There usually is some forewarning that you are going to have trouble. When shit happens, keep records and evidence for a day you might have to present them as evidence. Use that evidence to prove that the allegations are malicious, fictitious, concocted and vexatious. If they have stolen money, put caveats on their assets so they cannot do anything with them. It took me two years of frustration but I stuck with it. Soon nobody was prepared to represent her in the face of that evidence. She had unpaid bills from solicitors, that once they had been served with the evidence, they refused to represent her and told her she must settle. The longer it took, her cost to settle grew. Next came the threat to send in the Ballif. Sell her property etc. In the end she had to cough up or loose everything she had.
That's quite lyrical! And it describes feminism perfectly. What a great slogan for an anti-feminist march! Thousands of men with placards chanting Malicious! Fictitious! Concocted and Vexatious! We could take this battle to the streets, like the feminists themselves did in the '70s.
Good luck getting “thousands of men” to do anything , I agree it would be a step forward but unlike women men don’t seem to be able to work together for a common goal, except maybe in times of war and under orders.
You're right of course, the idea of men marching in the street against feminism is pure fantasy. For a start, they'd never get a leave pass from the missus!
How to beg the question and get away with it. That's what it seems to amount to. [Beg the question: presume the thing to be proven in the question itself]
Judge Lee's decision has sparked controversy due to his acceptance of a novel legal theory presented in the final submission by the accuser, Higgins. According to this theory, any inconsistencies or falsehoods in a rape victim's testimony can be attributed to the trauma experienced during the alleged rape. This concept, which was not supported by expert witness testimony, suggests that the psychological impact of rape can cause victims to provide inaccurate details about the incident.
Critics argue that Judge Lee's acceptance of this theory, without the backing of expert witnesses, sets a dangerous precedent that could potentially poison future trials. They contend that this "trauma-based" approach, which excuses any and all falsehoods told by an accuser, makes it virtually impossible for defendants to receive a fair trial. The circular logic employed in this theory - that lying is a result of the trauma caused by the very event being questioned - raises concerns about the impartiality of the legal system.
Furthermore, the fact that Judge Lee accepted this theory wholesale, without requiring expert testimony to validate its scientific basis, suggests that his verdict may have been predetermined. The adoption of this unprecedented legal theory, based on a novel psychological concept, could have dire consequences for defendants if other judges follow suit.
It almost seemed as though the Judge was giving an account of a "dream" he had. The danger is that others now quote him, as though it now follows. Agree, it could have dire consequences until someone challenges the thought/dream.
The judge had no reason to delve into whether or not Bruce Lehrmann was guilty of rape ,that case had already been tried and the trial abandoned with no verdict, he was only supposed to decide if the television station had defamed Mr Lehrmann by calling him a rapist before a court case and a conviction .On that matter you would think a judge would find in favour of a person in Lehrmann’s position.
The judge has in effect also defamed Lehrmann by saying that “on the balance of probability he did rape Ms Higgins”. The judge went too far with a comment like that , but he can hide behind the law of immunity from legal action for judicial officers. Otherwise Bruce Lehrmann could sue the judge for defamation .
Laws need to be changed to allow for accountability and liability of judges and magistrates who carelessly ruin peoples lives .
I believe the whole court system needs to be changed. It’s not good enough when many say “women have lied to get custody of a child/children. The man faces huge costs & loss of self worth. The whole extended family is effected! Lee waffles on, Wilkenson employs legal people at great expense and now Lee rules Lehrman pay Wilkenson’s legal people! If Lehrman could have afforded the legal people Wilkensen had he may have won! Justice!! Ben Roberts-Smith is found guilty of war crimes & the King decides to award him a medal! His father high military awards & high court Judge attends? Ben is found guilty and is not in jail?
This "trauma informed" doctrine is simply an extension of the "believe all women" doctrine. It goes like this: Believe all women, and if they contradict themselves, consider that as characteristic of trauma. So in fact, any self-contradiction becomes evidence of trauma! It's the exact same circular logic employed in Catch-22, but that was supposed to be satire!
I find it curious that while everyone bangs on about intoxication affecting a woman's ability to consent, no one ever considers the effect on men. Brewer's droop is a common condition affecting heavy drinkers, and Bruce certainly qualifies there! Among the numerous possibilities ignored by Justice Lee is any scenario in which Bruce failed to get it up. In fact, that would have been a more credible defence from the outset. He could admit to taking her to PH for sex, and getting on top of her, but deny that penetration occurred, and he left in haste with his tail between his legs (so to speak). His girlfriend could testify to his deplorable drinking habits, and the lamentable effect on their sex life, while he sat shamefaced in front of the jury. Leaving his accuser Brittany to insist that with her he was a virile amorous stud, a veritable stallion, able to perform superbly despite a bellyful of piss and a comatose partner. The entire case would then turn on which of these two women fighting over a man, and which of their stories, was more credible. The only problem being, could anyone on the jury keep a straight face!
Well sleuthed Bettina. And you explain the legal aspects and implications of alcohol induced amnesia so well. Thank you as always.
But what actually happened to begin the ever widening vortex has always intrigued me. I am mindful that, of the changing stories from the only two individuals who could know, Lehrman has always denied that "normal" coitus took place. He is utterly adamant and consistent about that despite every setback so far. Commonsense tells me that if he were guilty, he would surely have given up, moved on, cut his losses. But no. He is behaving as a sane, wrongly judged and innocent person would. However, various confounding befuddlements suggest that something sexual did actually take place. So let me offer my two bob's worth. It seems to physiologically and psychologically fit the known facts and assertions. And offers plausible explanations for some lies too.
Lehrman and Higgins went into Reynolds' office both with the same intent, to get their rocks off. Alcohol played a large part. That much we know for sure.
Speculation ON. She went to the bathroom, returned later and lay on the couch. He went to the bathroom too but his enthusiasm had sagged. For some time, she offered to assist and eventually suggested he satisfy her by being unable to talk and which may simultaneously recover his interest. He obliged but his interest still lagged. He thus left no wet patch (to be found or mentioned) on the couch or on her dress. Now woozy and satisfied, she drifted into a doubly-relaxed nap and before passing out muttered it was OK for him to leave. He obligingly did as he was told, but now in an adjoining office took longer than usual to satisfy himself. That's why he did he not leave right away.
Speculation OFF. Lehrman then left alone. Higgins overslept on the ministerial couch, was found napping and undressed. She answered she was OK, and later left the building alone. When confronted by the verifiable fact of questionable attendance at the minister's office, Lehrman admitted to that clear misdemeanour and was sacked.
Higgins, now aware of her potential fate, turned to old-fashioned self-preservation mode by hinting obliquely at naughty things done to her, but not together with her or by her! Nothing specific of course, just hints. Responsible grown-ups could not risk the hints being only childish fibs. And it all began to spiral out of her control, much further than Higgins imagined. Too late though. She deleted stuff off her phone and had to embellish the originating hints. Feminist activists, lawyers, politicians and the Media, each saw opportunity in convincing Higgins of her gendered victimhood and with it, multiple opportunities to avoid forensic scrutiny.
But the psychological effort to maintain self-serving lies has required accurately timed anxiety attacks and even relocation overseas. Perhaps a wedding too? She has become a sad real victim - but not of Lehrman's caddishness. Maybe one day, the psychic effort will become too much and she will choose to free her conscience.
For Lehrman, her betrayal of his unwillingness early on to throw her under the bus as an accomplice in their sexual encounter has made him legitimately angry and, as events have unfolded, vengeful towards her and all her supporters. His penalty for being randy and trusting systems of justice should be a permanent loss of masculine naivety. Let's hope it is accompanied by a manly maturity.
For most of us, the exposure of nefarious conduct by so many in high places has been disturbingly educational.
Excellent analysis in this reference, parts of which have been discussed in the comments here. Hopefully more legal opinions on Lee’s very unsatisfactory, and inconsistent, findings will be published.
The legal world is a very closed shop, so kudos to those in the legal fraternity willing to expose the questionable aspects of this case.
An opinion piece by Jaqueline Maley of The Age and SMH has an article in 16/5 online editions time stamped 5:00 am which begins:
"There is a dangerous backlash emerging against the prosecution of sexual assaults, which runs counter to everything we know about violence against women and which should be called out for what it is – misogyny and outdated attitudes masquerading as concern for the principles of justice."
In spite of my comments to this publication challenging the feminist narrative being routinely rejected, I was going to gently support the system, the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt.
But I found comments had been closed with just a single comment published at 9 am:
"We need specialised rape courts."
I suspect that some zealot columnists monitor their own articles.
I hope that the early closure of comments here is because the responses did not please The Age/SMH policy on challenging the feminist narrative as I have discussed mot r e fully in my posts below.
As with Ann Coulter on Substack as well, the opportunity for me to Like individual Comments appears to be permanently withdrawn. I hope this Comment gets through. Who is policing Substack?
Too drunk to give consent? Really? Not too drunk to hold one glass after another and pour them down her throat.. Not too drunk to attend a premises that sells for consumption a potent drug (alcohol)..
This Lehrmann - Higgins affair illustrates the sordid environment of drunkeness and fornication considered normal in public administration & government. The judiciary is as twisted as that environment of unrestricted hedonism. And the ABC ? - it seems to me, by observing all this, is composed of staff that is riddled with hardened arch feminists forever on the hunt for some fall guy they can tear to pieces.
This, unfortunately, is an area of crime and justice that the state simply cannot be involved in in most cases. Evidence and a realistic chance of conviction must be present, and how can they be the vast majority of times?
Young women AND young men have to take responsibility for themselves. Don't get so drunk that you may find yourself in a position that you can't consent. If you do get that drunk, make sure you're doing it with people who will look out for you. It's also worth remembering that you're putting yourself at risk of all sorts of things when you get blind drunk.
I mention men as well because I actually don't have a lot of sympathy for those being falsely accused of rape, unless the accusation is genuinely malicious. Don't sleep with random women who you know may be any level of intoxication. If you do, then you're knowingly putting yourself at risk.
Whatever happened to meeting someone you like, exchanging numbers, going on a few dates and then sleeping together? A far more rewarding experience and one in which you're much less likely to be a victim of rape/believe you're a victim of rape/get accused of rape.
Ban women from drinking. Women will often engage in and initiate sexual activity while under the influence of alcohol. If that means that false rape charges are to be upheld due to intoxication, then it makes sense to ban women from drinking at all.
Don’t be obtuse Alan. Note the balance in my reply?
I said malicious spurious rape allegations are wrong. If, however, you have sex with an intoxicated woman you run the risk of her making a rape allegation that she believes to be valid. And I have little sympathy for you.
Women: don’t get black-out drunk and you won’t get “raped” in these situations.
Men: don’t sleep with women who are intoxicated and you won’t get accused of rape in these situations.
Or are you just laying the blame at women’s doors, where I’m laying it at the door of both?Because then misogynist is actually a word that applies to you.
One of the problems here is that 'drunk' and 'intoxicated' are not clearly defined nor is it easy to ascertain another person's degree of intoxication except when extreme. Police are trained and experienced in recognizing possible intoxication but even then they need to use breath analysis devices, blood tests and/or lengthy behavioural testing to ascertain the level of intoxication. Especially for regular drinkers whose tolerance has developed and whose speech and behaviour don't reveal much, it's not unusual for police to recognize a driver's intoxication only when a screening device shows it.
Men are being expected to judge whether women's intoxication is at a level where a woman's enthusiastic consent, even when she initiates and leads sexual activity, would be ruled invalid due to her level of intoxication. There is no criterion at all to guide men in that task and even if there were, without testing devices there would be no way of measuring whether the criterion is met. Laws in 'western' countries deliberately avoid such criteria thereby allowing women to weaponize the law against men for whatever ulterior motive.
Sure, competent men should not have sexual contact with someone who is clearly very drunk as shown by slurred speech, physical incoordination, social impropriety or being comatose or seemingly unaware of events. However, in many prosecutions it's not like that. Any amount of alcohol consumption by a woman can be used to charge a man with rape or other sexual offences. All manner of spurious evidence can then be used to support the woman's subsequent allegation. The video surveillance showing they left the bar with him attempting to put his arm around her, or that next day she claimed to someone else she couldn't remember giving consent. That will do nicely thanks.
It's unrealistic to expect men to shun all sexual invitations if any alcohol at all might possibly have been consumed by the woman concerned. Men's testosterone and sexual drive are many times higher than women's. Expecting them to decline apparently genuine invitations from apparently competent females is like expecting a hungry person to reject offered food. It can be done and sure, moral codes can enable it for a minority of people with the personal fortitude, but that's not the case for all or most people. And morality is not necessarily the issue. Married women can accuse their husbands of rape or sexual assault on the grounds that the woman had consumed alcohol, when the husband simply appreciated the rare occasion when his wife appeared to be receptive to sex after a pleasant evening out.
Men unrealistically are being expected to judge whether a woman is intoxicated enough to make her consent invalid. When the punitive tariffs for getting it wrong are so high and the social consequences so life-ruining for an accused, that's a very inadequate basis for prosecution. The fact that the man's intoxication and ability to consent are disregarded is yet another problem. I'm not sure what the answer is but the current law is misandrist, happy for innocent men to be sacrificed on the altar of female empowerment.
The issue here is the declining moral standards , a result of the feminists demands for sexual liberation for women back in the sixties , they had a good case ,and got what they wanted .
Women now have the freedoms the feminist fought for but are not applying the self control that should come with a mature attitude towards these freedoms . And the same could be said of men.
A democratic society society bestows rights and freedoms on citizens but they should not be abused.
Less likely perhaps but not so much when it comes to being accused of rape. It's very common in Femily Court property and child 'custody' cases for women to trot out allegations of sexual abuse towards the woman or children. And for a man who dates a woman and develops a relationship before sleeping with her, he's more likely to become a victim of her wrath if he chooses to discontinue contact than is a man who engaged in a one night stand.
I agree, and it comes back to the old saying - Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned! The one night stand does not involve rejection, because there was no expectation of a relationship in the first place. Notwithstanding the "bunny boiler" in Fatal Attraction being premised on a one night stand. That's Hollywood, not the real world.
This all comes back to what history has proven all along for many decades. I myself have been a party and a victim to this discriminatory conundrum myself. Some women use the legal system, and the courts, to pursue vindictive, malicious, fictitious claims and allegations. Rarely, if ever, are they charged with Contempt of Court. At great expense, both in my personal reputation and financially, I proved this to be the case myself. The woman who did this was not held to account at all for her actions, fabricated lies, or the damage she had done. Even my request for the awarding of costs was rejected. Not even a verbal dressing down from the Magistrate. The women did this because she had stolen from me, and she thought by doing that it would frighten me off from coming after her for what she stole. She was wrong about that assumption too. I got back what she stole, recovered my entire costs, and then some. Men have to learn to fight for justice and their innocence. It does not matter how biased the justice system is, at the end of the day, facts and the truth cannot be changed and will always win out.
'Facts and the truth cannot be changed' is correct, indeed a truism, but they most certainly don't always win out. When it comes to Courts dealing with issues between men and women, feminist ideology more often determines what will win out. That's both because laws have been designed that way especially over the last 50 years and because the administration of the law is done by people who have been so effectively indoctrinated to believe feminist falsehoods.
Sure, over time (even post mortem) and if there are people prepared and able to spend the time, effort, risk and money, facts and truth can eventually win the day. But determining facts and truth accurately is often impossible especially when allegations are between two people without witnesses or other evidence. The truth can only be guessed at. A Court judge's guess becomes reality as far as the law goes unless an appeal finds some problem in the process leading to that guess.
That's not to discourage people from standing up and telling their truth. And in your case, well done for reaching a successful outcome financially and hopefully morally.
No one thinks that their wife will do it. I think that the difficulty in establishing the truth is due to governments doing what the public has demanded (so that the gov will win the next election) Ie if the gov does not care about the dishonesty in the system, the bias against men will continue. The extreme costs of fighting when one has had their partner lie to destroy them is just so hard. Surely there should be a Gov appointed person to advise these people.
The justice system we inherited from the British was never interested in the truth , it’s all about winning ,and whoever has the deepest pockets usually wins .
It’s a closed shop ,a monopoly , as well as a commercial cartel and the feminist’s war on men has been a big money maker . Bruce Lehrmann was lucky to have lawyers working pro bono and this is reassuring that at least some lawyers can see the failings of the system , and could be the start of big changes .
A comparison with other professions has been made , the obvious one is the medical profession. The two had similar beginnings in medieval England where the high priests controlled the workings for their own profit and prestige, rigid hierarchies where the result and the needs of the people came a poor second.
If this sounds like the present justice system it’s no coincidence . But to their credit the doctors of the modern age saw the need for changes and the medical systems are much more focused on the wellbeing of the people they serve.
A similar reworking is needed with the justice system , can it be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century ?
No offence, but you're talking complete horseshit. The justice system does not need to be dragged into the 21st century, it needs to be dragged BACK to the 20th century, to a time before it was corrupted by feminism. You're probably younger than me so you won't remember, but if you search any digital newspaper archive for the term "false rape" you'll find endless cases. On Trove you'll get 65,621 results, like the following from 1976:
Irene, a 28-year old woman on supporting mother's benefit, was raped last year in Queensland. Three days after she reported the rape to police, she was summonsed by detectives for making a false complaint. The police had decided after talking to her rapist and his witnesses that Irene had not been raped. Irene was convicted of false complaint, fined $180, and put on one years probabtion. She has appealed against her conviction. Demonstrations against Irene's conviction will be held in each capital city on Friday May 28 at 12.30 PM.
(So the well organized feminists have jumped on the case, with a coordinated nationwide CBD protest, designed to make headlines and lead the 6 o'clock news.)
The Criminal Code of Queensland spells out the law's attitude to women bringing a charge of rape "...the judge should direct the jury in clear and simple language that it is dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant, because human experience in the courts has shown that women and girls, for all sorts of reasons, and sometimes for no reason at all, tell a false story that is very easy to fabricate, but extremely difficult to refute."
(But the feminist spokesperson from the Sydney Rape Crisis centre sees The Patriarchy at work):
"It's relevant that Irene is a supporting mother - someone who's not married, with a husband", said Ruth. "We see that rape laws act in this way, to punish women who step outside the 'right' roles."
The demonstrations on May 28 will make the following demands: That all charges against Irene be dropped; that the corroborative requirements in rape cases be dropped; that the previous sexual experience of victims be inadmissable as evidence; that women have the right of a closed court to give evidence; and the legal recognition of rape within marriage.
(I believe all these changes have long since been implemented, and we've gone even further with "believe all women" and "trauma informed" judges. But you can see that 50 years ago the police were quick to charge false complainants, and the media was quick to report the case, including naming the woman, and judges gave instructions based on "human experience in the courts" that false rape accusations are actually quite common.)
As expected you have missed my point entirely. But the way police treated false complaints in the past is a good indication of how things have changed.
This shows the strong influence of feminism on the police forces of the country, now women can make all sorts of accusations and even when obviously false no action is taken against them. Police are bowing to political pressure and that is an issue in itself of public importance , as some judges have said “these cases should never have been tried”
In the past the police would look at the evidence and decide if there was enough to charge and in many rape case there was not. This meant some women did not get justice and this is what infuriated the feminists .
So now we have a situation where police act like spoilt brats and say “charge all men , let the courts decide , we don’t care “. They have abrogated their responsibility to act as an important step in the judicial process which was to filter out the bogus complaints.
The role of police in the erosion of the presumption of innocence is an important aspect and I hope it gets the attention it deserves at the conference. Maybe an invitation to speak could be sent to the Commisioner or minister or even the president of the police union, no doubt they would decline and this would at least prove their complicity.
"This shows the strong influence of feminism on the police forces of the country"
Exactly! The classic example being the Duluth model introduced in the early '80s in the US. It's basically presumption of guilt for men, and presumption of innocence for women.
Duluth is a town or city in US is it ? Or a university , but why does Australia slavishly copy virtually everything American ? Aussie kids now say “zee” instead of “zed” , next we’ll be driving on the other side of the road .
Seriously the Duluth model also assumes men are always responsible for any domestic conflict and American police are under orders to remove the man from the house in every situation they are called to ,even if the woman was the cause and even if both parties have made up and don’t want police to be involved , as often happens a neighbour may have called police . Australia is following these draconian ways , a Marxist state .
In my assessment, right from the start, Dreyfus and that Heidi Yates women had complicity written all over them. It is my theory that the original criminal court case was purposely derailed. Derailed because it was all going to shite for Higgins. I think it was no accident that research material was found in the Jury chamber.
The juror admitted they had conducted their own research to “clarify a point” for themselves.
“I brought it in to show where the clarification came from and we agreed that … because it was research that it shouldn’t be discussed and I didn’t, we have not discussed it,” the juror said.
“Can I say I give you my sincere apologies. I wasn’t aware that … doing this was in any sense a wrongdoing,” they said.
“I was just purely doing, finding out what it meant, certain words, and in case I mentioned it to the jury, I want to make sure that I wasn’t inventing anything.
“No one has read it, no one knows anything about it. I just thought I would mention that.
McCallum took steps to protect the anonymity of the juror, who said they were “willing to take the responsibility” for the misconduct.
Drumgold claimed it was one holdout juror who brought in the material, and the others wanted to convict, but Whybrow said his team believed there were 10 jurors in favour of acquittal. One day when the dust has settled some of these jurors will start talking and spill the beans.
I think one of the most puzzling parts of Justice Lee’s findings was that, while he acknowledged the lies fabricated by Higgins (and Lehrmann) during this entire, tawdry saga, he then chose to accept, uncritically, her version of events regarding the alleged rape. This apparently, is what the ‘trauma informed’ approach requires. This results in ALL inconsistencies in the testimony of Higgins being accepted and due, without question, to ‘trauma’. At no point did Lee consider the possibility of temporary amnesia due to alcohol - details of which are noted in the article and in the comments.
I’d suggest that Justice Lee, despite his expertise, opted for the verdict that would be well received by the ‘people who matter’ and his peers. Given the current environment, his future prospects would undoubtedly have been harmed by the voicing of any other verdict.
I think Lee is naive in matters sexual, like a first-year psychology student hearing about that trauma theory for the first time, personally enarmoured by chrysanthemum whatever side of the case she is representing at the time, and very conscious of his own image - physical and intellectual. I was struck by how flattered he appeared to be when the public was so impressed by his literay allusions, beyond Shakespeare to quotes from Yes, Minister.
Btw I have a theory of how the trauma theory found its way into Lee’s head. But I will save that for when I want to put more organised thoughts into other thinkers who might be useful to the Lehrmann appeal.
Higgins own statements are that her initial and primary concern was that being found naked in a minister's office could have repercussions on her career.
Lee and others underestimated how much her professional profile mattered to her. If you look at the way she is currently presenting herself now, it is as if she wants to be running the UN soon while being Times woman of the year. How often during the trial did she talk about seniority (and professional competition).
Drinking orgies and fornication seem to be the norm in that temple of immorality in Canberra. The people there, Members of Parliament and their staff have a duty to display an acceptable standard of good conduct. Instead, these people are examples of a degenerate culture and are not REAL PEOPLE the Australian citizenry can look up to.
Yes this case has exposed to the public the lax standards of behaviour in the capital city. No surprise, Canberra is a bubble remote geographically as well as socially. The Federal parliamentary building should be treated with the respect it deserves but it’s controlled by feminists and leftists who have no respect for anything .
I would go as far as to say Canberra was a big mistake from the start ,now after 100 years we can see it was badly located and Ill conceived
Sydney could have been a better choice and would have saved taxpayers a fortune. The cost of building a capital city from scratch in the middle of nowhere was a huge waste of money.
From what you say JayBee it seems the Judge compromised his position. Unfortunately he also let every other of his supporters down. He is another one saying it's OK for women to give false testimony.
The trauma of being raped is no excuse for giving false evidence; in my opinion, for the Judge who has obviously been brainwashed by the women's lobby lot, to excuse the false evidence. ie A person who witnesses a murder, or experiences an attempted murder, (far worse than rape), has to give evidence that is correct and accurate or the accused will get off. No wonder the Family Court seems to be at cross purposes to all other courts.
If people are not responsible for their behaviour when intoxicated, then nobody should be found guilty for drunk driving.
Most men prosecuted or convicted are as intoxicated as the women alleging exploitation, so why is the man the only one seen as taking advantage? As is clear from this article (thanks so much Bettina for your endless work and support towards true gender equality), the criterion of 'lack of recall' is not a valid one for determining capacity to give consent. It's also based on a subjective claim that can't be proven. If such claims are accepted as evidence they provide yet another opportunity for women to weaponize the law against men for whatever ulterior motive. Aside from all that, I have never heard of a woman being prosecuted for sexually exploiting a man on the basis that he couldn't remember the events. Just another example of sexist discrimination against men.
Thinking about it, if a man said he didn't remember having sex with a woman, that's likely to result in charges against the male because the woman felt offended that she was not experienced as special enough to be remembered. Heads men lose, Tails women win.
Oh, I see now that AJ below has made most of these same points and more eloquently! But another matter in this case deserves scrutiny, that is 'the balance of probabilities' as a standard of proof. My readings in trying to understand how that balancing is done suggests it's little more than a subjective opinion reached by the judge. It's the standard of proof used in Family Courts to decide whether to believe allegations.
Firstly, it seems irresponsible to apply such a lax standard of proof for decisions that will have such a profound impact on the lives of children not to mention the accused, usually a male. The reasoning appears to be that the Court will err on the side of caution because if the allegations are true that will expose the woman and/or child(ren) to risk of harm. However, applying such a low standard of proof will mean that many more cases will cause harm than those in which harm is prevented. Harm is caused by wrecking or seriously degrading the relationship and bonding between children and (mainly) fathers when there is no good cause to do so. An analogy would be a medical doctor using a similarly poor standard of proof to decide whether a headache indicates a brain tumour that needs surgery.
Secondly, one of the (only) criteria involved in making a balance-of-probabilities judgment is how likely the alleged events were to have occurred. Given the feminist propaganda believed by judges and commoners alike, misbehaviour alleged against men will always be seen as more probable than its real likelihood or rate in the population. On the other hand, when women are accused of violence or serious inadequacy as mothers, the likelihood of that will be seen as low. We often see cases where fathers' efforts to warn a Court of the mother's risk to children fall on deaf ears until a tragedy proves the father correct.
Thirdly, although seriously unreliable guesses, Court 'findings' on the balance of probabilities are likely to be used in subsequent proceedings as if they represent reliable evidence. Past or existing Femily Court 'protection', non-contact or restraining orders will be trotted out as evidence to show an accused has a propensity for violence even though those orders required little or no proof of any violence and indeed they aren't evidence of anything beyond allegations having been made and believed by a feminist-indoctrinated judge. Similarly, property, civil and child 'custody' cases will treat such orders as factual evidence of violence. This can and often does result in tragic outcomes.
Lastly, finding men guilty on 'the balance of probabilities' in cases like Lehrmann involve serious harm to those men. This is very different from property settlements and most other 'civil' cases. The men judged as guilty may not incur criminal convictions or prison sentences but their reputations, careers, families and lives will usually be trashed by such judgments. No such finding should be made without the most rigorous standard of proof being satisfied, and legally that is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Not the subjective preference of a judge.
Such a well written article. Unfortunately it is so truthful, and fact. Often when I see a man pushing a pram I think "will you face the heartache another has? Will that be your thanks?
Well, with 50% divorce rate, most of it initiated by women, most of whom get custody, it's a toss of the coin whether he'll be in that baby's life for much longer anyway. Whether or not she makes any false allegations to improve her settlement is another question.
I first learnt about alcohol-induced blackouts four decades ago. At first, I thought someone was pulling my leg, but then stories of crimes being committed such as stealing or fighting emerged.
Other stories of people who had been drinking found themselves in another country with no recollection of how they got there.
This article is perhaps the most solid I have seen written so far.
There usually is some forewarning that you are going to have trouble. When shit happens, keep records and evidence for a day you might have to present them as evidence. Use that evidence to prove that the allegations are malicious, fictitious, concocted and vexatious. If they have stolen money, put caveats on their assets so they cannot do anything with them. It took me two years of frustration but I stuck with it. Soon nobody was prepared to represent her in the face of that evidence. She had unpaid bills from solicitors, that once they had been served with the evidence, they refused to represent her and told her she must settle. The longer it took, her cost to settle grew. Next came the threat to send in the Ballif. Sell her property etc. In the end she had to cough up or loose everything she had.
"malicious, fictitious, concocted and vexatious"
That's quite lyrical! And it describes feminism perfectly. What a great slogan for an anti-feminist march! Thousands of men with placards chanting Malicious! Fictitious! Concocted and Vexatious! We could take this battle to the streets, like the feminists themselves did in the '70s.
Good luck getting “thousands of men” to do anything , I agree it would be a step forward but unlike women men don’t seem to be able to work together for a common goal, except maybe in times of war and under orders.
You're right of course, the idea of men marching in the street against feminism is pure fantasy. For a start, they'd never get a leave pass from the missus!
How to beg the question and get away with it. That's what it seems to amount to. [Beg the question: presume the thing to be proven in the question itself]
Judge Lee's decision has sparked controversy due to his acceptance of a novel legal theory presented in the final submission by the accuser, Higgins. According to this theory, any inconsistencies or falsehoods in a rape victim's testimony can be attributed to the trauma experienced during the alleged rape. This concept, which was not supported by expert witness testimony, suggests that the psychological impact of rape can cause victims to provide inaccurate details about the incident.
Critics argue that Judge Lee's acceptance of this theory, without the backing of expert witnesses, sets a dangerous precedent that could potentially poison future trials. They contend that this "trauma-based" approach, which excuses any and all falsehoods told by an accuser, makes it virtually impossible for defendants to receive a fair trial. The circular logic employed in this theory - that lying is a result of the trauma caused by the very event being questioned - raises concerns about the impartiality of the legal system.
Furthermore, the fact that Judge Lee accepted this theory wholesale, without requiring expert testimony to validate its scientific basis, suggests that his verdict may have been predetermined. The adoption of this unprecedented legal theory, based on a novel psychological concept, could have dire consequences for defendants if other judges follow suit.
It almost seemed as though the Judge was giving an account of a "dream" he had. The danger is that others now quote him, as though it now follows. Agree, it could have dire consequences until someone challenges the thought/dream.
The judge had no reason to delve into whether or not Bruce Lehrmann was guilty of rape ,that case had already been tried and the trial abandoned with no verdict, he was only supposed to decide if the television station had defamed Mr Lehrmann by calling him a rapist before a court case and a conviction .On that matter you would think a judge would find in favour of a person in Lehrmann’s position.
The judge has in effect also defamed Lehrmann by saying that “on the balance of probability he did rape Ms Higgins”. The judge went too far with a comment like that , but he can hide behind the law of immunity from legal action for judicial officers. Otherwise Bruce Lehrmann could sue the judge for defamation .
Laws need to be changed to allow for accountability and liability of judges and magistrates who carelessly ruin peoples lives .
I believe the whole court system needs to be changed. It’s not good enough when many say “women have lied to get custody of a child/children. The man faces huge costs & loss of self worth. The whole extended family is effected! Lee waffles on, Wilkenson employs legal people at great expense and now Lee rules Lehrman pay Wilkenson’s legal people! If Lehrman could have afforded the legal people Wilkensen had he may have won! Justice!! Ben Roberts-Smith is found guilty of war crimes & the King decides to award him a medal! His father high military awards & high court Judge attends? Ben is found guilty and is not in jail?
This "trauma informed" doctrine is simply an extension of the "believe all women" doctrine. It goes like this: Believe all women, and if they contradict themselves, consider that as characteristic of trauma. So in fact, any self-contradiction becomes evidence of trauma! It's the exact same circular logic employed in Catch-22, but that was supposed to be satire!
Judge Lee's verdict was predetermined. His reasoning is a non sequitur.
I really don't think he provided any reasoning. He just said her story had "the ring of truth".
I find it curious that while everyone bangs on about intoxication affecting a woman's ability to consent, no one ever considers the effect on men. Brewer's droop is a common condition affecting heavy drinkers, and Bruce certainly qualifies there! Among the numerous possibilities ignored by Justice Lee is any scenario in which Bruce failed to get it up. In fact, that would have been a more credible defence from the outset. He could admit to taking her to PH for sex, and getting on top of her, but deny that penetration occurred, and he left in haste with his tail between his legs (so to speak). His girlfriend could testify to his deplorable drinking habits, and the lamentable effect on their sex life, while he sat shamefaced in front of the jury. Leaving his accuser Brittany to insist that with her he was a virile amorous stud, a veritable stallion, able to perform superbly despite a bellyful of piss and a comatose partner. The entire case would then turn on which of these two women fighting over a man, and which of their stories, was more credible. The only problem being, could anyone on the jury keep a straight face!
Well sleuthed Bettina. And you explain the legal aspects and implications of alcohol induced amnesia so well. Thank you as always.
But what actually happened to begin the ever widening vortex has always intrigued me. I am mindful that, of the changing stories from the only two individuals who could know, Lehrman has always denied that "normal" coitus took place. He is utterly adamant and consistent about that despite every setback so far. Commonsense tells me that if he were guilty, he would surely have given up, moved on, cut his losses. But no. He is behaving as a sane, wrongly judged and innocent person would. However, various confounding befuddlements suggest that something sexual did actually take place. So let me offer my two bob's worth. It seems to physiologically and psychologically fit the known facts and assertions. And offers plausible explanations for some lies too.
Lehrman and Higgins went into Reynolds' office both with the same intent, to get their rocks off. Alcohol played a large part. That much we know for sure.
Speculation ON. She went to the bathroom, returned later and lay on the couch. He went to the bathroom too but his enthusiasm had sagged. For some time, she offered to assist and eventually suggested he satisfy her by being unable to talk and which may simultaneously recover his interest. He obliged but his interest still lagged. He thus left no wet patch (to be found or mentioned) on the couch or on her dress. Now woozy and satisfied, she drifted into a doubly-relaxed nap and before passing out muttered it was OK for him to leave. He obligingly did as he was told, but now in an adjoining office took longer than usual to satisfy himself. That's why he did he not leave right away.
Speculation OFF. Lehrman then left alone. Higgins overslept on the ministerial couch, was found napping and undressed. She answered she was OK, and later left the building alone. When confronted by the verifiable fact of questionable attendance at the minister's office, Lehrman admitted to that clear misdemeanour and was sacked.
Higgins, now aware of her potential fate, turned to old-fashioned self-preservation mode by hinting obliquely at naughty things done to her, but not together with her or by her! Nothing specific of course, just hints. Responsible grown-ups could not risk the hints being only childish fibs. And it all began to spiral out of her control, much further than Higgins imagined. Too late though. She deleted stuff off her phone and had to embellish the originating hints. Feminist activists, lawyers, politicians and the Media, each saw opportunity in convincing Higgins of her gendered victimhood and with it, multiple opportunities to avoid forensic scrutiny.
But the psychological effort to maintain self-serving lies has required accurately timed anxiety attacks and even relocation overseas. Perhaps a wedding too? She has become a sad real victim - but not of Lehrman's caddishness. Maybe one day, the psychic effort will become too much and she will choose to free her conscience.
For Lehrman, her betrayal of his unwillingness early on to throw her under the bus as an accomplice in their sexual encounter has made him legitimately angry and, as events have unfolded, vengeful towards her and all her supporters. His penalty for being randy and trusting systems of justice should be a permanent loss of masculine naivety. Let's hope it is accompanied by a manly maturity.
For most of us, the exposure of nefarious conduct by so many in high places has been disturbingly educational.
My readers might like to see this new blog, just posted by Ken Mackenzie, on the Lee judgement:
https://www.mackenziemitchellsolicitors.com.au/why-did-justice-lee-believe-brittany-higgins-on-the-crucial-point/
Excellent analysis in this reference, parts of which have been discussed in the comments here. Hopefully more legal opinions on Lee’s very unsatisfactory, and inconsistent, findings will be published.
The legal world is a very closed shop, so kudos to those in the legal fraternity willing to expose the questionable aspects of this case.
An opinion piece by Jaqueline Maley of The Age and SMH has an article in 16/5 online editions time stamped 5:00 am which begins:
"There is a dangerous backlash emerging against the prosecution of sexual assaults, which runs counter to everything we know about violence against women and which should be called out for what it is – misogyny and outdated attitudes masquerading as concern for the principles of justice."
In spite of my comments to this publication challenging the feminist narrative being routinely rejected, I was going to gently support the system, the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt.
But I found comments had been closed with just a single comment published at 9 am:
"We need specialised rape courts."
I suspect that some zealot columnists monitor their own articles.
I hope that the early closure of comments here is because the responses did not please The Age/SMH policy on challenging the feminist narrative as I have discussed mot r e fully in my posts below.
As with Ann Coulter on Substack as well, the opportunity for me to Like individual Comments appears to be permanently withdrawn. I hope this Comment gets through. Who is policing Substack?
Pardon. The date of the article was today, 16/6, not 16/5
Too drunk to give consent? Really? Not too drunk to hold one glass after another and pour them down her throat.. Not too drunk to attend a premises that sells for consumption a potent drug (alcohol)..
This Lehrmann - Higgins affair illustrates the sordid environment of drunkeness and fornication considered normal in public administration & government. The judiciary is as twisted as that environment of unrestricted hedonism. And the ABC ? - it seems to me, by observing all this, is composed of staff that is riddled with hardened arch feminists forever on the hunt for some fall guy they can tear to pieces.
This, unfortunately, is an area of crime and justice that the state simply cannot be involved in in most cases. Evidence and a realistic chance of conviction must be present, and how can they be the vast majority of times?
Young women AND young men have to take responsibility for themselves. Don't get so drunk that you may find yourself in a position that you can't consent. If you do get that drunk, make sure you're doing it with people who will look out for you. It's also worth remembering that you're putting yourself at risk of all sorts of things when you get blind drunk.
I mention men as well because I actually don't have a lot of sympathy for those being falsely accused of rape, unless the accusation is genuinely malicious. Don't sleep with random women who you know may be any level of intoxication. If you do, then you're knowingly putting yourself at risk.
Whatever happened to meeting someone you like, exchanging numbers, going on a few dates and then sleeping together? A far more rewarding experience and one in which you're much less likely to be a victim of rape/believe you're a victim of rape/get accused of rape.
Ban women from drinking. Women will often engage in and initiate sexual activity while under the influence of alcohol. If that means that false rape charges are to be upheld due to intoxication, then it makes sense to ban women from drinking at all.
"actually don't have a lot of sympathy for those being falsely accused of rape" spoken like true misandrist.
Don’t be obtuse Alan. Note the balance in my reply?
I said malicious spurious rape allegations are wrong. If, however, you have sex with an intoxicated woman you run the risk of her making a rape allegation that she believes to be valid. And I have little sympathy for you.
Women: don’t get black-out drunk and you won’t get “raped” in these situations.
Men: don’t sleep with women who are intoxicated and you won’t get accused of rape in these situations.
Or are you just laying the blame at women’s doors, where I’m laying it at the door of both?Because then misogynist is actually a word that applies to you.
One of the problems here is that 'drunk' and 'intoxicated' are not clearly defined nor is it easy to ascertain another person's degree of intoxication except when extreme. Police are trained and experienced in recognizing possible intoxication but even then they need to use breath analysis devices, blood tests and/or lengthy behavioural testing to ascertain the level of intoxication. Especially for regular drinkers whose tolerance has developed and whose speech and behaviour don't reveal much, it's not unusual for police to recognize a driver's intoxication only when a screening device shows it.
Men are being expected to judge whether women's intoxication is at a level where a woman's enthusiastic consent, even when she initiates and leads sexual activity, would be ruled invalid due to her level of intoxication. There is no criterion at all to guide men in that task and even if there were, without testing devices there would be no way of measuring whether the criterion is met. Laws in 'western' countries deliberately avoid such criteria thereby allowing women to weaponize the law against men for whatever ulterior motive.
Sure, competent men should not have sexual contact with someone who is clearly very drunk as shown by slurred speech, physical incoordination, social impropriety or being comatose or seemingly unaware of events. However, in many prosecutions it's not like that. Any amount of alcohol consumption by a woman can be used to charge a man with rape or other sexual offences. All manner of spurious evidence can then be used to support the woman's subsequent allegation. The video surveillance showing they left the bar with him attempting to put his arm around her, or that next day she claimed to someone else she couldn't remember giving consent. That will do nicely thanks.
It's unrealistic to expect men to shun all sexual invitations if any alcohol at all might possibly have been consumed by the woman concerned. Men's testosterone and sexual drive are many times higher than women's. Expecting them to decline apparently genuine invitations from apparently competent females is like expecting a hungry person to reject offered food. It can be done and sure, moral codes can enable it for a minority of people with the personal fortitude, but that's not the case for all or most people. And morality is not necessarily the issue. Married women can accuse their husbands of rape or sexual assault on the grounds that the woman had consumed alcohol, when the husband simply appreciated the rare occasion when his wife appeared to be receptive to sex after a pleasant evening out.
Men unrealistically are being expected to judge whether a woman is intoxicated enough to make her consent invalid. When the punitive tariffs for getting it wrong are so high and the social consequences so life-ruining for an accused, that's a very inadequate basis for prosecution. The fact that the man's intoxication and ability to consent are disregarded is yet another problem. I'm not sure what the answer is but the current law is misandrist, happy for innocent men to be sacrificed on the altar of female empowerment.
The issue here is the declining moral standards , a result of the feminists demands for sexual liberation for women back in the sixties , they had a good case ,and got what they wanted .
Women now have the freedoms the feminist fought for but are not applying the self control that should come with a mature attitude towards these freedoms . And the same could be said of men.
A democratic society society bestows rights and freedoms on citizens but they should not be abused.
Less likely perhaps but not so much when it comes to being accused of rape. It's very common in Femily Court property and child 'custody' cases for women to trot out allegations of sexual abuse towards the woman or children. And for a man who dates a woman and develops a relationship before sleeping with her, he's more likely to become a victim of her wrath if he chooses to discontinue contact than is a man who engaged in a one night stand.
I agree, and it comes back to the old saying - Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned! The one night stand does not involve rejection, because there was no expectation of a relationship in the first place. Notwithstanding the "bunny boiler" in Fatal Attraction being premised on a one night stand. That's Hollywood, not the real world.
This all comes back to what history has proven all along for many decades. I myself have been a party and a victim to this discriminatory conundrum myself. Some women use the legal system, and the courts, to pursue vindictive, malicious, fictitious claims and allegations. Rarely, if ever, are they charged with Contempt of Court. At great expense, both in my personal reputation and financially, I proved this to be the case myself. The woman who did this was not held to account at all for her actions, fabricated lies, or the damage she had done. Even my request for the awarding of costs was rejected. Not even a verbal dressing down from the Magistrate. The women did this because she had stolen from me, and she thought by doing that it would frighten me off from coming after her for what she stole. She was wrong about that assumption too. I got back what she stole, recovered my entire costs, and then some. Men have to learn to fight for justice and their innocence. It does not matter how biased the justice system is, at the end of the day, facts and the truth cannot be changed and will always win out.
Sounds wonderful, the way it should be. Is there any chance of finding out the way you achieved this.
'Facts and the truth cannot be changed' is correct, indeed a truism, but they most certainly don't always win out. When it comes to Courts dealing with issues between men and women, feminist ideology more often determines what will win out. That's both because laws have been designed that way especially over the last 50 years and because the administration of the law is done by people who have been so effectively indoctrinated to believe feminist falsehoods.
Sure, over time (even post mortem) and if there are people prepared and able to spend the time, effort, risk and money, facts and truth can eventually win the day. But determining facts and truth accurately is often impossible especially when allegations are between two people without witnesses or other evidence. The truth can only be guessed at. A Court judge's guess becomes reality as far as the law goes unless an appeal finds some problem in the process leading to that guess.
That's not to discourage people from standing up and telling their truth. And in your case, well done for reaching a successful outcome financially and hopefully morally.
No one thinks that their wife will do it. I think that the difficulty in establishing the truth is due to governments doing what the public has demanded (so that the gov will win the next election) Ie if the gov does not care about the dishonesty in the system, the bias against men will continue. The extreme costs of fighting when one has had their partner lie to destroy them is just so hard. Surely there should be a Gov appointed person to advise these people.
The justice system we inherited from the British was never interested in the truth , it’s all about winning ,and whoever has the deepest pockets usually wins .
It’s a closed shop ,a monopoly , as well as a commercial cartel and the feminist’s war on men has been a big money maker . Bruce Lehrmann was lucky to have lawyers working pro bono and this is reassuring that at least some lawyers can see the failings of the system , and could be the start of big changes .
A comparison with other professions has been made , the obvious one is the medical profession. The two had similar beginnings in medieval England where the high priests controlled the workings for their own profit and prestige, rigid hierarchies where the result and the needs of the people came a poor second.
If this sounds like the present justice system it’s no coincidence . But to their credit the doctors of the modern age saw the need for changes and the medical systems are much more focused on the wellbeing of the people they serve.
A similar reworking is needed with the justice system , can it be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century ?
No offence, but you're talking complete horseshit. The justice system does not need to be dragged into the 21st century, it needs to be dragged BACK to the 20th century, to a time before it was corrupted by feminism. You're probably younger than me so you won't remember, but if you search any digital newspaper archive for the term "false rape" you'll find endless cases. On Trove you'll get 65,621 results, like the following from 1976:
Irene, a 28-year old woman on supporting mother's benefit, was raped last year in Queensland. Three days after she reported the rape to police, she was summonsed by detectives for making a false complaint. The police had decided after talking to her rapist and his witnesses that Irene had not been raped. Irene was convicted of false complaint, fined $180, and put on one years probabtion. She has appealed against her conviction. Demonstrations against Irene's conviction will be held in each capital city on Friday May 28 at 12.30 PM.
(So the well organized feminists have jumped on the case, with a coordinated nationwide CBD protest, designed to make headlines and lead the 6 o'clock news.)
The Criminal Code of Queensland spells out the law's attitude to women bringing a charge of rape "...the judge should direct the jury in clear and simple language that it is dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant, because human experience in the courts has shown that women and girls, for all sorts of reasons, and sometimes for no reason at all, tell a false story that is very easy to fabricate, but extremely difficult to refute."
(But the feminist spokesperson from the Sydney Rape Crisis centre sees The Patriarchy at work):
"It's relevant that Irene is a supporting mother - someone who's not married, with a husband", said Ruth. "We see that rape laws act in this way, to punish women who step outside the 'right' roles."
The demonstrations on May 28 will make the following demands: That all charges against Irene be dropped; that the corroborative requirements in rape cases be dropped; that the previous sexual experience of victims be inadmissable as evidence; that women have the right of a closed court to give evidence; and the legal recognition of rape within marriage.
(I believe all these changes have long since been implemented, and we've gone even further with "believe all women" and "trauma informed" judges. But you can see that 50 years ago the police were quick to charge false complainants, and the media was quick to report the case, including naming the woman, and judges gave instructions based on "human experience in the courts" that false rape accusations are actually quite common.)
As expected you have missed my point entirely. But the way police treated false complaints in the past is a good indication of how things have changed.
This shows the strong influence of feminism on the police forces of the country, now women can make all sorts of accusations and even when obviously false no action is taken against them. Police are bowing to political pressure and that is an issue in itself of public importance , as some judges have said “these cases should never have been tried”
In the past the police would look at the evidence and decide if there was enough to charge and in many rape case there was not. This meant some women did not get justice and this is what infuriated the feminists .
So now we have a situation where police act like spoilt brats and say “charge all men , let the courts decide , we don’t care “. They have abrogated their responsibility to act as an important step in the judicial process which was to filter out the bogus complaints.
The role of police in the erosion of the presumption of innocence is an important aspect and I hope it gets the attention it deserves at the conference. Maybe an invitation to speak could be sent to the Commisioner or minister or even the president of the police union, no doubt they would decline and this would at least prove their complicity.
"This shows the strong influence of feminism on the police forces of the country"
Exactly! The classic example being the Duluth model introduced in the early '80s in the US. It's basically presumption of guilt for men, and presumption of innocence for women.
Duluth is a town or city in US is it ? Or a university , but why does Australia slavishly copy virtually everything American ? Aussie kids now say “zee” instead of “zed” , next we’ll be driving on the other side of the road .
Seriously the Duluth model also assumes men are always responsible for any domestic conflict and American police are under orders to remove the man from the house in every situation they are called to ,even if the woman was the cause and even if both parties have made up and don’t want police to be involved , as often happens a neighbour may have called police . Australia is following these draconian ways , a Marxist state .
Thank you once again Bettina. Without you men and their families would be alone in their fight for justice. You are a hero, on a wonderful mission.
In my assessment, right from the start, Dreyfus and that Heidi Yates women had complicity written all over them. It is my theory that the original criminal court case was purposely derailed. Derailed because it was all going to shite for Higgins. I think it was no accident that research material was found in the Jury chamber.
But the inquiry found no complicity:
The juror admitted they had conducted their own research to “clarify a point” for themselves.
“I brought it in to show where the clarification came from and we agreed that … because it was research that it shouldn’t be discussed and I didn’t, we have not discussed it,” the juror said.
“Can I say I give you my sincere apologies. I wasn’t aware that … doing this was in any sense a wrongdoing,” they said.
“I was just purely doing, finding out what it meant, certain words, and in case I mentioned it to the jury, I want to make sure that I wasn’t inventing anything.
“No one has read it, no one knows anything about it. I just thought I would mention that.
McCallum took steps to protect the anonymity of the juror, who said they were “willing to take the responsibility” for the misconduct.
Drumgold claimed it was one holdout juror who brought in the material, and the others wanted to convict, but Whybrow said his team believed there were 10 jurors in favour of acquittal. One day when the dust has settled some of these jurors will start talking and spill the beans.
Thanks Bettina.
I think one of the most puzzling parts of Justice Lee’s findings was that, while he acknowledged the lies fabricated by Higgins (and Lehrmann) during this entire, tawdry saga, he then chose to accept, uncritically, her version of events regarding the alleged rape. This apparently, is what the ‘trauma informed’ approach requires. This results in ALL inconsistencies in the testimony of Higgins being accepted and due, without question, to ‘trauma’. At no point did Lee consider the possibility of temporary amnesia due to alcohol - details of which are noted in the article and in the comments.
I’d suggest that Justice Lee, despite his expertise, opted for the verdict that would be well received by the ‘people who matter’ and his peers. Given the current environment, his future prospects would undoubtedly have been harmed by the voicing of any other verdict.
I wish Lehrmann all the best with his appeal.
I think Lee is naive in matters sexual, like a first-year psychology student hearing about that trauma theory for the first time, personally enarmoured by chrysanthemum whatever side of the case she is representing at the time, and very conscious of his own image - physical and intellectual. I was struck by how flattered he appeared to be when the public was so impressed by his literay allusions, beyond Shakespeare to quotes from Yes, Minister.
Btw I have a theory of how the trauma theory found its way into Lee’s head. But I will save that for when I want to put more organised thoughts into other thinkers who might be useful to the Lehrmann appeal.
Or confabulation.
Higgins own statements are that her initial and primary concern was that being found naked in a minister's office could have repercussions on her career.
Lee and others underestimated how much her professional profile mattered to her. If you look at the way she is currently presenting herself now, it is as if she wants to be running the UN soon while being Times woman of the year. How often during the trial did she talk about seniority (and professional competition).
Found naked in a minister's office? What kind of "people" are these???
I am not sure what you mean. Please help me. Not being sarcastic. Thanks.
Drinking orgies and fornication seem to be the norm in that temple of immorality in Canberra. The people there, Members of Parliament and their staff have a duty to display an acceptable standard of good conduct. Instead, these people are examples of a degenerate culture and are not REAL PEOPLE the Australian citizenry can look up to.
Yes this case has exposed to the public the lax standards of behaviour in the capital city. No surprise, Canberra is a bubble remote geographically as well as socially. The Federal parliamentary building should be treated with the respect it deserves but it’s controlled by feminists and leftists who have no respect for anything .
I would go as far as to say Canberra was a big mistake from the start ,now after 100 years we can see it was badly located and Ill conceived
Sydney could have been a better choice and would have saved taxpayers a fortune. The cost of building a capital city from scratch in the middle of nowhere was a huge waste of money.
And this temple where parsimony is being preached, but profligacy is practiced with abandon,* has cost $1.1 BILLION !!!!!!!
*latest example: $200 000 pay rise for the new GG plus lurks and perks.
From what you say JayBee it seems the Judge compromised his position. Unfortunately he also let every other of his supporters down. He is another one saying it's OK for women to give false testimony.
Judge Lee found that Higgins gave false evidence due to the trauma of being raped. Circular logic.
And that is a big worry. I believe there is a chain not necessarily linear that includes Heidi Smiles, Wilkinson, Chrysanthemum, Higgins, ...
The trauma of being raped is no excuse for giving false evidence; in my opinion, for the Judge who has obviously been brainwashed by the women's lobby lot, to excuse the false evidence. ie A person who witnesses a murder, or experiences an attempted murder, (far worse than rape), has to give evidence that is correct and accurate or the accused will get off. No wonder the Family Court seems to be at cross purposes to all other courts.
If people are not responsible for their behaviour when intoxicated, then nobody should be found guilty for drunk driving.
Most men prosecuted or convicted are as intoxicated as the women alleging exploitation, so why is the man the only one seen as taking advantage? As is clear from this article (thanks so much Bettina for your endless work and support towards true gender equality), the criterion of 'lack of recall' is not a valid one for determining capacity to give consent. It's also based on a subjective claim that can't be proven. If such claims are accepted as evidence they provide yet another opportunity for women to weaponize the law against men for whatever ulterior motive. Aside from all that, I have never heard of a woman being prosecuted for sexually exploiting a man on the basis that he couldn't remember the events. Just another example of sexist discrimination against men.
Thinking about it, if a man said he didn't remember having sex with a woman, that's likely to result in charges against the male because the woman felt offended that she was not experienced as special enough to be remembered. Heads men lose, Tails women win.
Oh, I see now that AJ below has made most of these same points and more eloquently! But another matter in this case deserves scrutiny, that is 'the balance of probabilities' as a standard of proof. My readings in trying to understand how that balancing is done suggests it's little more than a subjective opinion reached by the judge. It's the standard of proof used in Family Courts to decide whether to believe allegations.
Firstly, it seems irresponsible to apply such a lax standard of proof for decisions that will have such a profound impact on the lives of children not to mention the accused, usually a male. The reasoning appears to be that the Court will err on the side of caution because if the allegations are true that will expose the woman and/or child(ren) to risk of harm. However, applying such a low standard of proof will mean that many more cases will cause harm than those in which harm is prevented. Harm is caused by wrecking or seriously degrading the relationship and bonding between children and (mainly) fathers when there is no good cause to do so. An analogy would be a medical doctor using a similarly poor standard of proof to decide whether a headache indicates a brain tumour that needs surgery.
Secondly, one of the (only) criteria involved in making a balance-of-probabilities judgment is how likely the alleged events were to have occurred. Given the feminist propaganda believed by judges and commoners alike, misbehaviour alleged against men will always be seen as more probable than its real likelihood or rate in the population. On the other hand, when women are accused of violence or serious inadequacy as mothers, the likelihood of that will be seen as low. We often see cases where fathers' efforts to warn a Court of the mother's risk to children fall on deaf ears until a tragedy proves the father correct.
Thirdly, although seriously unreliable guesses, Court 'findings' on the balance of probabilities are likely to be used in subsequent proceedings as if they represent reliable evidence. Past or existing Femily Court 'protection', non-contact or restraining orders will be trotted out as evidence to show an accused has a propensity for violence even though those orders required little or no proof of any violence and indeed they aren't evidence of anything beyond allegations having been made and believed by a feminist-indoctrinated judge. Similarly, property, civil and child 'custody' cases will treat such orders as factual evidence of violence. This can and often does result in tragic outcomes.
Lastly, finding men guilty on 'the balance of probabilities' in cases like Lehrmann involve serious harm to those men. This is very different from property settlements and most other 'civil' cases. The men judged as guilty may not incur criminal convictions or prison sentences but their reputations, careers, families and lives will usually be trashed by such judgments. No such finding should be made without the most rigorous standard of proof being satisfied, and legally that is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Not the subjective preference of a judge.
Such a well written article. Unfortunately it is so truthful, and fact. Often when I see a man pushing a pram I think "will you face the heartache another has? Will that be your thanks?
made me cry
Well, with 50% divorce rate, most of it initiated by women, most of whom get custody, it's a toss of the coin whether he'll be in that baby's life for much longer anyway. Whether or not she makes any false allegations to improve her settlement is another question.
I first learnt about alcohol-induced blackouts four decades ago. At first, I thought someone was pulling my leg, but then stories of crimes being committed such as stealing or fighting emerged.
Other stories of people who had been drinking found themselves in another country with no recollection of how they got there.
This article is perhaps the most solid I have seen written so far.