 12:25pm'

'Mr Svilans, who appeared in court pro bono'

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-nsw/beer-wine-and-cheezels-in-nines-boardroom-after-ben-robertssmith-decision/news-story/e64f070ecc56672cc3bf86a934745098

'Before entering the room Ms Allen, her colleague Paul Svilans and the Principal of their legal firm Mark O’Brien had joined with high-profile barrister Arthur Moses SC to speak with Channel 7 fixer and Kerry Stokes’ right-hand man Bruce McWilliam.'

 

[Kurve]

Kerry Stokes’

Who was it in here that poo poo'd the idea that Kerry Stokes was backing Lehrmann from the shadows?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Is it my opinion that Higgins was raped by Lehrmann?
Yes.

I'm not in a court of law, I'm not restricted to legal terminology or legal criminal standards to have an opinion based on all the available evidence.


My opinion is that Lehrmann raped Higgins.


Some people, for whatever reason, don't have the same opinion as me.




In my opinion, your reply is basically saying that Lehrmann didn't rape Higgins. But that you feel you need to be more careful with how you phrase it.
I'd be more interested in a conversation around your opinion of the evidence and facts that makes it so you can't say that he actually did do it.

you can have whatever opinion you want.

I'm not sure i asked you though?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

It is actually a yes or no answer now.

Bruce Lehrmann is a rapist. There, I said it. It's easy, give it a go.

No, it's actually not. If he was found guilty of rape, he would be sentenced for it.

Calling him a rapist is an opinion of which you are entitled too. But he has not been found guilty of that crime though.

You can't lower the required evidence bar of a criminal crime to a civil crime and then say he's guilty rofl. Thats just silly.

 

[Kurve]

No, it's actually not. If he was found guilty of rape, he would be sentenced for it.

Calling him a rapist is an opinion of which you are entitled too. But he has not been found guilty of that crime though.

You can't lower the required evidence bar of a criminal crime to a civil crime and then say he's guilty rofl. Thats just silly.

Bruce Lehrmann IS a rapist.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Bruce Lehrmann IS a rapist.

Bruce Lehrmann is on the balance of probabilities a rapist, yes. i agree.

 

[Kurve]

Bruce Lehrmann is on the balance of probabilities a rapist, yes. i agree.

You're almost there Hirds. Bruce Lehrmann IS a rapist.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

You're almost there Hirds. Bruce Lehrmann IS a rapist.

Kurve or Justice Lee.

hmmmmm

tough one to choose.......

i do have a soft spot for you Kurve.

 

[CM86]

you can have whatever opinion you want.

I'm not sure i asked you though?

You didn't ask me.
I was just doing it as a demonstration to show how easy it is to share your personal opinion, and how it can be a yes or no question.


You know, I know, we all know that YOU KNOW the difference between a criminal conviction, and a personal opinion.

So when you point out that you just cannot have the personal opinion that Lehrmann raped Higgins, due to criminal or civil legal codes... It's just a long way of saying that your opinion is that Lehrmann did not rape Higgins. And that Higgins is a liar.

"Shady as all hell" I think is the most recent invective you used for her.
Though she's never been convicted of that beyond reasonable doubt.

Every single person involved is shady as all hell IMO.

IMO stands for "In My Opinion".

Amazingly you were able to make a statement of your opinion without any criminal conviction of shadiness.

But you cannot say that in your opinion Lehrmann raped Higgins, because well... Criminal justice system and statues and findings beyond reasonable doubt etc etc etc.



Why not just be honest, and lets have a discussion of why you think Lehrmann didn't rape Higgins?
What you base it on.

 

[Festerz]

The RAPIST is mounting up the bills. And so many lawyers lining up to do his legal bidding for nix. How strange

In addition to the order of costs, Ten is seeking an order that Lehrmann pay $200,000 in security to cover some of the legal bills of the media parties in the event he loses the appeal and is ordered to cover his opponents’ costs of defending the appeal.

Ten is also seeking an order that the appeal be dismissed against both Ten and Wilkinson if he does not pay the security within 42 days from the date of the order. It is up to the court to decide whether it will make the order.

Meanwhile, Lehrmann’s dispute with his former landlord over alleged property damage and unpaid rent at the Balgowlah home rented for him by the Seven Network is also set to return for a hearing on Thursday in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

 

[Festerz]

Why not just be honest, and lets have a discussion of why you think Lehrmann didn't rape Higgins?
What you base it on.

It's a good question.

Juries continually struggle with the the concept of 'reasonable doubt' in criminal trials.

And yet here we have posters seemingly able to determine ,with relative ease, the difference between 'reasonable doubt' and 'balance of probabilities' in the face of evidence.

IMHO deciding guilt, beyond reasonable doubt, is a bridge too far for many people in relation to sexual assault cases because of the nature of the crime and the absence of what they would describe as 'hard physical evidence' or independent witnesses to the event. It explains why sexual assault remains the most difficult of cases to achieve a guilty verdict before a jury in Australia.

(oh, and a reminder that Justice Lee was not required to make a judgement on the higher standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' in the defamation case so we can not make any assumption on his opinion as to Lehrmann's guilt in a criminal sense based on the evidence).

 

[BFew]

In addition to the order of costs, Ten is seeking an order that Lehrmann pay $200,000 in security to cover some of the legal bills of the media parties in the event he loses the appeal and is ordered to cover his opponents’ costs of defending the appeal.

Surely someone will stump up that security for him?

Or will it make a difference if he is declared bankrupt before the deadline for that order be paid.

 

[jason_recliner]

Bruce loses, has to cough up 2 million to Ten…

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/bruce-lehrmann-faces-10m-legal-bill-after-defamation-loss-to-network-10-lisa-wilkinson/news-story/92476e6b683f388d82e01920cd78947d

Bwaaaahahaaahahaaa!

Leerman's going to need a side hustle. A very good side hustle.

 

[jason_recliner]

Who was it in here that poo poo'd the idea that Kerry Stokes was backing Lehrmann from the shadows?

Where's the evidence he was?

 

[Punt rd end]

Poor rapist Bruce, now the legal system is screwing him

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Who was it in here that poo poo'd the idea that Kerry Stokes was backing Lehrmann from the shadows?

MPMonkeys

But he's retired from his Bruce Lehrmann advocacy position, and is now a nuclear power influencer.

 

[FIGJAM]

Juries continually struggle with the the concept of 'reasonable doubt' in criminal trials.

And yet here we have posters seemingly able to determine ,with relative ease, the difference between 'reasonable doubt' and 'balance of probabilities' in the face of evidence.

IMHO deciding guilt, beyond reasonable doubt, is a bridge too far for many people in relation to sexual assault cases because of the nature of the crime and the absence of what they would describe as 'hard physical evidence' or independent witnesses to the event. It explains why sexual assault remains the most difficult of cases to achieve a guilty verdict before a jury in Australia.

The only thing is for certain, is that the both the 'balance of probabilities' and 'beyond reasonable doubt' approaches are probabilistic in nature.

Unless you're a jury or judge standing there watching the event in question, you're not in a position to "know" anything.

The "reasonable" in 'beyond reasonable doubt' immediately infers probability by nature. I think juries here and overseas get confused by the power of the "beyond reasonable" component, as it immediately infers "zero doubt".

I agree with your last para, which is why I personally think the jury system for sexual assault is an insanity (and I'm not a big fan for it generally, although I'm sure if the system was corrupt / heavily politicised then it's got its benefits).

 

[HirdsTheWord]

You didn't ask me.
I was just doing it as a demonstration to show how easy it is to share your personal opinion, and how it can be a yes or no question.


You know, I know, we all know that YOU KNOW the difference between a criminal conviction, and a personal opinion.

So when you point out that you just cannot have the personal opinion that Lehrmann raped Higgins, due to criminal or civil legal codes... It's just a long way of saying that your opinion is that Lehrmann did not rape Higgins. And that Higgins is a liar.

"Shady as all hell" I think is the most recent invective you used for her.
Though she's never been convicted of that beyond reasonable doubt.


IMO stands for "In My Opinion".

Amazingly you were able to make a statement of your opinion without any criminal conviction of shadiness.

But you cannot say that in your opinion Lehrmann raped Higgins, because well... Criminal justice system and statues and findings beyond reasonable doubt etc etc etc.



Why not just be honest, and lets have a discussion of why you think Lehrmann didn't rape Higgins?
What you base it on.

when did I ever say anything on the lines of you can't have an opinion? I didn't even ask you for yours for me to even deny you one?. So i don't know why you are going on about it.

whatever rant you are on about, has nothing to do with me I think. Maybe you have me confused with someone?

Higgins was certainly not truthful, which is just a fact and it's on record as being the case during the original trial, so I'm not sure what you are on about in regard to that. Or what that's got to do with anything relevant?

it's not for me to determine who did what. Thats what the justice system is for?

Against the balance of probabilities, Lehrmann was found to have raped Higgins. I said many months ago even before the defamation case commenced this was likely.



Against all reasonable doubt, he was not found guilty. he has no criminal conviction nor lingering charge for the crime, it was dropped.

Cheerleading a criminal charge at a civil level of burden of proof is just silly IMO. If that's the opinion, you wish to have fair enough. But i respect your view even if I disagree with it.

TLDR call him what you want as an opinion, just don't label it as a fact or expect others to follow your view?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

The only thing is for certain, is that the both the 'balance of probabilities' and 'beyond reasonable doubt' approaches are probabilistic in nature.

Unless you're a jury or judge standing there watching the event in question, you're not in a position to "know" anything.

The "reasonable" in 'beyond reasonable doubt' immediately infers probability by nature. I think juries here and overseas get confused by the power of the "beyond reasonable" component, as it immediately infers "zero doubt".

I agree with your last para, which is why I personally think the jury system for sexual assault is an insanity (and I'm not a big fan for it generally, although I'm sure if the system was corrupt / heavily politicised then it's got its benefits).

tbh Lehrmann rolled his dice, he should have wondered off into the sunset but like Mr Lee said, he went back into the lion's cage to collect his hat.

He opened himself to it and got smoked in the process.

 

[CM86]

when did I ever say anything on the lines of you can't have an opinion? I didn't even ask you for yours for me to even deny you one?. So i don't know why you are going on about it.

whatever rant you are on about, has nothing to do with me I think. Maybe you have me confused with someone?

Higgins was certainly not truthful, which is just a fact and it's on record as being the case during the original trial, so I'm not sure what you are on about in regard to that. Or what that's got to do with anything relevant?

it's not for me to determine who did what. Thats what the justice system is for?

Against the balance of probabilities, Lehrmann was found to have raped Higgins. I said many months ago even before the defamation case commenced this was likely.

View attachment 2031746

Against all reasonable doubt, he was not found guilty. he has no criminal conviction nor lingering charge for the crime, it was dropped.

Cheerleading a criminal charge at a civil level of burden of proof is just silly IMO. If that's the opinion, you wish to have fair enough. But i respect your view even if I disagree with it.

TLDR call him what you want as an opinion, just don't label it as a fact or expect others to follow your view?

I'm so tired of putting time and effort into making a clear point or clear statement, just for such disconnected replies.



I asked your opinion.
You avoided giving your opinion by talking about legal justifications in criminal vs civil court findings.
That's it...


I've pointed out that I'd rather just talk to you about what evidence or facts you think support Lehrmann's innocence, because I don't care for the boring back and forth avoidance.

You're not able to explain why in your opinion he's innocent. You can only refer to legal standings.
But you don't require the same legal standing for invectives towards Higgins.

OK mete.

 

[BFew]

MPMonkeys

But he's retired from his Bruce Lehrmann advocacy position, and is now a nuclear power influencer.

Bruce seems to think that Bruce is a Nuclear Power.

Evidence:
His propensity for mutually assured destruction when it comes to allegedly controlling his sexual urges (on the balance of probabilities)
Both for cases he's been judged on (the defamation one), and other sexual assault cases reported in the media that have either not started yet (and may never start) or not finished in their legal lifecycle.

 

[FIGJAM]

tbh Lehrmann rolled his dice, he should have wondered off into the sunset but like Mr Lee said, he went back into the lion's cage to collect his hat.

He opened himself to it and got smoked in the process.

Couldn't agree more!

That said, I'm glad he did, as despite the trauma that he re-inflicted on Higgins, he did allow Lee to forensically get to the bottom of everything and find what I consider to be the the smoking gun, which was the text exchange between Higgins and her Dad, that might not have been emphasised in the criminal trial.

What Bruce also did of benefit (outside of bankrupting itself!) was drag Network 10 and Wilkinson over the coals for their shoddy journalistic practices and blind belief on their primary focus, which was the false political cover-up angle and practically fact checked nothing. They'll have to pay the bulk of the money for putting a program to air that shouldn't have happened (at least in the way that it did).

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I'm so tired of putting time and effort into making a clear point or clear statement, just for such disconnected replies.



I asked your opinion.
You avoided giving your opinion by talking about legal justifications in criminal vs civil court findings.
That's it...


I've pointed out that I'd rather just talk to you about what evidence or facts you think support Lehrmann's innocence, because I don't care for the boring back and forth avoidance.

You're not able to explain why in your opinion he's innocent. You can only refer to legal standings.
But you don't require the same legal standing for invectives towards Higgins.

OK mete.

I have already told you, my opinion.

My opinion is that he probably did it, but there is certainly some doubt. I think the complete lack of physical evidence was always going to be an uphill battle obtaining a criminal conviction.

My view is generally that for someone to be guilty. they need to be found guilty, unless the crime is clear cut in terms of physical evidence. You clearly disagree. Which is Ok.

 

[CM86]

I have already told you, my opinion.

My opinion is that he probably did it, but there is certainly some doubt. I think the complete lack of physical evidence was always going to be an uphill battle obtaining a criminal conviction.

My view is generally that for someone to be guilty. they need to be found guilty, unless the crime is clear cut in terms of physical evidence. You clearly disagree. Which is Ok.

I'm not asking you for your legal opinion, or for your opinion of the legal outcomes.

My opinion is that Lehrmann raped Higgins. (You didn't ask for my opinion, I'm just stating it as an example - pre-emptive).
Your opinion is that he probably did, probably didn't.
In terms of binary outcomes like raped or not raped, that's an opinion that Higgins wasn't raped.
Which is OK to have, but would be great if it could be expanded on with reasoning.



I ask for your opinion on if it happened or not. You reply with criminal convictions and the need for a jury to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt.



Why don't we skip this and just pretend it's all hypotheticals.


Hypothetically, if you didn't believe Higgins was raped, what's some of the evidence that you think would support Lehrmann's innocence?
-Edit- I'm not talking about a civil or criminal trial and the burden of proof being on the prosecution. It's just a hypothetical.