I wish to get a message to Bruce Lehrmann, or at least to his legal team. You see, I have a couple of difficulties with the recent findings in the defamation case.
1. The Schrodinger's Cat paradox. Link at the bottom. While the thought experiment was only theoretical and was also worked on by Albert Einstein himself, the very basic lesson…
I wish to get a message to Bruce Lehrmann, or at least to his legal team. You see, I have a couple of difficulties with the recent findings in the defamation case.
1. The Schrodinger's Cat paradox. Link at the bottom. While the thought experiment was only theoretical and was also worked on by Albert Einstein himself, the very basic lesson we can get out of this thought experiment is this; under normal conditions we can assume anything, but to be true we must observe or at least have evidence that can be observed. Based on this kind of thinking, the room Bruce and Brittany went into became the box, no one knows exactly what happened in that room except for the fact that there is a high probability that either or both the people in that room know what happened. There is no empirical evidence of anything that went on in that room, but there are pointers.
1. Based on probability and coming from a non emotive stand point there are a multitude of things that could have happened in that room. Some of these are that Bruce did in fact have non consensual sex with Brittany, but there is also an equal probability that he did not. Similarly there is an equal probability that consensual sex occurred and this consent was retracted at a later date. There is also an equal probability that no sex occurred, that Brittany and Bruce went separate ways, that Brittany fell asleep and that Bruce left in a disappointed way because he didn't get what he was probably expecting?!
The fact is that there are a multitude of other probabilities that could have happened in that room, only one of these was put forward as 'the' probability and proposing that there is only one probability is fundamentally wrong, ignoring all other probabilities is also wrong. As there is no empirical evidence that can remove any doubt, the true result with regard to the probability that anything untoward happened in that room must then be, we simply don't know. Personal opinion should not count in court, never.
2. I find it difficult to reconcile the timeline of events to which Brittany remembers the time in that room. In her last testimony, she reported a much more detailed version of the alleged crime. It was much more detailed and vivid than all other times that she had given this evidence. This was also noted and dismissed by the judge in the defamation case, but he didn't go far enough. This alone should have demonstrated Brittany's desire to embellish her story to provide sufficient drama to get the result that she, channel 10 and Wilkinson wanted. Was she schooled to this end? This should have been a bigger point and should have gone toward a finding that she was a more unreliable witness than Bruce, so again, it leads toward a finding that we simply don't know what went on in that room. A proper trial should be required to make that determination.
3. She then fell asleep!!! WTF? If we are to believe Brittany's last testimony, she gave the impression that she did have a reasonable degree of lucidity and based on the next two facts that I will discuss, she should have been in at least a small way in a mental position to make the smallest of decisions. My question is why she thought that after being raped, why did she think it was a great time to have a little sleep?
4. The above is backed up with two pieces of evidence. If there was a date rape drug used, this would have answered the above question and provided evidence as to why she fell asleep. The problem here is that depending on the amount of these drugs administered, they can have quite long affects on the person, from 6 to 12 hours. A person should know that something is wrong when they wake up and then should seek medical and or police assistance to determine what had happened. This did not happen. In addition to this there was that welfare check carried out by the female security officer. Now we would hope that this security officer was reasonably well trained and could determine whether a woman is in a questionable state or not. It is known that nothing was said or done by these officers, no police were called, and no impropriety was observed, just a woman sleeping off a night on the turps.
I am hoping that Bruce Lehrmann’s team already know this and can argue it successfully, but I just can't get these factors out of my head, they are just too obvious to me.
I wish to get a message to Bruce Lehrmann, or at least to his legal team. You see, I have a couple of difficulties with the recent findings in the defamation case.
1. The Schrodinger's Cat paradox. Link at the bottom. While the thought experiment was only theoretical and was also worked on by Albert Einstein himself, the very basic lesson we can get out of this thought experiment is this; under normal conditions we can assume anything, but to be true we must observe or at least have evidence that can be observed. Based on this kind of thinking, the room Bruce and Brittany went into became the box, no one knows exactly what happened in that room except for the fact that there is a high probability that either or both the people in that room know what happened. There is no empirical evidence of anything that went on in that room, but there are pointers.
1. Based on probability and coming from a non emotive stand point there are a multitude of things that could have happened in that room. Some of these are that Bruce did in fact have non consensual sex with Brittany, but there is also an equal probability that he did not. Similarly there is an equal probability that consensual sex occurred and this consent was retracted at a later date. There is also an equal probability that no sex occurred, that Brittany and Bruce went separate ways, that Brittany fell asleep and that Bruce left in a disappointed way because he didn't get what he was probably expecting?!
The fact is that there are a multitude of other probabilities that could have happened in that room, only one of these was put forward as 'the' probability and proposing that there is only one probability is fundamentally wrong, ignoring all other probabilities is also wrong. As there is no empirical evidence that can remove any doubt, the true result with regard to the probability that anything untoward happened in that room must then be, we simply don't know. Personal opinion should not count in court, never.
2. I find it difficult to reconcile the timeline of events to which Brittany remembers the time in that room. In her last testimony, she reported a much more detailed version of the alleged crime. It was much more detailed and vivid than all other times that she had given this evidence. This was also noted and dismissed by the judge in the defamation case, but he didn't go far enough. This alone should have demonstrated Brittany's desire to embellish her story to provide sufficient drama to get the result that she, channel 10 and Wilkinson wanted. Was she schooled to this end? This should have been a bigger point and should have gone toward a finding that she was a more unreliable witness than Bruce, so again, it leads toward a finding that we simply don't know what went on in that room. A proper trial should be required to make that determination.
3. She then fell asleep!!! WTF? If we are to believe Brittany's last testimony, she gave the impression that she did have a reasonable degree of lucidity and based on the next two facts that I will discuss, she should have been in at least a small way in a mental position to make the smallest of decisions. My question is why she thought that after being raped, why did she think it was a great time to have a little sleep?
4. The above is backed up with two pieces of evidence. If there was a date rape drug used, this would have answered the above question and provided evidence as to why she fell asleep. The problem here is that depending on the amount of these drugs administered, they can have quite long affects on the person, from 6 to 12 hours. A person should know that something is wrong when they wake up and then should seek medical and or police assistance to determine what had happened. This did not happen. In addition to this there was that welfare check carried out by the female security officer. Now we would hope that this security officer was reasonably well trained and could determine whether a woman is in a questionable state or not. It is known that nothing was said or done by these officers, no police were called, and no impropriety was observed, just a woman sleeping off a night on the turps.
I am hoping that Bruce Lehrmann’s team already know this and can argue it successfully, but I just can't get these factors out of my head, they are just too obvious to me.