The Lehrmann verdict – your say

Judging by published comments, the public largely rejects Justice Lee’s judgement that on the balance of probabilities Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins on Senator Reynolds’ Ministerial couch. We publish a selection to demonstrate. 

Comments on
Just because the civil standard of proof only requires that a fact is shown to be more likely than not, evidence is still required and that evidence has to be more than a mere assertion. Justice Lee has, whether he accepts the criticism or not, stretched his mind to indulge in pure theories of what did or didn’t happen between these two people. He was presented with nothing more than Higgins’ uncorroborated assertion. The rest was his own, very unjustified, and less than professional , speculation.
Don Wakeling

In my humble opinion, Justice Lee’s verdict was an opinion and nothing more .

Civil case or not , there was no evidence of consent or refusal, there was no evidence of intercourse , in fact when she picked up her shoes and ran down the hall without struggling or faltering there was no evidence that she was SO!!! drunk or that in the passage of time , she consumed sufficient alcohol to change her status from that which we saw in the hallway.

To me the decision was pure expression of the judges own prejudices and desire to appear on the side of the allegedly wronged in spite of the complete absence of any forensic fact. The verdict preamble was to say the least , inconsistent and in a way worthless as in the end it came down to …. I think he did something without consent !

I believe even a Jury of reasonably well educated people would not remember what was said at the beginning of his summation or in the middle or even close to the end ! All they would have absorbed would have been his final words …. “I believe Mr LUHRMANN raped…” To me nothing he said in his assessment of events unearthed what by reasonable thinking would have been sufficient to say any more than THERE IS NO FINDING POSSIBLE.

I believe that further investigation is required here and I am not fully satisfied with The Judges comments on the rape allergation. It feel its just a judgement made to align with the current narrative. Whether it is true is false is for CRIMINAL trial to decide. Alot of questions are still left unanswered on Higgins behaviour on the truth. Why didn’t she just go to the police, and what is not being given as transparent truth is just not resonating with me. This did not follow the Legal System policies and I believe is not beyond reasonable doubt. I will not be satisfied by this until a criminal trial process happens.

Comments on The Spectator Australia*
I think you’re on the money Peter. Lee’s judgment is careful and learned, and I tend to agree that there is a difference between Higgins’ lies in 2019 and 2021 ( the latter being egregious, indeed poisonous and aimed at serious harm of the reputations of women who had behaved impeccably). Further, if Higgins were otherwise an ordinary honest person, I would agree with Lee that her lies in 2019 would not prevent me believing her evidence. It’s the scale or extent of her lies in 2021 that lead me to find it impossible to place any reliance on her evidence. I am left with the objective facts of 2 young, immature people, both likely very inebriated, and both keen on each other at that time, and both going back as a couple probably to drink whisky and probably to be sexually intimate to some degree. What happened thereafter is pure speculation and multiple scenarios are all equally possible. In particular, to be satisfied that Lehrmann had the necessary mental element to establish rape seems an impossible stretch.
Michael Waugh

I cant disagree more with Justice Lee. He has come out of this looking saintly when everybody else is incompetent liar. I think his ruling is just laughable. He is great at using obscure adjectives but he has failed to his basic job and look at the proof! The entire decision based on Higgins and Media publically reporting either the truth or just accusations. He has not judged on whether or not Lehrman was defamed or not because he found the accusations were true. Maybe he did not want to. The rest of his “learned and carful” judgment is just personal criticism, we could have got from goggle box. He has found a rape occurred because the man acted sleezy. The fact that Lehrman took her back to THE OFFICE (1) meant to have sex with her, and maybe he did, but this proves only that he is an idiot.

This is George Pell all over again.
It feels like he did it so he must have. Lee is just as bad as everyone else that has anything to do with this, the blatant incompetency of our so called best and brightest just rolls on. I wouldn’t trust Lee to umpire a tiddly winks game. I didn’t give a stuff for Lehrman to win but to dismiss his case based on what each side say happened WTF is the evidence. Despite a lower level of certainty required in civil case there is no evidence, no forensics no medical no witness no confession not even any police doggedness.
Dean Cashin

… there was no medical examination to prove intercourse consensual or not. This is just a farce; FARCE
Owen Allen

What if Lehrmann didn’t do it at all?

*In response to an article by Peter O’Brien analysing Justice Lee’s judgement.

(1) Lehrmann didn’t ask Higgins to go “back to THE OFFICE” with him but gave her a lift going in the same direction, he to Parliament, she to her flat.

Footnote 1: The Australian carried many stories about the case, notably by Janet Albrechtsen and Stephen Rice but comments were always disabled.

Footnote 2: In my opinion, this judgement has further undermined the public confidence in the courts, in the same way wrongful convictions always do. The cumulative effect is now evident in remarks like the ones above.

This entry was posted in Case 18 Bruce Lehrmann. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to The Lehrmann verdict – your say

  1. Jerry says:

    Owen Allen could use Andrews help with his travel guide. We open with the scene-Orange V Rod parks with the usual clatter of poor engineering. Beer gutted rider quaffs three of the famous Harry’s Cafe de Wheels pies and peas. Parramatta bin chickens fight with the pigeons for the crumbs . A rusty black 74 Fairlane clatters and bounces to a ball joint rattling stop . Pigeons scatter. The old mates head off for the north travelling together trailing oil smoke, with repair tools for the inevitable breakdown contingency . The police keeping track at a distance -reminiscent of the O J Simpson cavalcade. Heaven knows he had paid for the pies. Receipt in top pocket of his gravy and insect stained skivvy. Let’s not get paranoid ! The Road Traffic Strategical Command Devision – Mobile Police Northern Battalion are intrigued ! Never have they seen vehicles like these so far from a dealer. Meanwhile back in Canberra. Those with a modicum of brain cells are fully aware of the contrived shenanigans likely in any new Australian jury trial-Bruce Lehrmann. Don’t ever forget the past history of jury fooling forensics. Chamberlain / Sue Neil-Fraser/ Graham Stafford. It is well worth while reading, in detail, a full description of the Queensland Police, at the top level, having a second go at Graham Stafford with totally internationally proven fraudulent garbage forensics. The first lot of rubbish forensics got Graham 15 years in prison . Then was proven an innocent man. The description of Graham Stafford’s treatment in prison – the warders and their criminal mates – more shocking than if your daughter married a Protestant. The Queensland police outfit are fully responsible for this criminal outrage ! The Queensland police murder of Little Ray Bailey sticks on the gullet of all decent Australian citizens. Now they are treating us with this rot concerning Stacy Train ! Much more recently, some rubbish low brow media courts of wisdom have found Bruce Lehrmann guilty with no appeal responsibly possible. It should be pointed out – the media journalistic intelligentsia were a great help with the inquisition ! No appology for poor innocent Michael Chamberlain . You dirty little barstards!

  2. Don Wakeling says:

    I think I’ve found some clue to Justice Lee’s performance in this case. He was, or, is, a director of the Bell Shakespeare Company and the whole thing is A Comedy of Errors.

  3. Ann says:

    From the material on the Sofronoff Inquiry website; exhibits, including Dock/Parliament House CCTV vids on the Fed Court website; and testimony during trial, it appears some issues are still unresolved.

    The female security guard said BH was lying on the couch naked with her dress and shoes on the floor beside the couch, and that BH was facing the door. This contradicts BH who said her dress was scrunched up around her waist. In her marked up office diagram she has drawn herself facing the window.

    LG, NI and BH identified most of the Defence group at the The Dock. The men do not appear to have been questioned about whether French submarine or other defence matters were discussed. The women LG and NI were questioned and said discussion was only what was in the public domain. CCTV on the website shows some of the men conversed with BL, AW, LG and BH who were seated at separate small table for about 1.5 hours before joining the large table. There are also some other men who converse with BL, AW and LG late in the evening.

    S Whybrow’s closing submission included a video where a woman NI bought a number of rounds of drinks for the table late in the evening. This does not seem to be in videos on the Court website, however those vids do show other men engaging with BH – placing or offering her drinks towards the end of the evening.

    Payment of the drinks at The Dock, eg BL buying the 4 drinks as per the video Exhibit 17A Part 2 at about 930pm – that payment did not appear on either of his credit cards so whose credit card was used? AW said he would be unlikely to provide a credit card for use. Also at the bar BL and BH seem to be engaged in serious conversation, with BH doing most of the talking. BL does not appear to touch her although another man later puts his arm around her waist/engages in playful arm wrestle.

    Breach of security of classified document on Tues 19 March before Dock Hotel. It seems BL was not notified that a formal incident report had been lodged by his colleague CP. The following Tuesday, FB interviewed BL regarding the security breach with BH on the Friday night. BL said he was unable to take pen or paper into the meeting. FB’s affidavit also gives an indication of tensions in the office (BL had flags around his desk and had arranged for the relocation of the fridge to CP’s office which caused disquiet to staff). FB seemed to be aware that BL was interested in pursuing work with ASIO. LG also said BL had discussion at the Dock re applying for Security job – LG told a male colleague BL was an “idiot” for revealing this. However LG appears quite friendly to BL in Exhibit 17A vids on the website. LG also told police BH and BL were kissing on the couch at 88mph. BL remembered LG and AW touching each other at 88mph.

    The episode at the Kingston Hotel on 2 March 2019 when BH had informal job interview with female media officer but had to leave to go to night noodle market before she’d been able to talk to male staffers, and ensuing argument on gender matters. This seems to relate mostly to the other man JW not BL. That was the night BL said BH was good looking (?looked good/professional at reception desk?) which seemed to become “sexually attracted to” and “hellbent on having sex with”. BL was supposed to have taken BH’s phone to stop her from leaving. But JW did not recall BL taking BH’s phone and felt it would have been mentioned in meetings held at the time.

    In the days after the incident, a number of friends/colleagues eg BD, NI, CP (who was briefed by PH security personnel) either texted or spoke to BH about what had happened and seemed to have helped her to vocalise things. But some of the timing of these discussions in relation to BH’s disclosure “he was on top of me” to FB seems unclear.

    Not being able to put on strappy high heel shoes is said to be an indication that BH was highly intoxicated at PH. However it could be quite challenging for a sober person to put on strappy high heel shoes whilst they are standing up in a tight fitting dress (especially if there is a small buckle with a metal prong to go into a tiny hole in a strap), and if they are in a rush to catch up with other colleagues about to take a lift.

    • Jerry says:

      Ann. It is an interesting read and no criticism for that good work. The second paragraph with the female security guard statement as to how BH was found might be of only slight relevance as to consent. The rest of the read reminds one of the likely preamble from a prosecutor attempting to bamboozle a jury . Overload the jury with mountains of interesting but irrelevant chit-chat . Pompously pretending this stuff is worthy of consideration. Absolutely, nothing beyond reasonable doubt is revealed. A jury needs access to not proven. Especially where there should have been no trial at all. No proof – No verdict – we don’t bloody know – Not Proven!

  4. David Smith says:

    My Opinion – this result was to clear all Politicians – Public Servants – Media who now can cruicify any person charged with an offence before they go to court – There was No Evidence of Rape – No Rape – Complainant has Lied – Dress hidden under Bed for Six Weeks – then it is seen being worn a couple of weeks later – there goes any evidence – that is the end of the game but a Judge has made this decision on what – has a decision been provided to him – I don’t know but it really stinks – lets just Hang Lehrmann??? That is what they want – I hope he does not have to pay anyone anything. The poor bastard has been dragged through the Mud – all because of too many LIES by Protected Species.

  5. Jerry says:

    Woolloomooloo. Saturday night. After
    a good part of a 4 litre goonie of cheap
    Merlot-a saveloy horse doover and a Harry’s Cafe de Wheels pies and peas . Feeling good about the World. Except – them judges ! What’s with them ? Old kitchen mop on the scone. Then out comes the ludicrous lack of the logics . Every cockatoos got an opinion-yes. But the seeming lack of the peasant nouse ?

    • Owen Allen says:

      Harry’s Cafe at Parramatta, an orange Harley Davidson V Rod pulls into the carpark, the rider parks and sits down on seat and waits. A black Fairlane pulls into the carpark and parks, the driver walks over and sits down. No pies, no coffee, just talk, they look at the bike and then depart, the Fairlane following the V Rod.
      I was blantantly stalked by police on the drive back to northern NSW, it was comical yet I wasn’t stopped. I was in Parramatta at 10.00am and leaving Sydney at 3.00pm, after leaving the north at 10.00pm the night before after a days work. I was tailed until I got home, never sped, followed by a team of two, and watched by stationary Patrol Cars. I could have had a few kgs in the car, but I didn’t, and there might have been suspicion because I am a person of interest, but no suspicion to be involved in drugs, so they couldn’t do a random search. Harry’s Cafe, I must go back and enjoy the tucker, and yes I bought the V Rod and there is more to the story that day, Jerry. Owen.

  6. Owen Allen says:

    Thanks Andrew for supporting my view. I have been victim to mind breaking, soul destroying, and identity destroying corruption, not just Judiciary and Police in Tasmania, but the whole box and dice, which includes State Politicians, State Bureaucracy and Local Government. Nothing happened until we went to the Ombudsman whom we never knew of until,told,and we never hear of these days at all anywhere in politics. Do they still exist, what is their duty, does anybody, everybody know about the Ombudsman. But that was only Case Study One.

    • Jerry says:

      Went for a consultation with my state ombudsman. He – As did my parish priest, fainted ! Nobody can prove nothing . Justice does not necessarily prevail . Thank GOD for that ! Injustice often does. If they come after you, you’d better watch out ! Gloat over Victories . Fume over your defeats. But not for too long !

      • Owen Allen says:

        I read and reread, back and forth, over and over, people contribute later on, the site is active.
        So…….you wrote….. Nobody can prove nothing . Justice does not necessarily prevail . Thank GOD for that ! Injustice often does. ………I read that as blaming GOD. Well Justice Will Prevail, innocent people suffer and die, but Justice Will Prevail under GOD. Life is Eternal, ask Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel, but it is either Heaven or Hell, this is Universal Truth, the Gospel Truth, and Jesus rides a V-Rod, or Sportster, or Fatboy. JESUS LIVES and so does Elon Musk; Elon for Prime Minister of Australia.

        • Jerry says:

          Heard of Sarcastium? (villiage near Owen’s northern NSW Nimbin home). Drunk and in charge of a cow . How did Owen go on that one ? Not Proven? The only sensible verdict in the Bruce Lehrmann shemozzle. We are not saying an offence “didn’t happen”. We are saying we don’t know. The court is not finding anyone a liar. Flexible forensics are not available in this case, unfortunately! We would do Bruce over like a Sue Neil-Fraser or a Lindy Chamberlain. We would hang you like an innocent Ray Bailey. Give you 15 years like a Graham Stafford or 40 years for a Derek Bromley. I’m telling the jury to “piss off home.” muttered the judge to the sheriff. This stuff is crappe. And you, prosecutor – the judge shouted “don’t read that irrelevant,jury flummoxing rubbish in my court again”.
          I’ll slam you with contempt. Not Proven, is the finding. Talking of which-Jesus rides a Ducatti Panigale.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.