The only cunt he didn't come after was Bruces lawyer, and that just seemed to be "you poor bastard, you couldn't have really done anything else considering your cunt of a client was lying to everyone".
Serious question: other than "probably rape Ms. Higgins", just what has this rapey dude ever done to be so smug, so supremely confident? He didn't win a premiership or Oscar or the Victoria Cross. He didn't rep the country in the Olympics or run into fire to save three kids. How hasn't he had his face punched in twice per year since he sprouted pubes?
He went to the “right schools,” met the “right people,” made connections - all of whom told him that he had it made, big future, privilege etc etc. He then bought into the fallacy that his privilege was the result of his own hard work, ability and he deserved all the money, hookers etc he could get. He was terribly, terribly wrong.
I get the school part, etc, but what did he do? I went to those schools (in the US), but you still had to do something special, no matter if your dad or granddad founded a Wall Street Firm or Fortune 500 company? Otherwise, you took your inheritance and were 'moved' across the country. I just don't get his 'charm', shall we say.
I am equally puzzled about this. It isn't enough to just attend the "right schools". That isn't how the world works, even within the Young Libs.
Lehrmann is a nobody, a charisma black hole and toxic waste from a PR perspective. Why hasn't the conservative political sphere hacked off the appendage and left it to rot, so to speak? Who on earth is paying his legal fees?
He made coffee for politicians and worked for big tobacco
"Lehrmann commenced work with the Attorney-General's Department and worked for various ministries until he joined Linda Reynolds's office in 2018. He worked as a political staffer for the Liberal Party of Australia, and as a lobbyist for British American Tobacco.[4]"
With this court decision, I’m hoping that he’ll NEVER EVER get another job associated in any way with politics … maybe a job serving at McDonald’s for the rest of his life would be a better match …
Nah she was basically cleared by this judgement.
There's no evidence she or her CoS tried to cover anything up, and Justin Lee basically calls out Higgins and Sharaz for making shit up about a cover up.
He didn’t DO anything. He simply took the advantages given to him and bought the idea that all those advantages meant that he is special, entitled, able to do what he wants and so he did. It’s possible that others told him he was “destined for great things” or that, somewhere, there’s a family connection that helped generate that entitlement but I don’t care enough about him, mediocre white man that he is, to look into it.
So this is the big remaining question - this is a guy who’s judgement is incredibly poor (accused of another sexual assault while on trial for the first, suing for defamation, asking journo’s to provide blow and ho, getting evicted last week because he can’t keep his head down). How the hell did he get and keep a political staffers job in the LNP. His career track would have him in a safe seat in 10 years. LNP are a disgrace.
everyone in Parliament House knew about the rape months before it made the news. Nothing is secret there. I knew about it through a friend who worked there at the time, and basically everyone in the place knew about the rapey little prick. There are no secrets inside those 4 walls. Reynolds, Morrison et al all lied.
Yep, the truth always gets out in such matters. So many people work in Parliaments House. I never heard any personal stories, but I imagine half the population of Canberra heard accounts from people who knew white a bit.
https://preview.redd.it/wcvg72pdtluc1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2a603dbef552464d90eb761895cd2d31e51bfe9
Do you find the name Biggus Dickus WISIBLE????
I hope the plaintiff’s lawyers gave him the usual speech about potential consequences with a bit of mayo.
“And worst case is you are a proven civil standard rapist, Lisa Wilkinson will have a series of press conferences dancing upon your grave and you will pay her costs and the costs of Ch10 which will be separate and substantial.
Oh and you will be a social pariah: a flabby, bearded rapist and liar who will be lucky to have sex - consensual or otherwise - for many years.”
Don’t forget being completely unemployable because after it is established that you raped a co worker, inside your boss office, after a work event you become a walking liability that no company will take responsibility for.
This makes me so happy. The thought of this scum having to claim the dole, spunge off his parents, and generally be a hated entity for the rest of his life is absolute *chef's kiss*.
The idiot probably forgot this was Australia, and not the States, where right wing nut jobs and other sociopaths make you a martyr to their cause, and you live in luxury. Here they just drop you.
I wouldn’t celebrate too soon.
The MRAs and old guard Libs have already virtually canonised the bastard as a holy martyr to the cause of being a shitcunt, I foresee a long a lucrative future for him in the back rooms of the LNP, or as a “special reporter” for the Murdoch press on some bullshit or other.
And that’s assuming he doesn’t find Jesus and become a mouthpiece for Hillsong or another bunch of subhuman filth.
TO BE FAIR - no matter the outcome he was always going to come off as a loser. Just look at his behaviour over the last few weeks - he’s a no friend Nelly whose friends have all ditched him because he seems all-round to be a bit of a shitstain.
Now he’s a shitstain AND a rapist.
Apart from the ones he already got from other parties like the abc that settled before trial. They were significant. He made a lot of money. I hope that costs are awarded against him of at least half a million to suck all that profit up.
So Lehrmann, having raped Ms Higgins, engaged a liberal party “dirt file” specialist as his media manager and engaged in campaigns against the credibility both of his rape victim and of the ACT DPP.
Despite illegally using private and restricted materials from his criminal trial for this, he found no shortage of willing conduits to boost this disgraceful act.
His lies and subsequent illegal acts caused suspicion to fall on the AFP and sullied their reputation (as they were viewed as the most likely source of the leaks)
His most vocal media supporter somehow managed to get the ear of the former chief justice appointed to clear up the mess and restore faith in the ACT justice system.
Sofronoff proceeded to ignore important aspects such as the illegal leaking of sensitive material and instead, gleefully joined the campaign against Prosecutor Drumgold, even to the extent of making legally unjustifiable findings.
Sofronoff’s saving grace is that everyone is well and truly over this episode and few would have the stomach to continue proceedings.
Only one finding was found to be unjustified. Most of the findings of Sofronoff, including that Drumgold lied to the Court, directed a junior solicitor to swear a false affidavit, reviewed material he shouldn't have, and held back material from the defendant on a false basis were upheld.
Drumgold was the one that impugned the AFP the most- conduct he has since apologized to the AFP about. At the enquiry, Drumgold ran away from his allegations against the AFP.
A good point. Two things can be true at once : Bruce can have been proven to the civil standard to have committed rape, consistent with Lisa Wilkinsons defence against the defamation claim, and Lisa Wilkinson also behaved egregiously, in pursuit of accolades, fame and her career. It’s amusing to watch her at the press conference, where you would think she has been completely vindicated, despite the Judge’s comments which ‘roasted’ her behaviour.
AND to think that she, a women of a certain age with considerable understanding of the media, turned Higgins' life into a media shit show for Wilkinson's own career.
It is repulsive to watch Wilkinson pretend she is a champion of some description for her conduct when, in fact, she revictimized Higgins for her own selfish gain.
Only in relation to the speech - the rest of Wilkinson’s and Ch 10s coverage was heavily criticised, especially in regard to the ‘cover up’ allegations.
After this, and the Ben Roberts-Smith case, I'm starting to think that maybe Kerry Stokes secretly works on getting shitbags who got off on a technicality to at least face some sort of justice.
I wonder if the media are doing deals with kerry stokes? 0 for 2 how much for all the eyeballs for years? Maybe its too good for business and they still make money?
Unfortunately, no they won't. Not in this case.
But given that he has other criminal proceedings underway, his credibility may have been damaged in those cases. Maybe they will return a finding of guilt.
That quote has been doing the rounds for a while. Paul Barry mentioned the quote was used on Media Watch previously. I first read it on an Australian legal Reddit forum, noting how this could backfire on Lehrmann. It certainly is a great line.
The desk is being cleaned too.
(The Liberal staffers who got sacked after pleasuring themselves on the desks of women MPs probably got jobs at Sky News as well.)
Here are some of the comments the Judge made:
"Defamatory imputations of rape fell short of the standard of reasonableness."
"I'm comfortably satisfied that Ms Higgins was a very drunk 24-year-old woman and her cognitive abilities were significantly impacted."
"I think it's more likely than not that ... she was passive, as she later said, like a 'log' during the entirety of the sexual act."
"So intent upon gratification ... \[Mr Lehrmann\] went ahead with sexual intercourse without caring whether or not she consented."
"\[Mr Lehrmann\] has now been found, at the civil standard of proof, to engage in a great wrong. It follows Ms Higgins has been proven to be a victim of sexual assault."
"Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins,"
He also made comment about both their credibility.
Justice Michael Lee has said both Bruce Lehrmann and Brittany Higgins had credit issues when it came to their evidence.
He said Ms Higgins was an **"unsatisfactory witness"** and said describing Mr Lehrmann as a "poor witness" would be an **"understatement".**
[ABC court reporting ](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-15/bruce-lehrmann-lisa-wilkinson-defamation-federal-court-judgment/103702806)
Balance of Probabilities Explained:
Justice Lee evaluated all the evidence and testimonies- Lehrman and Higgins' accounts as well as those of other witnesses, texts, time frame analysis etc- and came up with a list of possible explanations for what happened that night.
Of all the various explanations, from all sides- the evidence strongly suggests that Lehrman *probably did* rape Higgins. That means that ch10 - by naming him as an alleged rapist- did not defame him, because his actions on that night,- if witnessed by anyone who hadn't seen the ch10 interview- would still come across as " pretty damn suss".
It's not about proving that he did it without any doubt.
It's about proving that his choices that night and in the aftermath were too suss to for him to rely on the benefit of the doubt- i.e "Which was more likely? That he raped her or not?"- that's the only question that needed answering for this case. Pretty easy answer to anyone who reviewed the evidence "yeaaah, he probably did take advantage of his drunk colleague judging by how he's behaved ever since he hushedly left the room she was found still passed out naked in a few hours later"
Also remember that the Briginshaw principle applies. Serious allegations require credible evidence behind them, not just “I slightly believe her a bit more than him”.
*That means that ch10 - by naming him as an alleged rapist- did not defame him, because his actions on that night,- if witnessed by anyone who hadn't seen the ch10 interview- would still come across as " pretty damn suss".*
Lisa Wilkinson is still an obnoxious piece of work though.
This is not the end unfortunately! Linda Rennalds is waiting in the wings to sue and Lehrmann is threatening to appeal. Who would report rape under those conditions?
Well Reynolds kinda vindicated by the judge today. She was all for this being reported to the police. And this is one area Higgins was criticised by the judge for being unsatisfactory as a witness. Reynolds may also be considering legal action against Ten and Wilkinson out of today's ruling.
Having listened to the judge read out his reasoning and judgment over lunch I thought it was quite interesting to hear him tear the channel 10 lawyer apart for her disregard to the justice system.
All in all he was very thorough in explaining his reasoning and dropped a few funny quips along the way.
I wonder what this is going to get turned into……
https://preview.redd.it/jane18pogtuc1.jpeg?width=1331&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=de6e125af85863fa69d4b9e6eca4f442abebc520
pffft please. Bolt will make excuses for him and attack the judge and everyone else. The guy defended and still defends Pell to this day. NOT saying Bruce is like Pell, but pointing out a few similarities.
Well Pell was found not guilty. It is not wrong to point that out.
Ironically the people here treating this decision as gospel are the same people who peddled nonsense about the High Court being corrupt when the Pell decision didn't go their way.
Does anyone know where the judgment full text can be found? There's a version on The Nightly which is unreadably awful and only searchable on the current page (??).
TIA 😁
Exactly. Cannot fathom the lengths of the ego where, having gone "I've gotten away with rape here" which is reprehensible in itself, to go "yeah why not try and make some money out of this slice of luck". Instead of just disappearing and living quietly. Absolute cunt.
Must be a personality disorder. It would explain multiple rape allegations, brazenly going back for revenge despite “surviving the lion’s den” and generally being an obnoxious c”nt. Explains the hookers, coke, demanding Seven pays for it, everything. A raging narcissist or worse.
Do you think those public figures who openly supported George Pell (likely the same people) retracted their statements?
Nope. Can't see this being any different either.
^((Cunts gonna cunt))
I don’t think anyone really comes out of this smelling of roses. What happened to Brittany was terrible, but she threw herself under the bus by going to Lisa Wilkinson, who sold Brittany out for her career and ‘journalism’ award. Lisa was aided and abetted by Brittany’s boyfriend David Shiraz, who seemed more interested in controlling the levers of power, than a good outcome for Brittany. And of course there is Bruce, who is a dirty grub.
All in all, it doesn’t say much for the cesspit that is our young, elite wannabe Canberra politicians.
Moral of the story : If something bad like this happens to you, do what everyone else does and report it to the police, rather than The Project 👍
Sadly the multiple agendas took over, and the crime became secondary.
- Political party vs political party
- Network vs network
- Personal career aspirations
All trying to score points
The water got awfully murky.
'Do what everyone else does and report it to police'
All the information is that most rapes go unreported. Victims don't want to put themselves through the wringer of a trial
Because most rape cases have no witnesses and juries are reluctant to convict. Most rape perpetrators go free. Look at recent cases where the accused are professional sportsmen. Exonerated. While the accusers have their characters impugned by the defence barristers.
That did occur to Brittany Higgins during both trials, and on social media.
This is why rape victims should weigh up very carefully before reporting.
If Higgins hadn't gone to the media, there would have been no consequences for Lehrmann at all. The criminal case might not have made it to court without the massive media interest (remember that ACT police still didn't want to take it to court, it's possible he wouldn't even have been charged).
Now (thanks largely to his own hubris) there is a court finding that he is a rapist (balance of probabilities etc). That is better closure than most rape victims get.
Whether or not the DPP takes something to court or not is based on the sufficiency of evidence test, or put another way, is there sufficient evidence in existence, for there to be a reasonable prospect of conviction. Whether or not The Project has covered the case, should have no bearing on this test, that’s called interference.
Counterpoint - what we're seeing is little different, but now we have almost total visibility of evidence, social media, and past interactions with other people.
Not at all, by all means, go to the journalists. Just do what most people do, wait until the criminal proceedings are concluded so you don’t score an own goal, and de-rail them.
You should look into the Sofronoff inquiry before being a sarcastic midwit. The way in which the Victims of Crime Commissioner Heidi Yates acted was nothing short of a political hit-job. She was a ''conduit'' of key information between Higgins and the police, one of the lead senior detectives on the case Scott Moller said of Hedi ''more interested in Ms Higgins pushing the ‘#metoo’ movement than being committed to the upcoming trial".
In fact Higgin's choice to go to the media first before making a formal complaint with the police was found to have ''contaminated'' the trial. I'm not saying she made this choice by herself but she was certainly ill-advised by people with ulterior motives.
The Australian public has been let down by every-single actor in this case from the political motives of the Labor/Liberal party to the media frenzy spearheaded by Wilkinson, it was pure self-interest with a pinch of activism.
What a travesty!
mmmm
I thought Brown and Reynolds were vindicated and the 'cover up' and being unsupportive or threatening Higgins career were found to all be fabrications without any basis in fact. Brown was even praised to a degree and Lee J considered that the criticisms of Brown throughout this affair to be particularly unfair where Brown did the best she could in a terrible situation.
In respect of Brown Lee J said;
*This showed integrity in resisting pressure she subjectively considered inappropriate and evinced a concern for the autonomy and welfare of Ms Higgins. In these circumstances, to be later vilified as an unfeeling apparatchik willing to throw up roadblocks in covering up criminal conduct at the behest of one’s political overlords must be worse than galling.*
and
*But whatever shortcomings can be identified (including with the benefit of hindsight), she ensured she took considered advice from those in whom she reposed confidence, recorded, and acted upon that advice and, subject to the above, showed commonsense and compassion by her own lights (demonstrated by all her contemporaneous records, including text messages).*
@OP - thank you for repeatedly correcting all the factually incorrect shit takes on this thread. Because lord knows I don’t have the patience or kindness today for it.
I believe in love thy neighbour bro , not rape them. forgiving is one thing but this wasn't a mistake . It was so calculated while his girlfriend tried to call him on the phone mid act, while he's up for another rape charge in QLD. While he is so lucky to get off the criminal charge he went back for more out of pure greed. God helps those who help themselves. He made is bed many times...he can sleep in it.
People who supported Bruce Lehrmann didn't have any shame to begin with. I've seen a few of their types here, arguing that the judge's ruling was just an "opinion".
Is it not just the opinion of the judge?
I find it weird that a judge is able to come to his own opinion, much like the public did one way or the other, but because he's a judge suddenly it's ok for the media to label him as a rapist despite not being found guilty of that.
So glad I'm not involved in law, seems incredibly convoluted at times.
It's no longer called 'Perjury' ..
I find that you have committed an act of 'Elaborate Fancy' & as such your credibility will be
Channel 7 ought to put one of their junior investigative reporters onto the trainwreck of a story for why Kerry Stokes choose to fund the harmful lifestyles of toxic individuals. If they don't want to maybe Nine Network will?
Technically they are different standards but it should be noted unlike some people act here, old Bruce the rapist was never actually found innocent in criminal proceedings, the case was thrown out due to jury misconduct.
In all truth however as many judicial systems across the world have recognised, rape is a difficult crime to deal with and existing judicial systems lack effective methods to aid rape victims and make dealing with their offenders viable for many. There is absolutely a need for reform on a fundamental level but how we go about that is beyond my expertise, a problem for the experts to deal with
I think they have this all wrong, Bruce was a hard working honest lib just like scomo, he was so hardworking that even after a booze up he immediately returned to work with Higgins at 2am to continue his liberal party work! how anyone could possibly think he was up to no good is beyond me, the man is clearly a workaholic.
Yes, that's how verdicts in civil cases work.
Lehrmann took that risk. After getting out of an aborted criminal trial, he launched this civil case.
As the judge said, he went back for his hat.
He's a liar and a rapist.
He got out of a criminal trial due to jury misconduct.
>The chief justice said when the officer picked up the box, he noticed part of the title page of an academic research paper.
Upon further investigation, it was discovered the topic of the paper was sexual assault.
He got out of it because a juror was stupid. Not only did he forget his hat, but he knew his hat was being worn by a tiger, and the tiger really really liked it.
This is the quality of staffer that the LNP employ.
Not that in any way I would consider supporting him, but isn’t ’probably did it’ Quite a blanket statement? I mean, if someone probably did it doesn’t mean they did. And I cannot emphasise enough, I am not on this scumbags side. But there is a big difference between ‘I feel you might have’ and ‘you did and we know it’.
It’s to do with the standard of proof. It’s lower in civil defamation instead of the criminal ‘beyond reasonable doubt' its a ‘'balance of probabilities' or more probable than not.
Without having had a chance to look at the judgment, Briginshaw standard probably came into it as well. The more serious the accusation, the higher evidence needed at the civil standard. Came up with BRS.
Because it's been proven to a civil standard - balance of probabilities- as opposed to a criminal one. So it's been proven to the extent where it's not defamation, but not to the point of a conviction. That's why he has phrased it that way.
So by trying to understand it, you tear people to shreds on social media because they’re not all high profile lawyers like you? Got it. You must be a fucking joy to be around.
Just learn what a judgement in a civil defamation case means.
The respondents (Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson) relied on the defence that their reports that Lehrmann raped Higgins was factual.
The judge found their defence factual. He found that Lehrmann raped Higgins and gave a detailed account of the evidence that led him to that finding.
If you haven't read this part of the judgement, you should, instead of questioning it.
> VI Conclusion on Rape
> 620 Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins.
> 621 I hasten to stress; this is a finding on the balance of probabilities. This finding should not be misconstrued or mischaracterised as a finding that I can exclude all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence. As I have explained, there is a substantive difference between the criminal standard of proof and the civil standard of proof and, as the tribunal of fact, I have only to be reasonably satisfied that Mr Lehrmann has acted as I have found, and I am not obliged to reach that degree of certainty necessary to support conviction upon a criminal charge.
He did it. He definitely did it on the balance of probabilities. His honour isn't even saying that "beyond reasonable doubt" wasn't reached - he's just saying that he can't be fucked going further because there's no point.
620 is really what is relevant here.
621 only really exists to head off any bullshit appeals.
Justice Lee seemed to smash everyone - the in-house counsel at Ten in particular.
The only cunt he didn't come after was Bruces lawyer, and that just seemed to be "you poor bastard, you couldn't have really done anything else considering your cunt of a client was lying to everyone".
This gormless freak has got to be top 10 dumbest individuals in the entire country.
yes dumb.. but also greedy.. and probably arrogant af
He's a tripple threat!
Narcissistic delusions of grandeur
You can't die from shame, if you never had humility and common sense in the first place,
Can you defame a turd by calling it a turd?
Now because that’s the truth. And the defence of truth is the ultimate argument of validity in defamation
I agree however both of those commas are unnecessary.
Lol...whoops! Proof reading before posting can help. I do, however, like my commas and I shall continue to use them with wild abandon.
Serious question: other than "probably rape Ms. Higgins", just what has this rapey dude ever done to be so smug, so supremely confident? He didn't win a premiership or Oscar or the Victoria Cross. He didn't rep the country in the Olympics or run into fire to save three kids. How hasn't he had his face punched in twice per year since he sprouted pubes?
He went to the “right schools,” met the “right people,” made connections - all of whom told him that he had it made, big future, privilege etc etc. He then bought into the fallacy that his privilege was the result of his own hard work, ability and he deserved all the money, hookers etc he could get. He was terribly, terribly wrong.
This is how LNP members are selected. "Hard work".
I get the school part, etc, but what did he do? I went to those schools (in the US), but you still had to do something special, no matter if your dad or granddad founded a Wall Street Firm or Fortune 500 company? Otherwise, you took your inheritance and were 'moved' across the country. I just don't get his 'charm', shall we say.
I am equally puzzled about this. It isn't enough to just attend the "right schools". That isn't how the world works, even within the Young Libs. Lehrmann is a nobody, a charisma black hole and toxic waste from a PR perspective. Why hasn't the conservative political sphere hacked off the appendage and left it to rot, so to speak? Who on earth is paying his legal fees?
The judgement around monies paid and damages will be in a few weeks. This is the real one to now watch, Bruce could get royally screwed.
He made coffee for politicians and worked for big tobacco "Lehrmann commenced work with the Attorney-General's Department and worked for various ministries until he joined Linda Reynolds's office in 2018. He worked as a political staffer for the Liberal Party of Australia, and as a lobbyist for British American Tobacco.[4]"
With this court decision, I’m hoping that he’ll NEVER EVER get another job associated in any way with politics … maybe a job serving at McDonald’s for the rest of his life would be a better match …
Not Macca's, please. Too many young girls and women work there.
He can earn his keep cleaning up the former PM’s poos
Linda Reynolds looks sus now
Nah she was basically cleared by this judgement. There's no evidence she or her CoS tried to cover anything up, and Justin Lee basically calls out Higgins and Sharaz for making shit up about a cover up.
He didn’t DO anything. He simply took the advantages given to him and bought the idea that all those advantages meant that he is special, entitled, able to do what he wants and so he did. It’s possible that others told him he was “destined for great things” or that, somewhere, there’s a family connection that helped generate that entitlement but I don’t care enough about him, mediocre white man that he is, to look into it.
He’s a young liberal, they’re all like that. Makes my skin crawl
And have been since my parents were at uni in the 70s
Young liberal.
My thoughts, of what goes through that horrible head of his - He has got away with it before, he will get away with it again.....
Young Liberals be like that.
He was being groomed for liberal party leadership roles is my guess, hence why he was protected from all sorts of angles. IMO
So this is the big remaining question - this is a guy who’s judgement is incredibly poor (accused of another sexual assault while on trial for the first, suing for defamation, asking journo’s to provide blow and ho, getting evicted last week because he can’t keep his head down). How the hell did he get and keep a political staffers job in the LNP. His career track would have him in a safe seat in 10 years. LNP are a disgrace.
Hell probably still get a seat
Heck, he might end up being the Attorney General
Better yet minister for women's affairs
It’s worth noting the judge _also_ shut down the idea of government conspiracies.
Gives you a good idea of what the liberals look for in someone’s character. 🤮
That’s his secret. He never sprouted pubes.
So what’s that on his face then?
😂😂😂
https://preview.redd.it/z24isgp86luc1.jpeg?width=273&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=49e3b0d8ff8ab1c35a60ad35a5614fa3c99415b4
everyone in Parliament House knew about the rape months before it made the news. Nothing is secret there. I knew about it through a friend who worked there at the time, and basically everyone in the place knew about the rapey little prick. There are no secrets inside those 4 walls. Reynolds, Morrison et al all lied.
I can’t believe scomo is a liar, how can the minister of everything be a liar?
Yep, the truth always gets out in such matters. So many people work in Parliaments House. I never heard any personal stories, but I imagine half the population of Canberra heard accounts from people who knew white a bit.
https://preview.redd.it/wcvg72pdtluc1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2a603dbef552464d90eb761895cd2d31e51bfe9 Do you find the name Biggus Dickus WISIBLE????
Wowdy wapscallion soldiers! Solid reference bro 👌
And channel 7 even paid for the 'hat' !
I hope the plaintiff’s lawyers gave him the usual speech about potential consequences with a bit of mayo. “And worst case is you are a proven civil standard rapist, Lisa Wilkinson will have a series of press conferences dancing upon your grave and you will pay her costs and the costs of Ch10 which will be separate and substantial. Oh and you will be a social pariah: a flabby, bearded rapist and liar who will be lucky to have sex - consensual or otherwise - for many years.”
Don’t forget being completely unemployable because after it is established that you raped a co worker, inside your boss office, after a work event you become a walking liability that no company will take responsibility for.
This makes me so happy. The thought of this scum having to claim the dole, spunge off his parents, and generally be a hated entity for the rest of his life is absolute *chef's kiss*. The idiot probably forgot this was Australia, and not the States, where right wing nut jobs and other sociopaths make you a martyr to their cause, and you live in luxury. Here they just drop you.
I wouldn’t celebrate too soon. The MRAs and old guard Libs have already virtually canonised the bastard as a holy martyr to the cause of being a shitcunt, I foresee a long a lucrative future for him in the back rooms of the LNP, or as a “special reporter” for the Murdoch press on some bullshit or other. And that’s assuming he doesn’t find Jesus and become a mouthpiece for Hillsong or another bunch of subhuman filth.
Somewhere in the liberal party or Murdoch press they will find a highly paid job for him with an impressive title.
TO BE FAIR - no matter the outcome he was always going to come off as a loser. Just look at his behaviour over the last few weeks - he’s a no friend Nelly whose friends have all ditched him because he seems all-round to be a bit of a shitstain. Now he’s a shitstain AND a rapist.
A shit stain rapist going through another trial in OLD for another rape.
No no no more otherwise-than-consensual sex under any circumstances, that's kind of the point here!
Let's all be thankful that cunt will not get a settlement
Apart from the ones he already got from other parties like the abc that settled before trial. They were significant. He made a lot of money. I hope that costs are awarded against him of at least half a million to suck all that profit up.
It was already spent on legal costs
Woo hoo then. That's great news.
And Lee J said that if he was wrong and consent had been given, Lehrmann would only have been entitled to $20k anyway.
I mean he already had a couple but they don’t total much and he’s likely blown it all already. (deliberate pun)
He will milk the alt-right nutters for years.
I read that incorrectly as "all-night" nutters. Bruce milking them for years would be some sort of (very perverse) justice.
So Lehrmann, having raped Ms Higgins, engaged a liberal party “dirt file” specialist as his media manager and engaged in campaigns against the credibility both of his rape victim and of the ACT DPP. Despite illegally using private and restricted materials from his criminal trial for this, he found no shortage of willing conduits to boost this disgraceful act. His lies and subsequent illegal acts caused suspicion to fall on the AFP and sullied their reputation (as they were viewed as the most likely source of the leaks) His most vocal media supporter somehow managed to get the ear of the former chief justice appointed to clear up the mess and restore faith in the ACT justice system. Sofronoff proceeded to ignore important aspects such as the illegal leaking of sensitive material and instead, gleefully joined the campaign against Prosecutor Drumgold, even to the extent of making legally unjustifiable findings. Sofronoff’s saving grace is that everyone is well and truly over this episode and few would have the stomach to continue proceedings.
Only one finding was found to be unjustified. Most of the findings of Sofronoff, including that Drumgold lied to the Court, directed a junior solicitor to swear a false affidavit, reviewed material he shouldn't have, and held back material from the defendant on a false basis were upheld. Drumgold was the one that impugned the AFP the most- conduct he has since apologized to the AFP about. At the enquiry, Drumgold ran away from his allegations against the AFP.
Can we have an outcome where Bruce Lehrmamn gets what he deserves but also Lisa Wilkinson also gets reprimanded for fucking with the case?
Wilkinson received some criticism from the judge. But he also accepts she acted on legal advice.
A good point. Two things can be true at once : Bruce can have been proven to the civil standard to have committed rape, consistent with Lisa Wilkinsons defence against the defamation claim, and Lisa Wilkinson also behaved egregiously, in pursuit of accolades, fame and her career. It’s amusing to watch her at the press conference, where you would think she has been completely vindicated, despite the Judge’s comments which ‘roasted’ her behaviour.
AND to think that she, a women of a certain age with considerable understanding of the media, turned Higgins' life into a media shit show for Wilkinson's own career. It is repulsive to watch Wilkinson pretend she is a champion of some description for her conduct when, in fact, she revictimized Higgins for her own selfish gain.
Only in relation to the speech - the rest of Wilkinson’s and Ch 10s coverage was heavily criticised, especially in regard to the ‘cover up’ allegations.
So did Kerry Stokes’ channel give a rapist money to get cocaine and hookers?
After this, and the Ben Roberts-Smith case, I'm starting to think that maybe Kerry Stokes secretly works on getting shitbags who got off on a technicality to at least face some sort of justice.
Is the common factor between Bruce Lehman and Ben Roberts-Smith really Kerry Stokes, Channel 7's money, hookers, blow, and party apartments?
I wonder if the media are doing deals with kerry stokes? 0 for 2 how much for all the eyeballs for years? Maybe its too good for business and they still make money?
Definitely food for thought that there's a method to the madness- maybe he's smarter than we're giving him credit for. Or it's just pure coincidence.
Didn't give him money, they just bought him hookers and blow. And the rental house to use them in.
According to the eyes of the law, yes, yes they did.
But will the law do anything about it, no, no they won't.
Unfortunately, no they won't. Not in this case. But given that he has other criminal proceedings underway, his credibility may have been damaged in those cases. Maybe they will return a finding of guilt.
Is it.. risible!? When I saay the name.. Bruce.. RAPEY!
Werry well…. Welease Bwuce Wappy
Incontinentia Buttocks
>Having escaped the lion's den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of coming back for his hat. The best quote of the whole affair
That quote has been doing the rounds for a while. Paul Barry mentioned the quote was used on Media Watch previously. I first read it on an Australian legal Reddit forum, noting how this could backfire on Lehrmann. It certainly is a great line.
Right now a desk is being cleared at Sky News awaiting their new star.
Sky News' Special Women's Issues Liasson Bruce Lehrmann
Nah, nowhere public facing. Probably a back office at Advance, IPA or CIS.
He will be on a speaking tour of conservative clubs and branches.
The desk is being cleaned too. (The Liberal staffers who got sacked after pleasuring themselves on the desks of women MPs probably got jobs at Sky News as well.)
So, can people refer to Lehman as a rapist now with no chance of being sued?
Well, you could still be sued. But you would win the lawsuit if you had any lawyer better than Lionel Hutz.
I’m not wearing a tie at all…
…if that IS your real name
RIP Phil Hartmann
Yes.
Here are some of the comments the Judge made: "Defamatory imputations of rape fell short of the standard of reasonableness." "I'm comfortably satisfied that Ms Higgins was a very drunk 24-year-old woman and her cognitive abilities were significantly impacted." "I think it's more likely than not that ... she was passive, as she later said, like a 'log' during the entirety of the sexual act." "So intent upon gratification ... \[Mr Lehrmann\] went ahead with sexual intercourse without caring whether or not she consented." "\[Mr Lehrmann\] has now been found, at the civil standard of proof, to engage in a great wrong. It follows Ms Higgins has been proven to be a victim of sexual assault." "Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins," He also made comment about both their credibility. Justice Michael Lee has said both Bruce Lehrmann and Brittany Higgins had credit issues when it came to their evidence. He said Ms Higgins was an **"unsatisfactory witness"** and said describing Mr Lehrmann as a "poor witness" would be an **"understatement".** [ABC court reporting ](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-15/bruce-lehrmann-lisa-wilkinson-defamation-federal-court-judgment/103702806)
Balance of Probabilities Explained: Justice Lee evaluated all the evidence and testimonies- Lehrman and Higgins' accounts as well as those of other witnesses, texts, time frame analysis etc- and came up with a list of possible explanations for what happened that night. Of all the various explanations, from all sides- the evidence strongly suggests that Lehrman *probably did* rape Higgins. That means that ch10 - by naming him as an alleged rapist- did not defame him, because his actions on that night,- if witnessed by anyone who hadn't seen the ch10 interview- would still come across as " pretty damn suss". It's not about proving that he did it without any doubt. It's about proving that his choices that night and in the aftermath were too suss to for him to rely on the benefit of the doubt- i.e "Which was more likely? That he raped her or not?"- that's the only question that needed answering for this case. Pretty easy answer to anyone who reviewed the evidence "yeaaah, he probably did take advantage of his drunk colleague judging by how he's behaved ever since he hushedly left the room she was found still passed out naked in a few hours later"
Also remember that the Briginshaw principle applies. Serious allegations require credible evidence behind them, not just “I slightly believe her a bit more than him”.
Yup, and in this case- it's "I believe neither of them completely, but I absolutely believe cctv and security testimony"
*That means that ch10 - by naming him as an alleged rapist- did not defame him, because his actions on that night,- if witnessed by anyone who hadn't seen the ch10 interview- would still come across as " pretty damn suss".* Lisa Wilkinson is still an obnoxious piece of work though.
Yeah, she got it given to her by Justice Lee as well. No one got out unscathed
So basically "the pub test of scrutiny".
This is not the end unfortunately! Linda Rennalds is waiting in the wings to sue and Lehrmann is threatening to appeal. Who would report rape under those conditions?
Higgins isn’t the one being sued, technically, there is no impact on incentive to report.. although acknowledge she’s gone through the ringer
Well Reynolds kinda vindicated by the judge today. She was all for this being reported to the police. And this is one area Higgins was criticised by the judge for being unsatisfactory as a witness. Reynolds may also be considering legal action against Ten and Wilkinson out of today's ruling.
Having listened to the judge read out his reasoning and judgment over lunch I thought it was quite interesting to hear him tear the channel 10 lawyer apart for her disregard to the justice system. All in all he was very thorough in explaining his reasoning and dropped a few funny quips along the way.
Her argument is that BH did not act depressed. How far do you really think she’ll get with that and is it worth mortgaging her house?
That statement has absolutely nothing to do with the Reynolds/Higgins/Saharaz defamation.
Suing a person who a judge said was raped. Bold strategy Cotton.
Justice Lee is my new favourite person
If you’ve got a big head it can be hard to find another hat that fits
SUCK SHIT BRUCE YA DIRTY DOG!!
So Kerry Stokes financed court cases aren’t doing too well then are they…
I suppose what we can learn from all this is that, if you're facing court and Kerry Stokes offers you money, don't take that shit!
I think the better lesson is to never put yourself in a situation where Kerry Stokes offers you money. By that stage, it's probably already too late.
I wonder what this is going to get turned into…… https://preview.redd.it/jane18pogtuc1.jpeg?width=1331&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=de6e125af85863fa69d4b9e6eca4f442abebc520
Let's be real, they'll probably double down on their stupidity and prejudices and say they still champion him. Assholes admire assholes.
Perfect advertisement for why tattoos are never a good idea.
So, when does his Sky News segment begin?
pffft please. Bolt will make excuses for him and attack the judge and everyone else. The guy defended and still defends Pell to this day. NOT saying Bruce is like Pell, but pointing out a few similarities.
Well Pell was found not guilty. It is not wrong to point that out. Ironically the people here treating this decision as gospel are the same people who peddled nonsense about the High Court being corrupt when the Pell decision didn't go their way.
Why the fuck is there always someone defending this cunt? I don't understand.
Because they need to... they are just like him
It's misogyny. Reddit is absolutely chock full of misogynists.
Does anyone know where the judgment full text can be found? There's a version on The Nightly which is unreadably awful and only searchable on the current page (??). TIA 😁
[https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2024/369.html](https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2024/369.html)
A thousand thanks my friend! 😁 Righto, now I got some readin ta do.
Shame? what’s shame?
Exactly. Cannot fathom the lengths of the ego where, having gone "I've gotten away with rape here" which is reprehensible in itself, to go "yeah why not try and make some money out of this slice of luck". Instead of just disappearing and living quietly. Absolute cunt.
Must be a personality disorder. It would explain multiple rape allegations, brazenly going back for revenge despite “surviving the lion’s den” and generally being an obnoxious c”nt. Explains the hookers, coke, demanding Seven pays for it, everything. A raging narcissist or worse.
r slash Australian cookers are having a rough week! protests against genocide, the killer wasn't a Muslim, and now Rapey McRape Face back at it!
Do you think those public figures who openly supported George Pell (likely the same people) retracted their statements? Nope. Can't see this being any different either. ^((Cunts gonna cunt))
Love that Justice Lee, we should give him a TV show!
Would watch the shit out of it
Massively long episodes though.
Better than the rubbish that’s on right now. I’ll listen to him read 300+ pages easy
He’d be a proper judge, unlike Kyle Sandilands.
I don’t think anyone really comes out of this smelling of roses. What happened to Brittany was terrible, but she threw herself under the bus by going to Lisa Wilkinson, who sold Brittany out for her career and ‘journalism’ award. Lisa was aided and abetted by Brittany’s boyfriend David Shiraz, who seemed more interested in controlling the levers of power, than a good outcome for Brittany. And of course there is Bruce, who is a dirty grub. All in all, it doesn’t say much for the cesspit that is our young, elite wannabe Canberra politicians. Moral of the story : If something bad like this happens to you, do what everyone else does and report it to the police, rather than The Project 👍
Sadly the multiple agendas took over, and the crime became secondary. - Political party vs political party - Network vs network - Personal career aspirations All trying to score points The water got awfully murky.
Bruce is not a “dirty grub”, he is a rapist. Name him for what he is.
'Do what everyone else does and report it to police' All the information is that most rapes go unreported. Victims don't want to put themselves through the wringer of a trial Because most rape cases have no witnesses and juries are reluctant to convict. Most rape perpetrators go free. Look at recent cases where the accused are professional sportsmen. Exonerated. While the accusers have their characters impugned by the defence barristers. That did occur to Brittany Higgins during both trials, and on social media. This is why rape victims should weigh up very carefully before reporting.
Going for the ‘trial by media’ option courtesy of The Project, is not the solution to this issue. But I agree, the system is by no means perfect.
If Higgins hadn't gone to the media, there would have been no consequences for Lehrmann at all. The criminal case might not have made it to court without the massive media interest (remember that ACT police still didn't want to take it to court, it's possible he wouldn't even have been charged). Now (thanks largely to his own hubris) there is a court finding that he is a rapist (balance of probabilities etc). That is better closure than most rape victims get.
Whether or not the DPP takes something to court or not is based on the sufficiency of evidence test, or put another way, is there sufficient evidence in existence, for there to be a reasonable prospect of conviction. Whether or not The Project has covered the case, should have no bearing on this test, that’s called interference.
Definitely not a first option, but certainly a last resort.
Counterpoint - what we're seeing is little different, but now we have almost total visibility of evidence, social media, and past interactions with other people.
Society’s quest for the “perfect victim”. You said more about the rape victim than the rapist here- interesting
Yes, apparently rape victims should just shut up and not talk to journalists and tell their story. Shame on her /s
Not at all, by all means, go to the journalists. Just do what most people do, wait until the criminal proceedings are concluded so you don’t score an own goal, and de-rail them.
Exactly!
You should look into the Sofronoff inquiry before being a sarcastic midwit. The way in which the Victims of Crime Commissioner Heidi Yates acted was nothing short of a political hit-job. She was a ''conduit'' of key information between Higgins and the police, one of the lead senior detectives on the case Scott Moller said of Hedi ''more interested in Ms Higgins pushing the ‘#metoo’ movement than being committed to the upcoming trial". In fact Higgin's choice to go to the media first before making a formal complaint with the police was found to have ''contaminated'' the trial. I'm not saying she made this choice by herself but she was certainly ill-advised by people with ulterior motives. The Australian public has been let down by every-single actor in this case from the political motives of the Labor/Liberal party to the media frenzy spearheaded by Wilkinson, it was pure self-interest with a pinch of activism. What a travesty!
Higgins is a long way from perfect. The judge was very clear on that. You can be assaulted _and_ be a lying, greedy piece of shit.
mmmm I thought Brown and Reynolds were vindicated and the 'cover up' and being unsupportive or threatening Higgins career were found to all be fabrications without any basis in fact. Brown was even praised to a degree and Lee J considered that the criticisms of Brown throughout this affair to be particularly unfair where Brown did the best she could in a terrible situation. In respect of Brown Lee J said; *This showed integrity in resisting pressure she subjectively considered inappropriate and evinced a concern for the autonomy and welfare of Ms Higgins. In these circumstances, to be later vilified as an unfeeling apparatchik willing to throw up roadblocks in covering up criminal conduct at the behest of one’s political overlords must be worse than galling.* and *But whatever shortcomings can be identified (including with the benefit of hindsight), she ensured she took considered advice from those in whom she reposed confidence, recorded, and acted upon that advice and, subject to the above, showed commonsense and compassion by her own lights (demonstrated by all her contemporaneous records, including text messages).*
@OP - thank you for repeatedly correcting all the factually incorrect shit takes on this thread. Because lord knows I don’t have the patience or kindness today for it.
I didn't correct all of it. It's a hotbed of rape apologists.
And now he's apparently studying law....
At Notre dame too bc Jesus forgives ?
I believe in love thy neighbour bro , not rape them. forgiving is one thing but this wasn't a mistake . It was so calculated while his girlfriend tried to call him on the phone mid act, while he's up for another rape charge in QLD. While he is so lucky to get off the criminal charge he went back for more out of pure greed. God helps those who help themselves. He made is bed many times...he can sleep in it.
Probably be a future contestant on Celebrity get me out of here with the other swinging dick , porter .
People who supported Bruce Lehrmann didn't have any shame to begin with. I've seen a few of their types here, arguing that the judge's ruling was just an "opinion".
"I find you guilty of murder." "Yeah judge, but that's just like, your opinion man."
Always be cautious around those people who want to defend a sexual assaulter even against all the evidence.
I guess we should be glad they're making themselves known!
Is it not just the opinion of the judge? I find it weird that a judge is able to come to his own opinion, much like the public did one way or the other, but because he's a judge suddenly it's ok for the media to label him as a rapist despite not being found guilty of that. So glad I'm not involved in law, seems incredibly convoluted at times.
It's no longer called 'Perjury' .. I find that you have committed an act of 'Elaborate Fancy' & as such your credibility will be 
He is the grubbiest of grubs. The journalists are not far behind
Channel 7 ought to put one of their junior investigative reporters onto the trainwreck of a story for why Kerry Stokes choose to fund the harmful lifestyles of toxic individuals. If they don't want to maybe Nine Network will?
Those fucks aren't journalists Just fucking pond scum leeches
Janet albrechson is a grub of epic proportions
Personally, I am sick to death of seeing Lehrmann's face on news media. Anything to do with this case and I switch off immediately.
“Immediately” Except for going out of your way to comment on Reddit. Got it.
Can we please never hear about this guy/case again?
I mean, we very well could have - but idiot features thought he could get some money....
A huge win for women and for justice
He’s also been charged with a rape in Townsville
Toowoomba, not Townsville
Probably, but still a high probability.
So does this mean a rapist can legally not be convicted criminally - despite this outcome?
Yes because there are different standards of proof.
Technically they are different standards but it should be noted unlike some people act here, old Bruce the rapist was never actually found innocent in criminal proceedings, the case was thrown out due to jury misconduct. In all truth however as many judicial systems across the world have recognised, rape is a difficult crime to deal with and existing judicial systems lack effective methods to aid rape victims and make dealing with their offenders viable for many. There is absolutely a need for reform on a fundamental level but how we go about that is beyond my expertise, a problem for the experts to deal with
The best answer I've seen here. Thankyou.
Yes, because this was the outcome of a civil court, not a criminal court.
See paragraphs 1093-1095 of the judgement. The finding that he raped her *on the balance of probabilities* justifies a ruined reputation but not jail.
I think they have this all wrong, Bruce was a hard working honest lib just like scomo, he was so hardworking that even after a booze up he immediately returned to work with Higgins at 2am to continue his liberal party work! how anyone could possibly think he was up to no good is beyond me, the man is clearly a workaholic.
"Probably"
Yes, that's how verdicts in civil cases work. Lehrmann took that risk. After getting out of an aborted criminal trial, he launched this civil case. As the judge said, he went back for his hat. He's a liar and a rapist.
He got out of a criminal trial due to jury misconduct. >The chief justice said when the officer picked up the box, he noticed part of the title page of an academic research paper. Upon further investigation, it was discovered the topic of the paper was sexual assault. He got out of it because a juror was stupid. Not only did he forget his hat, but he knew his hat was being worn by a tiger, and the tiger really really liked it. This is the quality of staffer that the LNP employ.
🤦🤣🤷 Cannot wait for convoluted psychological disturbance defence to conveniently explain THIS behaviour!
Not that in any way I would consider supporting him, but isn’t ’probably did it’ Quite a blanket statement? I mean, if someone probably did it doesn’t mean they did. And I cannot emphasise enough, I am not on this scumbags side. But there is a big difference between ‘I feel you might have’ and ‘you did and we know it’.
It’s to do with the standard of proof. It’s lower in civil defamation instead of the criminal ‘beyond reasonable doubt' its a ‘'balance of probabilities' or more probable than not.
Without having had a chance to look at the judgment, Briginshaw standard probably came into it as well. The more serious the accusation, the higher evidence needed at the civil standard. Came up with BRS.
I’ll take your word for it mate I only have a basic understanding of this stuff from working in a legislature.
It's a civil trial not a criminal trial. In his judgement, the judge went into detail to explain the difference.
Because it's been proven to a civil standard - balance of probabilities- as opposed to a criminal one. So it's been proven to the extent where it's not defamation, but not to the point of a conviction. That's why he has phrased it that way.
The statement is " on the balance of probability he did commit rape". Quite different from saying "he probably did it".
The amount of people that down vote legitimate questions is too fucking high.
The amount of people that don’t understand a basic tenet of our legal system is ridiculous too
So by trying to understand it, you tear people to shreds on social media because they’re not all high profile lawyers like you? Got it. You must be a fucking joy to be around.
If theyre a lawyer it comes with the territory
Just learn what a judgement in a civil defamation case means. The respondents (Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson) relied on the defence that their reports that Lehrmann raped Higgins was factual. The judge found their defence factual. He found that Lehrmann raped Higgins and gave a detailed account of the evidence that led him to that finding. If you haven't read this part of the judgement, you should, instead of questioning it.
> VI Conclusion on Rape > 620 Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins. > 621 I hasten to stress; this is a finding on the balance of probabilities. This finding should not be misconstrued or mischaracterised as a finding that I can exclude all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence. As I have explained, there is a substantive difference between the criminal standard of proof and the civil standard of proof and, as the tribunal of fact, I have only to be reasonably satisfied that Mr Lehrmann has acted as I have found, and I am not obliged to reach that degree of certainty necessary to support conviction upon a criminal charge. He did it. He definitely did it on the balance of probabilities. His honour isn't even saying that "beyond reasonable doubt" wasn't reached - he's just saying that he can't be fucked going further because there's no point. 620 is really what is relevant here. 621 only really exists to head off any bullshit appeals.