Said Marcellus ...

[old man emu]

Said Marcellus, "Something is rotten ..."

 

I have to confess to you that I have been sitting on some really critical information for the past year, but have not been able to disclose it to you due to a promise of confidentiality. But now things have transpired that release me from that promise.

 

Under our legal system it is the police who begin a criminal prosecution by "laying a charge" against a person. A person holding the Office of Constable, although operating under the umbrella of a government organisation, is an independent entity, ultimately answerable to the Monarch if it is unreasonable to prove the allegation in the charge. So you can be sure that a Constable will not lay a charge based on shaky information. Such was the situation in the Bruce Lehrmann/Brittany Higgins matter. In that matter it was the ACT Director of Public Prosecutors, Shane Drumgold, who pushed for the matter to be put before the Court.

 

Why? The opinion doing the rounds amongst Australia's legal fraternity is that Drumgold is a grub who pushed for the Trial to further his own career - perhaps as a route to the tailor's to exchange his black robe for the scarlet worn on the Bench.

 

The Defense response relied heavily on Higgin's failure to make the complaint until she was being asked by her boss, former defence minister Linda Reynolds, why Higgins had been in the building. Reynolds was conducting a simple administrative investigation relating to a possible security breach. A relatively trivial matter. That investigation took place several days after the alleged assault, and one gets the impression that the matter was low down on the Minister's To-Do list for the week. It would appear that the rape allegation was a childish attempt at squirming out of trouble. One must say that, if the Minister acted on the allegation, reporting it to police as something for them to look into, then the Minister did the right and proper thing.

 

Without rehashing all the evidence published over the course of the Trial, it was becoming an odd-on bet that the jury would reach a Not Guilty verdict. That must have worried Drumgold, not because he might fail in a common type of prosecution normally run by one of his underlings, but because it would be a black mark on his CV in his attempt to score the scarlet. A good legal case, either prosecution or defence, is like a three-legged stool. If a leg is missing, the case can topple. Drumgold's stool only had one leg, and that was a claim that was unsubstantiated by early complaint or physical evidence.  Physical evidence is what an increasingly knowledgeable jury in the 21st Century places the greatest confidence in. In this matter, Drumgold did not even have a tear-soaked tissue.

 

Drumgold needed an out. I'm going to advance a conspiracy theory of my own design. After weeks of hearing evidence and days of unresolved debate by the jury, suddenly prohibited material is found in the jury room. The trial was sensationally scrapped after it was found a juror had ignored repeated warnings and brought prohibited reading material about false rape claims into the jury room. REPEATED WARNINGS ??? That act is a total No-No and should have brought the Trial to an end on the first occasion it was discovered. Police are often accused of planting evidence. Why not a Sheriff's officer at the behest of the prosecution. What a simple way to kill off a match - red card the whole team. And our legal customs do not allow for an investigation of the jury to determine who was responsible for perverting the course of Justice? The investigation would be simplicity itself. Take the fingerprints of each juror and sheriff's officer involved and compare them to the fingerprints on the offending material. Getting fingerprints off paper is a snap - even easier than getting a DNA match.

 

It was a foregone conclusion that the DPP would not seek a retrial. That would be like Goliath getting up, headless and asking for a second go at David. Shades of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I have to admit, this has been a most extraordinary case. I am not going to comment on the substantive part of the case as, whatever is going on behind the scenes, there is an accused and alleged victim of a potential crime; and now both of them have been the subject of intense public scrutiny which has undoubtedly changed their lives forever. But, I have to admit, when I heard the juror was instructed not to bring in material prejudicial to the trial, and then do it... I don't know about Australia, but in the UK, a juror can be held in contempt of court for misconduct, and I would wager doing something like that would be misconduct and libel to contempt.

 

I wouldn't pay any attention to the time it took to submit the allegation. It may well have been the discussion with the minister that led Higgins to submit the allegation as she may have been frightened, confused, or in shock - I can imagine what a sexual assault, which in the case rape is alleged would be like. Also, as I understand, there is no contention that intercourse did not take place, but Bruce Lehrmann asserting it was consensual. 

 

I fear you're right, OME... therefore, the assertion is there isn't enough evidence  to prove it was non-consensual - her vs. his word, which is not enough to make the bar of beyond reasonable doubt. And, this is, as I understand, so often the case in rape allegations that never get close to court. Sounds like Drumgold was relying on public opinion of a very public case swaying the jury.

 

This is actually a good article.. Behind a paywall, but open incognito/private mode, and you should be able to read it: https://www.theage.com.au/national/women-are-furious-about-the-lehrmann-trial-outcome-men-should-be-too-20221202-p5c39i.html

 

Sadly, if this case is because if a grub wanting to further their career or have a seat made available on a bench, then that person should be charged with some crime along the lines of fraud, or corruption, or something..

 

 

[Yenn]

From the media reports prior to the trial, it appeared to me that Brittany Higgins was probably raped, while she was too drunk to know anything, that is how it was delivered to us. Now it seems that the police did not want to prosecute, because there could have been a bit of a conspiracy by Brittany and her boyfriend. She also tried to hide her mobile phone and also talked to the media before the police.

In the early days the accused seemed to be a real rat bag, but now it would appear he was wronged. Hopefully he will get to clear his name in court.

I would expect this case is interesting enough for some journalist to write a book about it.

[facthunter]

It's unlikely any proper outcome will eventuate with this one. The rule is keep quiet and take it for the team. No damage allowed. Same with Lindy Chamberlain. The NT gov't had just spent a fortune on Ularu Tourist village.. Nev

[rgmwa]

1 hour ago, Yenn said:

From the media reports prior to the trial, it appeared to me that Brittany Higgins was probably raped, while she was too drunk to know anything, that is how it was delivered to us.

That's probably what most people think happened, but there was no way to prove it one way or the other.

[red750]

Documents show other Lehrmann allegations

 

A man accused of raping Brittany Higgins in Parliament House was the subject of multiple sexual assault and harassment allegations, with other women reporting their own complaints after the political staffer's claim.

 

The reports which were previously kept under wraps by a court were on Friday made public along with Bruce Lehrmann's attempts to prevent his criminal trial going ahead. 

 

Mr Lehrmann pleaded not guilty to sexual intercourse without consent with Ms Higgins and was facing a retrial in the ACT Supreme Court after juror misconduct derailed the first.

 

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold announced he would not go ahead with another trial due to serious concerns about the impact it would have on Ms Higgins' mental health. 

 

Following the prosecutor's announcement, Chief Justice Lucy McCallum lifted several court orders stopping information about the case from being published.

 

This included media reports about other women coming forward with similar allegations against Mr Lehrmann published after hearing Ms Higgins' complaints in 2021.

 

Ms Higgins alleged he raped her in March 2019 in the office of former Liberal defence industry minister Linda Reynolds, when they both worked there as staffers.

 

"Within that same initial period, allegations were published to the effect that the man who had sexually assaulted the complainant was also accused of having sexually assaulted or harassed a number of other women," the court documents said. 

 

But Justice McCallum was not satisfied the reports would impact the ability of a jury to be impartial. 

 

She said they were published before Mr Lehrmann was named in media reports or charged by police and there were not many reports about the additional allegations. 

 

She also noted the relevant articles had been taken down by the companies. 

 

The chief justice dismissed the application from the defence because she was satisfied she could mitigate the effects of the reports by "appropriate directions" to the jury.  

 

In October, the jury in the first trial was dismissed after it was discovered a juror had done their own research on the case and brought an academic paper about sexual assault into the deliberation room.

 

The chief justice had given multiple instructions to jurors throughout the first trial to ignore anything they heard or read outside court related to the case. 

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, red750 said:

Following the prosecutor's announcement, Chief Justice Lucy McCallum lifted several court orders stopping information about the case from being published. This included media reports about other women coming forward with similar allegations against Mr Lehrmann published after hearing Ms Higgins' complaints in 2021.

What was wrong with those women? For crying out loud, they were working for a female boss. Forget about the boss's probable desire for political power - she would not be a polly if that was not the case, and it doesn't matter for what I say now. Her boss was a woman, who, if we are to believe what data is being collected, in her life must have been subjected to unwelcome sex-based actions of males. Basic human empathy - the thing that is one of the roots of our social behaviour - would have caused her to at least start the ball rolling.

 

This article https://www.theage.com.au/national/women-are-furious-about-the-lehrmann-trial-outcome-men-should-be-too-20221202-p5c39i.html is another example of misandry, the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men. Examples of misandry in popular culture legal processes that discriminate against men in cases of domestic or sexual violence.

 

We must encourage men to adopt a fundamental respect for women’s bodily rights and autonomy,  the writer quotes Michael Flood, a professor at QUT. What about respect for the right of men not to be lied about?

[Jerry_Atrick]

I read that article, and taking he whole article thought it was reasonably balanced.. The author went on to say that not all men think or act as if they are entitled to a woman's body and do what they want. She also expressed exasperation for the small conviction rates of alleged sexual assault, but didn't go where I thought she would go and to lower the bar on evidential requirements - rather she was saying qe have to have a conversation where all ideas are on the table and to be debated. Compared to the often obvious misandry that is in these types of articles, this was far better reasoned. And the numbers of women who claim to have been subject to [potential] sexual assault is frightening, especially for us who have daughters. The fact it is rising as well is also frightening. And it appears to be a world wide (or western-world wide) trend.

 

What's wrong with women - presumably in coming forward to report sexual assault and rape quickly even while working for a woman - Well, the system does seem stacked against the complainant in terms of the facts that are drawn out with no rights of silence as the defendant has. There is still a stigma around it, and they feel they have been sexually assaulted - or raped.. can you imagine what it would be like - physically penetrated by someone you don't want to under force - which is what these crimes normally are - one of control and violence.. So, they are also scared. Not everyone has the strength to be the first off the blocks, but when they realise they aren't the only one who may have suffered by that perpetrator, then it may be easier.

 

I agree, there is a lot of apparent misandry or at least bias against males in the coverage and debate around sexual assault, but this case is concerning on many fronts - and in this case, the journo was even handed... Not forgetting she acknowledged that the press haven't really looked at the impact on Lehrmann on a 12 month saga and he is denied justice as well - if he wasn't guilty, no one will know and his life is forever changed.  

[old man emu]

It's always reasonable to have an each-way bet, and Higgins placed that bet even before criminal matter had begun in Court.

 

Senator Reynolds, who was Higgins’ employer at the time of the alleged rape, said: “I confirm that I was advised in March this year by Blumers law firm, who act for Brittany Higgins, of a civil claim by Ms Higgins against me and other parties. In documents sent to the two former ministers and the Commonwealth, Higgins’ lawyers have set out an intention to sue for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, disability discrimination, negligence, and victimisation. People familiar with the documents have said that the claim consists of about $2.5 million for future economic loss, past economic loss approaching $100,000, general damages of $100,000, future assistance with domestic duties of some $200,000, and past and future out-of-pocket expenses of a further $150,000 approximately. . Didn't win, so tries the Civil system for a payout. She covers both win and place. 

 

Then she compounds her misandry in a statement posted to Instagram on Sunday Higgins said she believed the odds of securing a conviction were slim. “The criminal justice system has long failed to deliver outcomes in sexual assault cases,” she said. “I knew the odds were stacked against me from the outset. In the ACT during 2020, only 16 per cent of sexual offences reported to police resulting in a charge. And of that 16 per cent - only half of that number again - resulted in a conviction. That is to our national shame.” "only 16 per cent of sexual offences reported to police resulting in a charge." Which means that the criminal standard of proof could not be reached in 84% of reports.  Statistics can obscure Fact. How many actual reports were there that constituted 100% of reports? 10, 100, 1000? 

 

There are words to describe Higgins: hard-done-by sexual assault victim, or lying gold-digging misandrist. 

[Jerry_Atrick]

She may be a gold digger, or she may be the victom of sexual assault - we will never know. However, it is common that victims of crime seek civil damages as well. This on is interesting in that she is suing her former employer. I am not aware of ACT law on occupational health and safety, however, I would suspect if this were in Vic or NSW, as it would be employers' liability for failing to make the work place safe, it would come under the occupational health and safety laws for damages rather than tort. That is a digression - the point is, until there is a criminal trial, we will never know which she is, and alternatively whether Lehrmann is a sexual predator or wrongly accused.

 

Also, I don't agree statements about the justice system not resulting is better charge/conviction rates is misadry (misandranistic?). Misandry is effectively the same as mysogony, but against men. The statement made is a about a percevied failing of the criminal justice system to seek justice in sexual offences, apparently evidenced by the low charing and even lower conviction rate. It is not the same as all men are sexual predators or rapists. This is a problem of evidence except, for example, of aggravated offences where it is clear there was no consent.

 

[nomadpete]

9 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

say that not all men think or act as if they are entitled to a woman's body

Jerry, I agree with most of your attempt at balance except the above bit. My reading of the above is that most men are sexually agressive predators.

(Well, Not ALL of them are, but the implication is that many can be expected to be).

Definitely misandry.

 

The rest I agree. Unfortunately any crime that leaves no real physical evidence or witness, becomes one word against another.

 

Lastly, I am curious to know what legitimate reason the pair in question offer for going into their boss's office late at night whilst in an alleged intoxicated state. I find it hard to believe that either party was expecting to put in some unpaid oovertime

 

Edited December 4, 2022 by nomadpete

[Bruce Tuncks]

Misandry is a new word for me. That it exists has been shown by the way in which women get custody more than you would expect.   You would think that the judges would know   that  female children are at a higher risk of molestation from the mother's new boyfriend than from the father's new girlfriend.

[Jerry_Atrick]

40 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

(Well, Not ALL of them are, but the implication is that many can be expected to be).

Definitely misandry.

Sorry.. I had not paraphrased the article entirely accurately.. |The article said something like that men have to realise they are not entitled to a woman's body (or something like it) and then she did go on to say that not all men believe they are entitled to a woman's body...  

 

 

[facthunter]

IF anyone enjoys having  someone against their will ,They are sick, SICKO's and power freaks... Nev

[nomadpete]

17 minutes ago, facthunter said:

IF anyone enjoys having  someone against their will ,They are sick, SICKO's and power freaks... Nev

Likewise, although probably not relevant to the specific event discussed above, I think anyone who gets gratification from fornicating with a lifeless (dead drunk or otherwise) partner, has a serious psych problem.

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by nomadpete

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Misandry is a new word for me.

It was for me too. When I was researching my post about the word, the references seemed to indicate that it was of 1980s origin, most likely arising from a counter to the ides of women exercising power through feminism, as a claim that misandry is widespread, established in the preferential treatment of women, and shown by discrimination against men. I

 

The word seems to have arisen in 1878 from miso- "hatred" + andros "of males". There have been many modern words created from the miso- stem. The parallel of "misandry" would be misogyny, where the change is in teh stem of the word describing gender. Neither are to be confused with "misanthropy", which is the hatred of Mankind.

[nomadpete]

But to its credit, 'misanthropy' shows no discrimination!

 

Like the Irishman, "Me bein strictly neutral, I fights everyone in sight" equally.

[facthunter]

The Irish cop it alright. A tourist somewhere in the southwest pulls up near Paddy and says "How do I get to Belfast" Paddy scratches his head and looks both ways down the road and says "Well, You wouldna start from HYERE".  Nev

[Marty_d]

It now appears that Brittany has been given a "confidential settlement" from the government.

 

When this whole thing started, although (like everybody else except for the 2 people involved) I don't know what happened that night, but I felt a great deal of sympathy for her.

 

However the way she's used the high profile of this case and the fact that the alleged event happened in Parliament House, to go for what by all accounts is a fairly eye-watering money grab of taxpayer funds, has knocked the gloss off her a bit for me.

 

Let's consider the facts of the case:

 

- Two young people get smashed.

- They both go to their workplace, drunk, at a time when they would not usually be required to be there.

- It would seem that the decision to go to this place was mutual, given they had to sign in and get past the guard station, which means it was unlikely that she was being coerced.

- While at this workplace, either they had sex or they didn't, and if they did, it was either consensual or it wasn't.  And nobody but those 2 people knows which.

- He leaves, she goes to sleep, apparently naked according to the security guard who found her later.

- Although a complaint was made and the matter brought to court, due to firstly juror misconduct and then fears for the alleged victim's health, the other person has never been found guilty of a crime.

 

Now - I'm not entirely sure how her employer, or Parliament House, or the federal government, or the Australian people, are responsible for an alleged crime that took place in their workplace, at a time they shouldn't have been there, when they were totally alone.  Therefore, I can't see why an undisclosed - but possibly in the millions - of our money has been given to the complainant.  If she wanted to take a civil case against Bruce Lehrmann, that's totally fine and up to her.  He is the one she's accusing of wrongdoing so that's who she should be seeking redress from. 

 

But what the hell did the rest of us do that we owe her millions of dollars?

 

[pmccarthy]

I think someone disrespected her. Whatever that means.

[old man emu]

Quote from The Guardian: "Blumer said the terms of the settlement would remain confidential “at the request of Ms Higgins”" How far backwards do we have to bend for this tart? She dipping into the Public Purse. We have a right to know how much she has pulled out. Blumer won't say because that will let the cat out of the bag as to how much he's made out of the whole matter.

 

Quote, same source: "Meanwhile, the Australian Capital Territory’s director of public prosecutions, Shane Drumgold, SC has made extraordinary allegations about the conduct of police during the investigation and trial, saying they pressured him not to pursue the case." Pressure? I'd say strongly worded advice that there was significant doubt in the allegation that would mean that the likely outcome of a Trial would be a "Not Guilty" verdict. Running the case would be a waste of public monies.

 

As for being a champion of Women's Rights, Higgins has flung the campaign back to the 1970's. Criminal Trials set precedents in the mind of the public. The precedent set by this Trial is "Don't cry 'Wolf!' unless you've got some of its fur.

[nomadpete]

This proves that our traditional justice system has been replaced by a process centred around 'trial by social media' moderated by financial risk management.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I have to say, I can see another royal commission coming on about that one.. Maybe the sensitivity of the case will preclude it. As I understand, normally it is the CPS that disappoints the police by saying there is not enough evidence, not the other way around (normally, I would stress). In such a high profile case, for the public prosecutor not to take the advice more seriously begs many questions. 

 

As to the disclosure of the settlement, as far as I am aware, it is rare for these to be disclosed as they are civil settlements between two parties. Yes, one happens to be the government, but settlements are usually shrouded in non-admissions of guilt.. In other words... hush money.

[facthunter]

This agreement was concluded in record time and the only people controlling THAT out come  was the respondents to HER Lawyers (on her behalf) application. Don't insult anyone by suggesting it was done to HELP Higgins because she was never helped by anyone.. I very strongly reject some of the sentiment being expressed here Peeps.  Nev

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

 Don't insult anyone by suggesting it was done to HELP Higgins because she was never helped by anyone.. I very strongly reject some of the sentiment being expressed here Peeps.  Nev

Unless the legal system has flipped completely, the clients have final say over any settlement, not the lawyers.  So I'm interested in how you define this possibly multi-million dollar settlement as not being helpful to Higgins.