Parliament House sexual assault and harassment allegations

[David]

I mean … it’s not even risking defamation proceedings at this point to say that Lehrmann is a liar. He’s admitted it himself with his constantly changing stories about what he was doing at Parliament House that night (which is, let’s not forget, his alibi).

Higgins has made errors in her testimony at times and not always acted in a way that an ideal victim would be advised to behave. And there’s been a lot of talk about how she dealt with the media in the aftermath, several years after the alleged assault. But if there have been any flagrant lies or inconsistencies that cast doubt on her substantive claim, that she was raped by Lehrmann, then I’m yet to hear them. Please enlighten me if you’re aware of any smoking guns there.

[stui magpie]

"Made errors in testimony". Please, she lied, deliberately, trying to paint the picture she wanted.

She's a liar and he's a liar, but she's got $2.4M and he's unemployable.

On balance of probabilities, you'd say he did have sex with her. The problem is, she was so shitfaced that if she did consent she doesn't remember it and it doesn't count anyway because she was so shitfaced. So on balance, rape is more likely than not.

I don't like how she's done a lot of things since, it's like she's being advised by a coked up marketing person.

But good luck to her. I reckon 90+% of the legit date rape victims, most of whom get no where with Police, would happily take $2.4M to get on with their lives

[David]

Lying to the police about having gone to a doctor is in a somewhat different ballpark from lying about what one was doing on the night of the incident, though. The question we should be asking ourselves is: does a lie like that call into question her testimony about what happened to her, or is it in keeping with how a normal person who has recently been sexually traumatised might behave? That's not even about taking one person's word over the other; it's just about figuring out what motivates people to do things.

Anyway, for those wondering, here's a helpful list of "all of Brittany Higgins' self-confessed lies, inconsistencies and admissions" from The Daily Mail. It's not very long:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... trial.html

[slangman]

Lying to the police about having gone to a doctor is in a somewhat different ballpark from lying about what one was doing on the night of the incident, though. The question we should be asking ourselves is: does a lie like that call into question her testimony about what happened to her, or is it in keeping with how a normal person who has recently been sexually traumatised might behave? That's not even about taking one person's word over the other; it's just about figuring out what motivates people to do things.

Anyway, for those wondering, here's a helpful list of "all of Brittany Higgins' self-confessed lies, inconsistencies and admissions" from The Daily Mail. It's not very long:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... trial.html

If one is caught out lying then it has to put into question any other claims that they make within that particular issue.

[eddiesmith]

I think there was one point in the defamation trial when under cross examination she said something along the lines of, ‘yes most of my story has changed, but this is the one thing I’ve never lied about’

It’s hard to accept any credibility for someone who went on national tv to expose the story then complains about all the attention!

[Culprit]

Poor Bruce is back in the limelight with his expensive happy endings coming home to roost. Poor Brittany's leaked text messages are also back in focus. You have to love defamation cases and it will be interesting if the judge allows the new data/evidence/smut or whatever you want to call it to be part of the case.

[Culprit]

If you have time read the Full Document https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/hub/ ... CA-369.pdf
Bruce failed in his defamation case and has to decide if he will appeal. The judge has found in all probability Bruce raped Higgins as the burden of proof in Civil court is less than in criminal court.

Who pays who's costs? We are talking an estimated 15 million dollars.

[Jezza]

Hopefully this is the end of this sorry saga.

[Culprit]

Hopefully this is the end of this sorry saga.

It won't, he will appeal and has a second court case coming up.

[David]

[Culprit]

The Age - "Justin Quill, one of Ten’s solicitors, spoke briefly outside the Federal Court in Sydney.

He was asked if he had any advice for Bruce Lehrmann, who has said he is studying law at university. Quill says Lehrmann should “take up another course at university”.

Reflecting the court’s findings to the civil standard, Quill said that “Bruce Lehrmann is a rapist” and that the case had been an unmitigated disaster for Lehrmann".

[stui magpie]

^

He definitely should switch to a different course. Who the fvck would hire him as a lawyer?

Considering he hasn't been found either guilty or not guilty in a criminal court, this is the only finding that stands and it says he's a rapist.

Ah well, Higgins has her house in France and plenty of coin leftover, Brucie boy has had his 12 months free use of a luxury apartment complete with hot and cold Thai hookers and Columbian Marching Powder, back to reality sleazeball.

[Culprit]

Bruce Lehrmann, 28, is accused of raping a woman twice in Toowoomba, west of Brisbane, in October 2021. That court case is in June. I don't know who's financially backing him but they are going to be a fair bit of dollars out of pocket.

[David]

There’s a character test for deporting migrants. I wonder if they’ll ever bring one in for political staffers…

[nomadjack]

This is quite a line:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-15/ ... /103706656

Having escaped the lion's den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of coming back for his hat.

Wasn't it brilliant!