Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bettina Arndt's avatar

As I wrote, Lehrmann was required to serender his phone. Higgins was wrong, yet again!

Expand full comment
Andrew's avatar

Thanks Bettina.,

As always you get to the core of this corruption of the legal process. I fear the DPP got a bit carried away with his own importance.

Lehmann denied that rape in any form, or even intimacy, took place. As there is no physical or scientific evidence presented to support the claim, the charge was on very shaky ground at best.

The second point of proof would be prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that rape took place. There isn't any. He should never have been charge and this is no doubt what the police told the DPP.

The fact that the jury never raised any points of law or clarification with the judge in the 3 or 4 days of deliberation tells me that the issue was just one of reaching a unanimous decision.

The DPP would have known that a second trial would probably have reached the same impass or found him not guilty. That has left Lehmann with no other option but to pursue clearance of his name through further litigation.

The limp reason given of Higgins mental health was just that, limp. This was amply demonstrated by her subsequent behaviour.

It's a very sorry saga of a couple of over paid young adults having a night on the town. Both should except responsibility.

The result of the enquiry will be very interesting.

Expand full comment
50 more comments...

No posts