Australian Politics Forum - Trial of Brittany Higgins's alleged rapist begins

AusGeoff Gold Member Offline Sage of Gippsland Posts: 6025 Victoria Gender:	Re: Trial of Brittany Higgins's alleged rapist begins Reply #255 - Oct 21^st, 2022 at 5:57pm
Back to top	« Last Edit: Oct 21^st, 2022 at 6:55pm by AusGeoff » IP Logged

AusGeoff

Gold Member

Offline

Sage of Gippsland

Posts: 6025
Victoria
Gender: male

Re: Trial of Brittany Higgins's alleged rapist begins
Reply #256 - Oct 21^st, 2022 at 5:58pm

My guess at this stage is that it'll be decided that Lehrmann should have (or had)
no case to answer. I suppose that could ultimately be up to the judge?

Quote:

A submission that there is "no case to answer" by the defendant can be made in
a contested criminal matter after the close of the prosecution case. A no case
submission is made when the defence considers that the prosecution case does not
support a finding of guilt and that the court should dismiss the charge without the
defence having to present a case. A "no case to answer" submission will be successful
where the prosecution case, taken at its highest, is insufficient to support a finding
of guilt. A no case submission can be made in a contested hearing in a summary
matter or in a trial in an indictable matter.

—Fernanda Dahlstrom, 'Go To Court', 24 December, 2018.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 87675
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Trial of Brittany Higgins's alleged rapist begins
Reply #257 - Oct 21^st, 2022 at 6:08pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 21^st, 2022 at 3:18pm:

Jayzuz you are an offensive arsehole Grappler. Where is my confusion?

I draw no inference of guilt from his failure to give evidence.

However, that he did not leaves me with person A swearing to something under oath in a Court Room in front of a Jury and Judge and being cross examined ~ and person B saying something different not under oath, and never being cross examined, to associates and Coppers.

I therefore conclude I ought and will regard person A as having more credibility.

You said his decision (not refusal) to give sworn evidence on the stand persuaded you he was guilty..... really settled the matter for you... is your short term memory going?

You must learn to avoid using language that taints the interpretation - a defendant choosing to not give sworn evidence carries no inference - and since he is under zero compulsion to do so - cannot be construed as a refusal. You cannot use terms that infer recalcitrance or reluctance or fear to take the stand, consigliere. This is Australia - not Queenslund...

Again - the judge made it more than clear more than once that no inference can be drawn and indeed must not be drawn from his choice to not give evidence.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 87675
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Trial of Brittany Higgins's alleged rapist begins
Reply #258 - Oct 21^st, 2022 at 6:12pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 21^st, 2022 at 3:18pm:

Jayzuz you are an offensive arsehole Grappler. Where is my confusion?

I draw no inference of guilt from his failure to give evidence.

However, that he did not leaves me with person A swearing to something under oath in a Court Room in front of a Jury and Judge and being cross examined ~ and person B saying something different not under oath, and never being cross examined, to associates and Coppers.

I therefore conclude I ought and will regard person A as having more credibility.

That of course is your own personal choice and is clearly not shared by the jury .... re possible credibility only ... but that is not the only factor that comes into credibility.... this case is filled with contradictions and turns and changes all of which reflect on the credibility of both parties...

You must not be swayed by a single thing...

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39225
Gender: male

Re: Trial of Brittany Higgins's alleged rapist begins
Reply #259 - Oct 21^st, 2022 at 6:25pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 21^st, 2022 at 6:08pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 21^st, 2022 at 3:18pm:

Jayzuz you are an offensive arsehole Grappler. Where is my confusion?

I draw no inference of guilt from his failure to give evidence.

However, that he did not leaves me with person A swearing to something under oath in a Court Room in front of a Jury and Judge and being cross examined ~ and person B saying something different not under oath, and never being cross examined, to associates and Coppers.

I therefore conclude I ought and will regard person A as having more credibility.

You said his decision (not refusal) to give sworn evidence on the stand persuaded you he was guilty..... really settled the matter for you... is your short term memory going?

You must learn to avoid using language that taints the interpretation - a defendant choosing to not give sworn evidence carries no inference - and since he is under zero compulsion to do so - cannot be construed as a refusal. You cannot use terms that infer recalcitrance or reluctance or fear to take the stand, consigliere. This is Australia - not Queenslund...

Again - the judge made it more than clear more than once that no inference can be drawn and indeed must not be drawn from his choice to not give evidence.

You really are basically stupid aren't you Grappler.

Nowhere did I say that his not giving evidence made him guilty. In fact, I think at some time I told Setanta that 'of itself' it does not.

Credibility is on issue here. In those stakes, I am to decide who to believe.

Someone who gave evidence under oath etc and did so consistently, or someone who never said anything under oath.

It is as simple as that.

Like I said.....that he did not give evidence was the pivotal point for me in deciding whether I ought believe him or her.

Something said under oath -v- the contrary not said under oath.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 21^st, 2022 at 7:20pm by Aussie »

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39225
Gender: male

Re: Trial of Brittany Higgins's alleged rapist begins
Reply #260 - Oct 21^st, 2022 at 6:29pm

AusGeoff wrote on Oct 21^st, 2022 at 5:58pm:

My guess at this stage is that it'll be decided that Lehrmann should have (or had)
no case to answer. I suppose that could ultimately be up to the judge?

Quote:

A submission that there is "no case to answer" by the defendant can be made in
a contested criminal matter after the close of the prosecution case. A no case
submission is made when the defence considers that the prosecution case does not
support a finding of guilt and that the court should dismiss the charge without the
defence having to present a case. A "no case to answer" submission will be successful
where the prosecution case, taken at its highest, is insufficient to support a finding
of guilt. A no case submission can be made in a contested hearing in a summary
matter or in a trial in an indictable matter.

—Fernanda Dahlstrom, 'Go To Court', 24 December, 2018.

If that were the case, the Judge takes it out of the hands of the Jury and directs a not guilty verdict.

Did not happen here, and was never going to happen in the Higgins matter.

Back to top

IP Logged

AusGeoff

Gold Member

Offline

Sage of Gippsland

Posts: 6025
Victoria
Gender: male

Re: Trial of Brittany Higgins's alleged rapist begins
Reply #261 - Oct 21^st, 2022 at 6:51pm

My guess at this stage is that it'll be decided that Lehrmann should have (or had)
no case to answer. I suppose that could ultimately be up to the judge?

Quote:

A submission that there is "no case to answer" by the defendant can be made in
a contested criminal matter after the close of the prosecution case. A no case
submission is made when the defence considers that the prosecution case does not
support a finding of guilt and that the court should dismiss the charge without the
defence having to present a case. A "no case to answer" submission will be successful
where the prosecution case, taken at its highest, is insufficient to support a finding
of guilt. A no case submission can be made in a contested hearing in a summary
matter or in a trial in an indictable matter.

—Fernanda Dahlstrom, 'Go To Court', 24 December, 2018.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 87675
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Trial of Brittany Higgins's alleged rapist begins
Reply #262 - Oct 21^st, 2022 at 7:47pm

Would you hang a man on this comparative credibility largely based on whether or not the unobligated to do so defendant gave sworn evidence?

That is your only pub test - would you send a man to his death based on that? If rape were still a capital offence would you find it so easy to send a man to the gallows on the basis of these theoretical musings - or would you require proof substantial and positive?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 21^st, 2022 at 8:04pm by Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM »

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 87675
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Trial of Brittany Higgins's alleged rapist begins
Reply #263 - Oct 21^st, 2022 at 7:58pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 18^th, 2022 at 8:17pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 18^th, 2022 at 8:09pm:

mothra wrote on Oct 18^th, 2022 at 5:32am:

What continues to break my heart is that even in this day and, if a woman does not submit to immediate forensic examination post rape, she has no evidence.

And so accusations of rape come down to "he said/she said".

So little compassion for a person who is undeniably in a state of shock after being horrifically violated. So little understanding of what that might do to a person.

And just look! When a person comes forward, what do they meet?

Shame on the lot of you. You utterly sicken me.

What if someone claimed that you committed common assault upon them? The complainant waits until the next day where the DNA evidence had been washed away. The person has no witnesses to back up their claim. They go to the media and say that they have been violated. And all they have to go on for the possibility of being assaulted is that you have admitted to knowing/meeting the person and being within the location where the assault took place.

Would it not be all that plausible that you have the right to deny that you have committed such an act? It definitely comes down to the complainant having to make a case against you. Otherwise, it only takes a denial of the accused to win their case.

Surely, you have some doubts that Lehrmann has committed an act of rape.

[highlight]I have no doubt he did*. But, I have every doubt he will be convicted.

*His story made no sense in that each of his various reasons for going to the Suite, taking her with him, and then leaving her there 'hurriedly,' do not add up to get anywhere near passing a pub test.

What removed all doubt in my mind was when he did not give evidence.

Just like Trump makes all sorts of denial claims in social media, he NOT once yet has had the balls to make those infamous claims under oath. Talk is cheap, being in the witness box, under oath, being closely questioned efficiently is a whole different kettle of fish. [/highlight]

Right here waiting for you to step in it..... again...

Your final solution to fit your preconceived outcome was that he chose not to give sworn evidence, but to instead rely on the weaknesses in the prosecution case. Your famous 'lawyer's instinct' told you he was guilty, so you made it fit that outcome.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 87675
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Trial of Brittany Higgins's alleged rapist begins
Reply #264 - Oct 21^st, 2022 at 8:01pm

We are in the grip of a weather system called El Glitcho again... predictions are of more showers of sh1t, followed by storms of anger and open hostility across a broad front with occasional hails of abuse and invective, with intermittent periods of fleeting light shining through.....the entire coast is warned of possible floods of tears regardless of the outcome of Hurricane Higgins.... and the system is expected to linger on for a very long time...

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 21^st, 2022 at 10:22pm by Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM »

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39225
Gender: male

Re: Trial of Brittany Higgins's alleged rapist begins
Reply #265 - Oct 21^st, 2022 at 8:28pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 21^st, 2022 at 7:47pm:

Would you hang a man on this comparative credibility largely based on whether or not the unobligated to do so defendant gave sworn evidence?

That is your only pub test - would you send a man to his death based on that? If rape were still a capital offence would you find it so easy to send a man to the gallows on the basis of these theoretical musings - or would you require proof substantial and positive?

When you are required to make decisions being on a Jury, you make them. You do not shirk and say...."Oh dear, someone will be upset if I do my job."

She swore he did it. He did not swear he did not do it.

As I have said a zillion times......that was the straw. Putting myself in the position of Juror as I was asked, I made my decision as required based on the evidence, and after making my decision on credibility.

You on the other hand are so cowardly you are afraid to even try to sensibly explain why he gave three/four ENTIRELY different reasons for going to Parliament House in the wee small hours of a Saturday morning with a young woman who was pissed out of her mind.

If this was the lay down misere you reckon it is, the Jury would not still be deliberating after two days.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 87675 Always was always will be HOME Gender:	Re: Trial of Brittany Higgins's alleged rapist begins Reply #266 - Oct 21^st, 2022 at 10:20pm Petard Party.y.y.y.y .... steady.... ready.y.y.y.... HOIST!!
Back to top	“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ― John Adams IP Logged

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Trial of Brittany Higgins's alleged rapist begins
Reply #267 - Oct 22^nd, 2022 at 7:28am

Aussie wrote on Oct 21^st, 2022 at 8:28pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 21^st, 2022 at 7:47pm:

Would you hang a man on this comparative credibility largely based on whether or not the unobligated to do so defendant gave sworn evidence?

That is your only pub test - would you send a man to his death based on that? If rape were still a capital offence would you find it so easy to send a man to the gallows on the basis of these theoretical musings - or would you require proof substantial and positive?

When you are required to make decisions being on a Jury, you make them. You do not shirk and say...."Oh dear, someone will be upset if I do my job."

She swore he did it. He did not swear he did not do it.

As I have said a zillion times......that was the straw. Putting myself in the position of Juror as I was asked, I made my decision as required based on the evidence, and after making my decision on credibility.

You on the other hand are so cowardly you are afraid to even try to sensibly explain why he gave three/four ENTIRELY different reasons for going to Parliament House in the wee small hours of a Saturday morning with a young woman who was pissed out of her mind.

If this was the lay down misere you reckon it is, the Jury would not still be deliberating after two days.

Aussie ... they're deliberating BECAUSE the matter is NOT straight forward. I myself am totally confused about which way I would vote.

Look to be brutally honest with you IF I were a juror in this case I would have been a pro woman female juror with a similar type experience of being attacked (not raped) during a work related function sitting there thinking the guy has no case to answer BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED.

A part of me would be hurting for Brittany because she hasn't really helped herself or her case. There's no evidence. Just her word.

Ultimately these cases are determined based on evidence presented. All I keep coming back to is this : a woman too drunk to move or give consent but miraculously totally alert about what happened to the point where she swears on oath about what happened. That does not make sense. It just doesn't.

There's no other evidence Aussie. A person is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty by EVIDENCE!

I really do think this guy will walk free.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 22^nd, 2022 at 7:34am by Lisa Jones »

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Trial of Brittany Higgins's alleged rapist begins
Reply #268 - Oct 22^nd, 2022 at 7:37am

Aussie???? Have you read this????

The former staffer accused of raping Brittany Higgins at Parliament House claimed that when he and Ms Higgins arrived at their boss’s suite in the building, they went their separate ways and he didn’t see her again that night.

Bruce Lehrmann said he was “obviously nervous and distracted” when outlining his version of the events of 22-23 March 2019 in his interview with police, recorded on 19 April 2021 and played to jurors in his ACT Supreme Court trial on Monday (10 October).

Mr Lehrmann’s evidence can now be reported following the lifting of a non-publication order.

A police officer started by confronting the Texas-born then-25-year-old, who was working for British American Tobacco, with the allegation that he had raped Ms Higgins in Parliament.

“I, from the outset, reject it,” he replied.

He claimed he had been invited to drinks with Department of Defence staff on the night of 22 March 2019, along with Minister Peter Dutton’s media adviser Austin Wenke.

After a beer and a steak at the Kingston Hotel, which he called “the Kingo”, they met up with the group at The Dock, which included Ms Higgins.

Mr Lehrmann suggested they move to 88mph in Civic as it was one of his favourite places, and he went there with Ms Higgins, Mr Wenke and Lauren Gain.

He described his intoxication as “moderate” and that he was “functioning”.

He told police he had to go to Parliament House to get the keys to the apartment where he lived with his girlfriend and claimed Ms Higgins also indicated she had to go to Parliament for “something”, but she didn’t tell him what exactly.

“I made an indication I had to go to Parliament House to get my keys. I said I’m already going there, do you want to share an Uber,” he said.

Once they got to the building, he said they passed the security desk, and then a guard escorted them to Minister Linda Reynolds’ office.

“I entered the office, I turned left to my desk,” he said.

“Brittany turned right into the minister’s suite.

“I didn’t see her again.”

Mr Lehrmann said he attended to “some Question Time folders”, ordered an Uber and left.

“That’s how I recall that evening,” he said.

When asked if he and Ms Higgins had talked about having drinks at the building, he said no, and there wasn’t any alcohol in the office.

The trial, in which Mr Lehrmann has pleaded not guilty to a charge of sexual intercourse without consent, continues before Chief Justice Lucy McCallum.

Aussie : I think this guy will walk free.

IF he doesn't I will be surprised.

Back to top

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Trial of Brittany Higgins's alleged rapist begins
Reply #269 - Oct 22^nd, 2022 at 7:41am

AusGeoff wrote on Oct 21^st, 2022 at 5:58pm:

My guess at this stage is that it'll be decided that Lehrmann should have (or had)
no case to answer. I suppose that could ultimately be up to the judge?

Quote:

A submission that there is "no case to answer" by the defendant can be made in
a contested criminal matter after the close of the prosecution case. A no case
submission is made when the defence considers that the prosecution case does not
support a finding of guilt and that the court should dismiss the charge without the
defence having to present a case. A "no case to answer" submission will be successful
where the prosecution case, taken at its highest, is insufficient to support a finding
of guilt. A no case submission can be made in a contested hearing in a summary
matter or in a trial in an indictable matter.

—Fernanda Dahlstrom, 'Go To Court', 24 December, 2018.

Yep. Agreed!

Back to top

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Will there be a conviction?
Yes 3 (14.3%) No 17 (81.0%) Not sure 1 (4.8%) Total votes: 21 « Created by: Lisa Jones on: Oct 22^nd, 2022 at 7:49am »