Bruce Lehrmann is suing Channel 10 and Lisa Wilkinson for defamation. They are using the "truth" defence, but so far their star witness Higgins is looking like a highly unreliable witness.

If they lose the case, can Higgins just walk away with her $3m in taxpayers' money?

Good Morning Shadow Minister,

It will be up to the courts to decide what her punishment
will be if she's found to have made false claims.

Her reputation now is not looking good. I suspect this case
may go on for some time yet. She'll probably claim mental
health issues again, as she did previously.

Who needs to be compensated is the accused. He's lost a great
deal. It would be justice if the $3 million that she got was
given to him for what she put him through.

Just a thought.

It will be up to the courts to decides
Foxy,
The courts have had how long now to put a stop to such nonsense ?

Indyvidual,

The courts have to go through all the legal processes
that are necessary. And often they take longer than we'd like.
But they have to go according to the laws in place.

They should be given at least the same punishment as would have been handed out to the defendant if he had proven guilty.

all the legal processes
Foxy,
Have you ever thought about why the Law Reform Commission has as yet never considered streamlining these processes ? $$$ to be creamed off that’s why.
Why hasn’t the High Court simply said to both Lehrmann & Higgins “you entered the Australian Parliament House drunk & therefore you are dismissed along with the security guard who let you in” ! Case closed.

I've seen the footage of Britanny Higgins and Bruce Lehrmann entering Parliament House and the state she was in.
She's clearly had a few drinks, but she's not stumbling all over the place blotto.
See if for yourselves
http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/crucial-cctv-in-bruce-lehrmann-defamation-case-disclosed-to-court/news-story/a86aa8a4e2d96c2c022325e506ffd2f6

Look at her skipping down the hall, she's not that drunk.
They arrived and signed in at 1:48 am and Bruce Lehrmann left at 2:31, - 46 minutes later.
She would've had to have been so drunk she more or less passed out within 30 mins of that CCTV footage for it to have realistically happened at all.

I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it's seriously questionable.
I think a significant amount of doubt relates to her accusations given that timeline.

I think that if he had've initiated a rape against her during that 46 minute period, she would've still been coherent enough to say 'No', fight him off or raise an alarm.

If Brittany didn't set out to create a rape scandal as some say she voiced prior to the event, and if the pair did get it on as she claimed, the only 'rape' defense she could argue (and the footage doesn't entirely support this) is that she was not coherent enough to give consent.

On balance, I think it's more of a 'I regretted it the next day', (when she had to face the boyfriend) or 'I planned a scandal' scenario.

I agree with Hasbeen, making false rape claims should face the same penalty as the accused, but it's a minefield, if it's not clear cut (which often it isn't, one persons word over anothers) a penalty like this may make genuine rape victims scared to report them, if there's any chance it can't be proven and their claims may then be seen as resulting from malicious intent.

Dear Armchair Critic,

I have been following the trial where I can and managed to see some, and hear most, of Ms Higgins testimony.

I found her to have been an impressive and courageous witness often correcting numerous factual errors from Bruce Lehmann's legal team.

Indeed she came across as trying he best to be as factual as possible even on things that were obviously going to leave the door open for Lehmann's team to attack her.

As to the footage you have sorely disappointed me. Here I was thinking you had a nose for a conspiracy. You obviously don't on this matter. Why do you think that is?

The Channel 7 footage is edited. Ms Higgins tries to put her shoes back on then the tape jumps to her zig zagging down the hallway with them in her arms. Why was it cut? One suspects if she stumbles at that point it would not have suited Ch 7s narrative. And why is it that Parliament House will not produce the complete footage for the trial claiming it has not been kept?

Anyone with half a nose for these things would consider just those factors stink alone to high heaven.

Lift your game mate.

Hi Steelie,
"I have been following the trial where I can and managed to see some, and hear most, of Ms Higgins testimony."

- Well you'd certainly be better informed and have a feel for things than I.
You may be right about missing footage if so I wasn't aware of it.

I can only say that I'm not convinced either way that this rape occurred at all, or if they did have sex under what circumstances that occurred. I mean if the guy forced himself upon her against her will, where are the marks on her body (grabbing her, holding her down etc. Am I supposed to believe she was suddenly so drunk within 46 minutes that she did not resist)

I think there are only two people who actually know what happened that night, and neither you or I are one of those 2 people.

You've most certainly spent more time going through the facts than I have though.
- That's really all I've got.

Dear Armchair Critic,

The trial can be see via livestream here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN5i8fKnnOM

I have had it playing while I work.

Go to the link you provided and see the part cut from the video. Why do you think that happened?

As to marks on her body there was a significant bruise to her leg which she had thought was from the rape but has conceded it might have been from the several times she had fallen down that night due to inebriation.

It is not contested by either side that Ms Higgins consumed between 11 and 12 drinks, most of them spirits, over the course of the night.

That would have me staggering.

Lehrmann had said through the criminal trial that he didn't think he had purchased a single drink for Ms Higgins on the night. Good work by the Channel 10 lawyers has shown that was not true and he can be clearly seen buying her drinks, moving at least 3 in front of her, and encouraging her to scull at least one of them.

If I have had a skin-full I can usually get myself home but once I flake it it hits me pretty hard. I don't have a problem believing that would have happened to her.

As this is a defamation trial the bar is different to a criminal trial:

"To successfully meet the burden of proof, the plaintiff must present evidence that convinces the judge. They must base this on the balance of probabilities, that their version of events is more likely true than not."

Nothing in her testimony or demeanour has caused me to think judge would outright dismiss her evidence. In the end his judgement will be delivered by a forensic look at the evidence and the believability of the witnesses and he is far more qualified than either of us to do so.

Hi Steelie,
The link you provided goes to a livestream starting in 37 hours.
The original video I saw was on youtube, but it seems hard to find any of the Parliament house CCTV videos on youtube now, which in itself is curious, and why I added the link to the news.com.au article containing the video instead.

If you can point me in the direction of 2 separate CCTV Parliament house videos to compare and some of the video testimony I'm happy to give it a look.

12 drinks, thats 12 nips right? - 360ml spirits, that would be more than enough for me nowadays, but when I was younger, I could do it fairly easily.
I agree with you that you can keep going for a time, but when you finally lay down it doesn't take much to pass out.

I haven't heard any court testimony from either of the two.
Where you have, and I'll admit you'd likely have a better feel for it, - But one of them obviously isn't telling the truth, and I still just don't know.

I can only go by what I see, that CCTV footage, and 46 minutes.
What do you think happened during that 46 minutes?
Lehrmann seemed coherent enough as he walked out.

Did Lehrmann claim the trip to Parliament house was a 'Whiskey stop'?
Why would she go there for drinks at 1:48am with a bloke other than her partner, if she had a man waiting at home?
What reason did she give for going to her bosses office at that time of the night/morning?

I'm not assuming anything by these questions, but they are valid questions.

SR,

Your knowledge of the law is deficient. In a defamation case, the "truth" defence does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but certainly substantive proof and one person's word alone does not cut it, especially when that person has been shown to lie to the police and under oath.

For LW and 10 News to justify accusing BL of rape they need to prove firstly that intercourse occurred and that it was non-consensual. So far they only have the word of one unreliable witness who stands to gain substantially from the outcome.

Dear Armchair Critic,

The hearings resume tomorrow at 9:30am I think.

You have to watch them on the day and recording them in any way is prohibited. You can use the Youtube slider and look at earlier footage from that day only if you get to it late.

Yes the only footage available of the parliament house on that night is that provided by Channel 7, the ones backing Lehrmann, who somehow got their hands on it. The originals are all deleted now.

The edited footage is from the one camera angle which shows Ms Higgins trying to put her shoes on. It is then cut and starts again with the shoes held to her chest walking toward the camera. The question is why was it edited. Did it show Ms Higgins stumble trying to walk in her shoes so taking them off? Perhaps something that would not have suited the narrative Channel 7 was trying to run.

Anyway, I thought it was a pretty large red flag, especially for someone like you, and was disappointed you let it all sail through to the keeper.

As to what happened in the 46 minutes I think it is perfectly reasonable to accept Ms Higgin's account of passing out on the sofa and awakening to find Lehrmann on top of her and her telling him repeatedly to get off.

Cont...

Cont...

As to the amount of alcohol, the 11 to 12 drinks was what was confirmed. There may well have been more.

CCTV footage at one of the nightclubs later in the evening shows Lehrmann putting drinks in front of Higgins pushing her to drink them:

Quote

The court was shown CCTV footage in which Lehrmann placed three drinks in front of Higgins at The Dock and gestured towards them.

Collins put to Lehrmann that he said “all hers, all hers” to another staffer. Lehrmann denied saying those words, but said he did not recall what he said.

The video showed Higgins smile and pat Lehrmann on the arm. Collins put it to Lehrmann that she said the words, “oh stop, oh stop”.

Lehrmann told the court he disagreed those words were said, but said he could not recall what she said.

“You were encouraging Ms Higgins to get drunk?” Collins asked.

“No,” Lehrmann replied.

End quote

http://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/watch-live-lehrmann-faces-grilling-about-night-of-alleged-rape-20231123-p5emh7.html

It is reasonable to imagine drinking those in quick succession would have hit her significantly at some point.

Lehrmann had constantly tried to refute he had been targeting her with alcohol but the evidence presented shows that is a lie.

What do you think his intentions were, and why lie about them?

Given the close attention he gave her through the evening do you think it is reasonable to accept his claim that he left her as soon as they had entered the parliamentary offices and that he did not see her again before leaving?

The retrial has now been dropped due to concern about
Ms Higgins health.

It looks like Mr Lehrmann will not be facing any charges
or for that matter - he won't be vindicated either.

The case is now closed but questions linger on - and
will for some time to come.

We can only wish & hope that lessons have been learnt & prevention for repeats are worked out by now. That’s the least they could do for those who put their trust & public funding in the dwellers in that building

Dear Foxy,

I think you might have clicked an old link about the criminal trial.

This is a different trial where Lehrmann is suing Channel 10 for defamation. It is a civil matter. Channel 10 are running the truth in reporting defence which is why Ms Higgins has been called as a witness.

Ms Higgins will again be in the box today to be further cross examined.

The trial broadcast will start in 10 minutes at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN5i8fKnnOM

Dear Steele,

Thanks for that.

I got the trials mixed up.

I feel like a dill.

And within the first 3 questions the Counsel for Lehrmann has got a date wrong and corrected immediately by Higgins.

This really has been a trend through the trial. Really sloppy from a legal person who must be on a hell of a lot of money.

Hi Steelie,

"Anyway, I thought it was a pretty large red flag, especially for someone like you, and was disappointed you let it all sail through to the keeper."

I do agree with you on this, I think all of the footage (taken from a government building, effectively belonging to the people) should've been made public immediately, regardless of the seriousness of allegations of wrongdoing.
I also agree with you that if some footage was removed then what were they trying to hide, otherwise why edit it out in the first place.

One argument that makes me question just how drunk she was, is the part where just after she does not put her shoes back on, is the way she skips down the hall, and then seems to be walking normally in the following shot to her bosses office.

"As to what happened in the 46 minutes I think it is perfectly reasonable to accept Ms Higgin's account of passing out on the sofa and awakening to find Lehrmann on top of her and her telling him repeatedly to get off."

I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm just saying that I don't know and that I'm not convinced;
- What was the report that sometime prior to the event she was purported to say that she was going to create a sex scandal, I don't know the facts surrounding it, but this is something which makes me question everything.

"CCTV footage at one of the nightclubs later in the evening shows Lehrmann putting drinks in front of Higgins pushing her to drink them"

- Is there any truth to the claim they were seen playing around at these nightclubs, like 2 people about to hook up, kissing and flirting?
- And what the hell was she doing there if she had a boyfriend?

Does having a boyfriend at home give a motive to claim that conceptual sex was instead rape?

[Cont.]
"It is reasonable to imagine drinking those in quick succession would have hit her significantly at some point."

Agreed, but was that point during those 46 minutes, or half an hour prior to arriving at Parliament house, I don't know the exact timeline.

Reading the article...
Kissing may imply an unwanted event, but pashing seems more like something mutual.

I see now that Lehrmann was the one who initiated the trip to Parliament house, and after reading the article you shared, agree that some of his answers also seem suspicious:

'after he went to his desk and did some work on question time briefs'.

I'm maybe more open to the possibility that it happened as you suggest after reading that article, but I still just don't know what actually happened.

I might add though that ultimately I think that if there's a reasonably large question of doubt,
- that I think it's better that a guilty person go free, than an innocent person be wrongly convicted.

He may very well have slept with her though.
- I just don't know.

Dear Armchair Critic,

Are you watching Ms Higgin's evidence being given right now? What do you think?

SR,

It is easy to believe Higgins especially if your belief requires no proof and suits your political bias, but reasonable? Absolutely not given all the inconsistencies and outright lies from Higgins.

All the effort that the defence has taken to trip up BL and show that he is not a credible witness, is pointless because unless they can show that BL raped BH, his credibility is irrelevant. As of yet, there is not a jot of corroborating evidence to indicate even that intercourse occurred between the two let alone with a lack of consent.

Perhaps one day the truth will come out.
But for now - it's complicated.
Has anyone else seen photos of Brittany
Higgins boyfriend? He's a clone of Lehrmann.
Weird.

Take a look:

http://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12176599/Who-David-Sharaz-Inside-troubled-past-Brittany-Higgins-partner.html

The whole useless lot of them wouldn’t last three days in a National Service ! Shame on the PS Union to allow such people in the PS let alone into Parliament House !

I see that there is a corruption investigation being launched into $2.3m being donated to Higgins with no questions.

Old news, LIBERALS raping LIBERALS and the taxpayer carrying the can.

Paul, It was the Labor Government who paid the compensation - fact.
Ms. Higgins is cooperating of her own will to go into the parliament house with Bruce, there was no resistance. She was paid for an unsafe workplace, it was afterhours, and she is cooperating in accompanying Bruce. She did not feel unsafe entering the workplace.

Jose',

Glad to see you and "Bruce" are buddies. BTW, how many JONES in your church, its a common name, I'll be buggered, there must be plenty of them!

Section 314 of the Crimes Act,1900, provides the possibility of 7 year's imprisonment for such false accusations.

ttbn, Paul has consumed too much alcohol in the brain cells, he just blurts out his disturbed thinking. We can pity poor Paul.

Jose,

That's why he is known as the village idiot of OLO.

Jose'

At the time of the alleged shagging both Bruce and Britt were members of the Liberal Party, say no more, working for an air-head Liberal minister. For those reasons I've never had any great interest in the matter. The mistake was silly Bruce took silly Britt to Palm House to get his rocks off. If he'd had a 67 Holden Kingswood with a decent back seat we'd never had head of Bruce and Brittany. The whole story is the most concocted load of crap from both sides. I can see why Bruce the goose was keen, with Brittany hanging out like she was! Sure, Bruce and Britt were going up to the ministers office in the dead of night to review some paperwork, yep you can believe that one if you like.

Village idiot,

I see that BH is joining the greens as lying comes naturally to her and the only people that got shagged were taxpayers after Labor donated $2.4m of their hard-earned money to the gold digger.

P.S. What party did the kids belong to that Jono Doig (greens) shagged?

Why the Courts don’t throw such cases out is a clear indicator of the state of the system built around & for money. The infamy will haunt those involved for the rest of their sad lives.

SM,

YOU are just one very sick dude. Its unfortunate that this site allows you a free hand to post your vile crap at every opportunity. Even on the very public 'Facebook' and "X' sites your previous post would be censored by a moderator, and you would be kicked of, but not here.

Village idiot,

Your posts are even more vile.

The bureaucrat & jury who stipulated that amount & approved it should be sacked ! Real victims of severe crime wouldn’t receive a fraction of that amount. The system & the bureaucrats running it are beyond sanity.

I see that Lisa Wilkinson is being eviscerated on the stand. Any credibility she has has now evaporated.

I see that Foxy has at least admitted that her earlier fervent belief in Higgins has also evaporated.

I see that Lisa Wilkinson is being eviscerated on the stand. Any credibility she has has now evaporated.

'Any credibility she has...'

Hmmm....
These people are 'presenters'
They are paid a lot of money by the TV broadcasters TO BE people that we can relate to and trust, but it's all about ratings and profit.
These 'presenters' are just paid to read a pre-prepared script given to them.
In real life, they're probably arrogant narcissists with an overinflated value of themselves, and who keep to their own wealthy snobby inner circles disconnected from the real world and with that probably also hold weird and strange views on everything.

Lisa Wilkinson dons pink power suit as Bruce Lehrmann's defamation case enters second week at Sydney's federal court
http://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/lisa-wilkinson-dons-pink-power-suit-as-bruce-lehrmanns-defamation-case-enters-second-week-at-sydneys-federal-court/news-story/14b769de250660934caecac57ce3f3ae

Who would even care about anything she says or does?
Is anything she says or thinks even relevant at all?

"I see that Lisa Wilkinson is being eviscerated on the stand. Any credibility she has has now evaporated."

What?

Anyone watching her testimony would say she more than held her own. Lehrmann's counsel was repeatedly pulled up by the judge for trying to fashion mountains out of molehills and for trying to put words in her mouth.

Besides a couple of instances where she put a little too much mayo on an answer Wilkinson was clear and emphatic with her responses.

I thought her metadata answer thwarted a gotcha question which could have been damaging though the judge seemed to be struggling himself on the topic.

All in all I found her responses professional, reasonably straightforward and for the most part entirely believable.

9 News and Lisa Wilkinson's only 2 possible defences against defamation are:

1 The truth defence which Higgin's implausible testimony exploded,
2 The public interest defence which LW's lack of effort to verify BH's story or obtain Lehrman's side of the story was destroyed by LW's testimony.

That's what I meant by eviscerated.

Accusations of rape must not be allowed to become another industry.

"A top judge has unleashed on the handling of former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins's rape allegations against Bruce Lehrmann.

NSW District Court acting judge Paul Conlon said the prosecution was 'doomed' to fail because the allegations had been widely discussed by public figures before it went to court.

In particular, he took aim at the 'incredible naivety' of Labor leader Anthony Albanese and his Liberal predecessor in the nation's top job, Scott Morrison, who both formally apologised to Ms Higgins in parliament.

An inquiry into Parliament House culture by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins in the Set The Standard report called for a 'statement of acknowledgement' by top politicians over alleged misconduct and past inaction.

In February last year, Mr Morrison and Mr Albanese in response both addressed Ms Higgins directly in parliamentary speeches as she sat in the gallery, telling her the
Their comments were protected under parliamentary privilege but Judge Conlon said they were still widely heard by the public.

'In the Lehrmann/Higgins case, that was doomed to failure as soon as it was thought appropriate to ventilate the issues in the public domain and attempt to influence public opinion,' Judge Conlon told The Weekend Australian.

He also aimed the 'stupidity' of 'some sections' of the media, saying the legal principle of an accused person's presumption of innocence was cast aside. "

Why has no-one queried how grass stains came to be on Miss Higgins dress?
Did they have consensual sex prior to going into PH?

As I said earlier, don’t let this become another industry !