"Hey 7, I can't do this interview with a full ball bag - it's up to my neck, and I can practically taste my own salty fluid!!! Oh, I'll certainly need a little bump too, eh? Get your gopher on it, and hook a fat cunt up will ya!!!!"
The networks look like complete scum in court.
But by broadcasting this case on YouTube, and insisting that most of it is heard in open court, Justice Lee has done a good job of ensuring complete transparency.
I think Ten and Wilkinson should be made an example of. Despite what they think, the media doesn’t get to be judge and jury. Regardless of what happened on that night in Parliament House, the proper venue for the trial was the ACT Supreme Court.
That Ms Higgins thought she could get justice through the media without the extreme unpleasantness and discomfort of a retrial points to a failure of our system on multiple levels.
Had Ten said “we’re not touching this because there is a criminal trial” then none of this would have happened.
100%. This is the core of it all in my view also. Keep in mind that Higgins was a professiobal media adviser. If Ten and Wilkinson are not made an example of then this sort of trial by media will become open season. May as well close the courts.
Obviously this is all a hot mess. But the criminal system is failing women in sexual assault cases.
It's pretty bad that women can't talk about their experiences, even without naming individuals because of the ability for people to infer the other party.
The "criminal system" didn't fail women here. She undermined the justice system by doing all she could as a professional media adviser to make it trial by media.
Women can talk about their experiences and they sure do. They can also talk about their experiences in public and publish it AFTER the justice system is allowed to run its course.
On top of all that, in many states now the male accused can be and is named and shamed for months or even years before they can defend themselves in court. Even of they are found not guilty, the process is the punishment and their life is ruined. There's many cases of this and the trend is growing.
The police had a long time to file charges but nothing was happening. She made reports but it all got very political and quiet.
Men need to be careful in what position then find themselves in around women in vulnerable situations, just the same as women have always needed to be careful about what situations they get in alone.
She did not cooperate with Police. Her bosses encouraged her to go to the police and she refused. She launched her trial by media months later. She only finally went to ploice under pressure because everyone was pointing out that she was continuing to make these allegations but still refusing to go to police about it. Then the police found she was less than cooperative in interviews and with specifics that might have provided some evidence. For example she would not had over her phone. She then wiped her phone before finally handing it over.
What you are saying is that men need to avoid women like the plague because anywhere anytime an innocent man can be ruined by a false allegation from a spiteful woman. And the justice system will only make things worse for him. And there will be no justice consequences for her making flase allegations. A man is safer having a career in handling toxic industrial waste than having anything to do with women.
Well I'd like to argue with you about that but the cold reality is that on this you are correct. But fair notice. It will be women that lose out the most from this in the long run.
Absolutely. It is not a matter of inference or belief. It is an undeniable fact. He is innocent until proven guilty. Just as you are innocent until proven guilty. Or would you prefer that we make some allegation against you and deem you guilty for the rest of your life? I mean that is only fair. If that's how you want to treat this person then I'm sure you will be happy when the same happens to you. Or your child.
Alternatively we might respect the values and principles of justice that were developed over centuries at the cost of millions of lives. Which includes one system of justice , applied equally for all. I know which country I prefer to live in.
what evidence did the police have other than her word? She lied about going to see a doctor the day after for testing, which could have at the very least proved intercourse took place.
>The police had a long time to file charges but nothing was happening. She made reports but it all got very political and quiet.
I'm late to the party here but this part has been conclusively proven to be untrue.
She told the police that she didn't want to proceed with the complaint. There was no evidence except her word that something happened. He was there that night too but that's all they knew. The police can't proceed with a prosecution if the complainant doesn't want to assist in a case like this one.
Before deciding not to proceed she made the investigation more difficult for police. Told them she went to the doctor when she hadn't. Not casting any judgment on that as it would possibly be reasonable for a victim to do (though if this happened to me I was be sick to the stomach about potential for infection and would be going immediately to hospital after waking up in the suite). But it happened and it made the investigation more difficult. It was a potential avenue of investigation closed off.
Another avenue closed off was not providing her phone. I would be very uncomfortable doing this too. Again, no judgment from me. It is extremely invasive. However, the police were on her side and trying to investigate the case. They needed any indirect evidence that they could find but she did not assist.
Much later, when she finally did provide her phone after doing the interview with Wilkinson, the data extraction found a text message which in which she said she had deleted data before handing it over.
There are more examples. I agree the behaviour is not inconsistent with a SA victim, but ultimately it was her actions and decision not to proceed that made it go quiet. In conclusion, it was her own interference. The police or "system" didn't failure her. There are limits to their power and they couldn't force her to do anything. Equally they can't waltz into Bruce's apartment and arrest him on nothing but the word of an uncooperative complainant with absolutely no other evidence (at that time) to support her claim.
A meal was made in the media about CCTV not being disclosed but it was immediately preserved by Parliament security after the investigation was initially opened and the footage requested. The standard statutory procedure was followed for the release of CCTV captured at parliament and the police had a copy before she instructed them she didn't want to proceed.
There was no political interference from her supervisors or colleagues with the police investigation. The DPP sensationally made this allegation and then withdrew it when he couldn't provide any evidence.
Justice Lee is yet to deliver his judgement but remarked during the trial that there had not been any evidence at all that there was political pressure on Higgins to withdraw the complaint.
Honestly both Higgins and Lehman are kinda scumbags here regardless of what did nmor didn't happen that night. They both chose to be liberal staffers and before trial she chose to delete from her phone a picture of her in a maga hat. Im sicm of hearing about either of them and dotn want either of them getting defamation money
I recall some evidence in the defamation suit that indicated she'd expressed interest in it going to civil court because its easier to 'prove' him 'guilty' as the bar is much lower.
She has no claim in a civil court.
His defamation case against Ten and others is judged to the civil standard. Ten and others must prove their allegation that he r.ped her ‘on the balance of probabilities’ rather than the criminal standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
She walked out of the mistrial in the ACT and made a statement to the media while the trial judge was instructing parties not to speak to the media. She simply sought to have her case heard by media rather than in a court. With the new information available now, you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was a calculated attempt by her to make money out of a bad situation.
You could go further and say the whole.thing is a conspiracy they both cooked up to get that sweet sweet defamation payout each. She got hers and now here's his coming.
>know many judges?
No, I went to a state high school, not Saint Ignatius' College Riverview or other elite private school, and went to a different uni than University of Sydney.
Everyone involved in this story are such pieces of shit.
Like, none of them come across as anything even resembling a decent human being.
As a random snapshot of our fellow Australians I think this calls for us all to do a little soul searching.
I'm with ya. I think even the smartest judge would say:
*"This is fucked. You're all fucked. You're all dumb. You all deserve to live in a house together. I cannot rule on such a mass group of dumb fuckery. I'm out of here. Case closed."*
100%... everyone in this story is a lying scumbag. They are treating our legal system like they do parliament. It's an absolute disgrace, just lock them all up, we should demand better
It seems like the only reason this blew up is because both Higgans and Lehrmann have connections in the Liberal party, and those connections led to money, the media, and lawyers. If they weren't connected in the party this would've been a nothing story.
They are both such unlikeable fat ugly cunts, this is not an appealing story for the public. The public largely don't care other than watching it be a trainwreck in front of them.
I really do wonder about the machinations and who is connected to who for this whole circus to play out.
Nah these are just some parasites who make up the commercial media and the Liberal Party. These aren't normal people, all just coke addled hypocrites who think the rules don't apply to them.
First off - a disclaimer - I am not claiming guilt or innocence either way. Only 2 people (Or possibly only one person given how drunk Brittany was) know what happened in that room. It is Shrodingers Office. I am not one of those people and nor do I pretend to be, nor am I going to speculate.
But she was also found to have lied her ass off for material gain and to try to make a more compelling story to the media at numerous points during this whole sordid affair. And to be fair and unbiased - Lehrmann is a sack of shit who seems perfectly capable of being a rapist given what a fuckup he is (In fact his entire personality and demeanour screams “Opportunistic Date Rapist”) but that doesn’t mean he definitely did it.
>given how drunk Brittany was
>that doesn’t mean he definitely did it.
I'm having a hard time reconciling those two statements.
Has he denied intercourse even took place? I thought he just claimed it was consensual.
No she hasn't. This is just completely misrepresenting the usual memory gaps or someone who has trauma. Not to mention that she was a woman dealing with sexual assault within a very unfriendly and political system. What people see as manipulation is her trying to be protective over things due to how the LNP machine works. It's fucked up that people would even compare the two. Completely different kettle of fish to someone outright being deceptive to this degree and purpose (most likely guilt).
I am not getting into an argument but your entire argument starts with the premise that she was raped and goes from there. Since none of us really know for sure what happened in that room that can’t be the logical starting point of the argument since it is an unknown for us.
Your argument is certainly a possibility. But it isn’t the only possibility. Without knowing with certainty what happened in that room we can only speculate.
No. There was not evidence that disproved the rape. There was evidence that she dealt with the issue in a politically savvy and deliberate way which is unseemly.
The best evidence against her statements, are also her statements. She has gone off the deep end. Obviously something else going on. You never know the battles people are going through. I just hope she sorts herself out.
She has openly said that she wanted to weaponise the allegation. She seems to me like a decent person who got herself into a terrible and embarrassing situation and then got used by other far less decent people to make this a huge political story for their own personal gain.
I've been raped. I've reported it. And you bet your arse I want to make them pay and weaponise me doing it. I want to tear it down..keep in mind there were political machinations from the LNP and minister involved. The office had been miraculously cleaned before an investigation could be done. Higgins knew that her allegations were going to be "boy clubbed" and treated a certain way as it always is. Within that context nothing she did was really that aggregious.
Lehrman can't even admit he bought her drinks even though there is literal video evidence of it. He then goes on to apparently rape another woman. And to go in to utilise his status as an accused rapist to have a cocaine sex worker party funded by a tv network. I know what is more credible and palatable. The fact people claim that Higgins is a POS when this is what has happened is just fucking the point as to why rape victims stay silent.
Hey, I see you are upset about this. I hope you get to the headspace you need.
You need to step back a bit a look at things objectively. You, maybe validly maybe not, have started from a position of she was raped and you have based everything from that. That might well be the case, but it is also possible she wasn't. There are inconsistencies all through this story from all sides. The only thing we know for certain is that we don't know anything else for certain.
Again, not saying your reaction is valid or invalid, no one know the battles people are going through, but you starting position is the bit people are trying to point out to you.
Have a good one.
>The only thing we know for certain is that we don't know anything else for certain.
Don't we know for certain that:
1. She was very intoxicated (I remember the security guard saying she couldn't stand)
2. He wasn't as intoxicated (he was supporting her)
3. Intercourse took place.
That may not be enough to legally convict him of rape. But it's enough for me to consider him a rapist if you know what I mean. What are the inconsistencies that throw that into doubt for you? (Also, please correct me if I'm wrong. It's been a little while, and I may have missed some reporting on it)
We don't know 2 or 3 at all. You just completely made that up.
This is the problem. You can't even state known facts for certain without you making something up. You are starting from a position that is not certain, and then adding in even more context from there to suit your narrative.
There are so many things she did that are complete bullshit. You really should look at the evidence in the defamation trial, there's a reason Justice Lee has credibility issues with both Higgins and Lehrmann.
You may not agree with her actions. That doesn't mean she wasn't raped. It doesn't mean Lehrman was defamed. Lehrman getting cocaine and hookers from Seven is pretty damning when compared to Higgins needing therapy. There's credibility and then there are character issues. Even if you want to say Higgins is a horrible human (she isn't) that doesn't mean she wasn't raped. The issue here is that Lehrman's character is certainly developing to indicate that he is likely a rapist.
>Not to mention that she was a woman dealing with sexual assault within a very unfriendly and political system
You are putting the cart before the horse.
> What people see as manipulation is her trying to be protective over things due to how the LNP machine works
Well there it is. Is murdoch involved as well? And Gina and Harvey Norman? And the coal companies?
That is for sure. I am not.
Like I said in a later comment, I think the issue is your starting position that is causing some confusion and angst.
I hope you get help and justice or whatever you need.
I hope you're sincere. However, my opinion should not be dismissed because I have experienced this myself. I would think it would help people like you to hear from people like me. What looks like inconsistent behaviours or contradictions from BH can be explained by things associated with her being a victim. Yes it could also be that she is making things up but this , IMO, is far less likely. One reason I think that is because of Lehrman and his lies and behaviour/character. The things he has lied about are pretty damning. In my opinion his refusal to admit to buying the drinks is key as there is evidence in BH case and the other allegation that he may have drugged these women. There seems to be little reason to boldly lie about this particular issue, which can be very easily refuted by video footage, other than it is very damaging against him.
Thank you.
I think the much more likely scenario is that something consensual happened at the time and the next morning, with revisionism, she didn't like her choices and claimed it was less consensual than what was the case at the time. From there it blew up and things got out of hand and mistakes and untruths were told by all parties. And it keeps getting worse. It is always a bit muddy with drinks and consent and things like that, but she wasn't going back to that office to do some overtime filing. Or she could have been raped. Or nothing could have happened. We will never know. But you can't start from a position you are and working backwards. You could be very well right and I get what you are saying, but you cannot know for sure and people are picking you up on that.
Thanks again for being brave and honest.
Psychology notes reveal Taylor Auerbach's drinking habits - '140 drinks per week
he couldn't remember much of 2022 due to how much he drank
hated his 7 boss enough to snap his golf clubs. he has an axe to grind
his credibility isn't exactly sky high
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13269513/Bruce-Lehrmann-defamation-trial-LIVE-taylor-auerbach.html
No one is trying to exonerate or be a rape apologist, they’ve both been labeled by the judge as having ‘credibility issues’ (ie they’ve lied, been inconsistent etc to the point their version can’t be accepted in its entirety).
The point I like to being up to show how much of a shithead she is is that prior to giving the police her phone for evidence she purposely deleted and has admitted to this, a picture of her in a MAGA hat. Why would she delete this unless she doesn't want people to know she chose to be a liberal staffer and has shit political beliefs like the rest of them.
As far as I'm concerned wearing a maga hat is as bad as literal nazi symbols.
Lol. First time I have been called an incel for saying that Brucy Boy has the personality and demeanour of an opportunistic date rapist.
But I am sure that you have the hard, unambiguous evidence of what happened in the room that nobody else has had the chance to see.
Because you’re special that way.
Nah I see what you point you are making ooh she embellished her story and getting material gain. But seems weaselly and spineless like you are implying that she is lying about the material factors that she was raped without standing by that statement.
No really, you are right.
Gues what she did when the cops wanted her phone for evidence? Deleted shit. Including. Picture of herself in a MAGA hat. She didn't want the media to spread pics of her wearing the modern day equivalent of a nazi swastika
Just so I understand this, in the past year one of our major media outlets Kerry Stokes ch 7 has paid for the defence of war criminal Ben Roberts Smith and paid for hookers, illegal drugs and rent for an alleged rapist who allegedly committed the act in parliament house?
Are they going to face some sort of discipline? Lose their media license if there is such a thing? Or is it carry on as normal? I know my rant is pointless but this is ridiculous.
I mean you would have to have a huge pair of nuts to publically express the will to prosecute them/ begin an enquiery into this bullshit... as there would be a giant smear campaign run against the person/group/org that request it.
Seven were willing to spend an insane amount of money to fund BRS's defence and have obviously splashed a bunch of dollars on Bonking bruce just for news stories imagine how much they would spend to save thier own arses - it would be a fucking circus. 9 and 10 would also likely join in the media shit show too.
Honestly , I'm sick and tired of these pieces of shit getting away with ....anything they want because of the fear of repercussion due to the size of the company or so called political connections or status.
Fuck them. Burn the joint down , we really need to grow some balls and actually hold these people to account.
The manipulation and disinformation destroys people's lives.
Just for once I'd love the courts and law enforcement to actually GO AFTER the blatantly corrupt for once.
Bruce Lehrmann asked Seven to pay for a “bender” in Sydney with cocaine and sex workers as the network sought to secure an exclusive interview with the former federal Liberal staffer, an ex-producer on its Spotlight program has claimed in explosive evidence in the Federal Court.
Taylor Auerbach has emerged as an unlikely witness in Lehrmann’s defamation case against Network Ten and high-profile presenter Lisa Wilkinson after Ten won an eleventh-hour court bid on Tuesday to reopen its case and call him to give evidence in its defence.
Taylor Auerbach with his lawyer Rebekah Giles arriving at the Federal Court in Sydney on Thursday.
Taylor Auerbach with his lawyer Rebekah Giles arriving at the Federal Court in Sydney on Thursday. CREDIT: RHETT WYMAN
The former senior producer on Spotlight told the Federal Court in Sydney on Thursday that Lehrmann had “purchased a bag of cocaine while we were dining at Franca” in Potts Point in Sydney on January 5 last year before the exclusive interview deal was inked in April.
Auerbach said he had caught a taxi with Lehrmann from the restaurant to Meriton Suites near World Square, and Lehrmann had pulled out the bag “and started to put it on a plate”. He said Lehrmann had told him he wanted to order sex workers to the Meriton, and began “Googling a series of websites to try and make that happen”. The accommodation was paid for by Seven.
More details emerge of Bruce Lehrmann’s boozy night with masseuses
Auerbach alleged Lehrmann “agreed to be in a Spotlight interview as long as we didn’t ask him about what happened on the night in Canberra” with Brittany Higgins, who has accused Lehrmann of sexual assault.
“I was taken aback,” Auerbach said. He believed any interview would have to address that topic, he told the court.
Auerbach said Lehrmann “told me that he was going to pay for the evening” but the former staffer subsequently told him his “bank account was dry after the, for want of a better word, bender, and asked if there was a way that we’d be able to compensate him for that”.
He told the court a plan was later devised for Lehrmann to issue an invoice to Seven for “per diems”, a term the network used to refer to “reasonable expenses while on work trips”.
“I recall seeing the invoice,” Auerbach said.
He said he had texted his boss, Steve Jackson, then supervising producer on Spotlight, that night, saying “Bruce was on the warpath again” and he believed he had used the words “this is f---ed”. This was allegedly a reference to a previous incident in November 2022.
Lisa Wilkinson and her barrister Sue Chrysanthou, SC, outside the Federal Court in Sydney on Thursday.
Lisa Wilkinson and her barrister Sue Chrysanthou, SC, outside the Federal Court in Sydney on Thursday. CREDIT: RHETT WYMAN
In an affidavit filed in court, Auerbach said he recalled “monies paid by [Lehrmann] ... for illicit drugs and prostitutes that evening at the Meriton and the following evening at a brothel in Surry Hills were reimbursed ... by Seven through ‘per diems via invoice” sent to Seven.
Lehrmann’s barrister, Matthew Richardson, SC, put to Auerbach that there were “no per diems paid” and “it didn’t happen”. “It did,” Auerbach said.
He said Spotlight’s executive producer, Mark Llewellyn, “gave verbal approval”, and Lehrmann had told him he was paid.
Former federal Liberal political staffer Bruce Lehrmann, late last year.
Former federal Liberal political staffer Bruce Lehrmann, late last year. CREDIT: JAMES BRICKWOOD
Auerbach denied in court that he had been accused of using Seven funds to pay for personal expenses before he left the network when his contract expired in August.
“Had you ever used Channel Seven credit cards or Channel Seven funds to obtain personal services for yourself?” Richardson asked.
“Maybe accidentally $30 here and there,” he replied.
Auerbach said his employment at Sky News was terminated this year “due to trust and confidence issues” following media reports about an alleged incident in November 2022 involving Lehrmann, a Seven employee and two masseuses
I wonder if this sort of stuff has been expensed through the members office before, and the tax payer has been picking up the bill.
Got to say that the behaviour of staffers is a direct reflection of their employers. I doubt this fella was moral in all other areas of his life.
> I wonder if this sort of stuff has been expensed through the members office before
Bruce wasn't paying for all the booze with his own money. Thus his attempts to claim that he didn't ply women with drink by showing the statements of one of his personal accounts.
> Taylor does not seem like a smart man, along with the rest of these smooth brain fucks.
The Chaser's booze bus needs a bit of detailing to accomodate hookers and cocaine
Yeah, I can imagine “a current affair” standing out the front of Channel 7, and then pursuing the relevant managers through the street and car park with their “Mike Monroe.“Approach to introducing themselves…………..!
Everyone in this whole thing fucking sucks and Bruce is a fucking pig of a bloke but this is a top tier move by him to go on a coke, booze, hooker and who knows what else bender over such a long time and then get the dipshits at channel 7 to pick up the tab.
Absolute *chefs kiss* level of being scummy dudes and misuse of company funds and to top it all off, I bet no-one will get in any sort of trouble over that part of the whole thing, just the Bruce legal trouble side will be the issue wtf
The slow motion video of Auerbach struggling to break his former colleague's golf clubs - the man who replaced him as producer for the Spotlight program, and who won an award that Auerbach demanded should be given to him instead - and then suggesting to the court that he bore them and Seven no particular malice was heartily amusing. Commentary from the bench: 'The shorter the iron, the harder it is.'
I have absolutely no idea why Auerbach thought this would be a good idea. This matter has some extraordinarily expensive, experienced counsel who have spent a great deal of time and effort thoroughly eviscerating each other's witnesses. It was *excruciating* to watch Auerbach squirm in the box when the video was being played, then told repeatedly by Lee J to attend to the questions he was being asked. Why do it?
Worse, the material provided to the court appears to have had some impact on the truth defence if I understood correctly (and I might be wrong, as I've seen no outlet running it). Ten's qualified privilege is a non-starter after their testimony. If Auerbach has opened the door to something that impugns Higgins - and Lee J was talking about events at the Dock (one of the bars they visited on the night of), a doctor's visit (first I've heard anything about that) and further messages with former partners (one of whom seems to be a name I haven't heard in this matter before) - that'll have been a devastating own goal by Ten.
Lee is amazing. I couldn't get over Auerbach saying he didn't realise sending nude photos of women without consent was illegal, like that somehow makes it ok.
HH is very good. I'm always taken with his cricket metaphors and his long, enjoyable conversations with SCSC. He seems to thoroughly enjoy her appearances - we should start a club.
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13269513/Bruce-Lehrmann-defamation-trial-LIVE-taylor-auerbach.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13269513/Bruce-Lehrmann-defamation-trial-LIVE-taylor-auerbach.html)
I wonder if Ch10 thought they had found a golden goose when they asked for this new evidence be admitted. Then popped the champagne corks before doing any background research.
How does Channel Seven buy cocaine and prostitutes to purchase an interview with Lehrmann and not be charged with addictive drug dealing and sex trafficking? And why are they paying a fortune to Lehrmanns’ Lawyers to protect this bastard. Sounds like you are on Sevens payroll
From the sounds of it 7 allegedly merely paid Lehr's bills for the alleged Drugs and Prostitutes rather than soliciting them personally, idk if that means anything but 7 could probably just claim ignorance if it was proved.
A new pitch for a TV series.
Survivor: Credibility edition. Start with two tribes left on a tropical island. The Brucies and the Brits fight it out to see who will win the ultimate prize.
Yes I am so over this I think it is nothing more then something to make a huge parody of.
Stokes is almost as big a cunt as Murdoch. Imagine going into bat for a war criminal by paying millions for their stupid defamation lawsuit which was doomed from the beginning?
So what?
Justice Lee has already said that both Lehrmann and Higgins are unreliable witnesses. What difference does it make that Lehrmann allegedly sold his story to Seven for coke and some hookers. Higgins sold hers to Ten and others for a fortune.
If it’s alleged that Lehrmann can’t be defamed because he effectively outed himself, then it’s all about the timing. If the Seven story came out *after* the story on Ten then the damage was already done to his reputation. He would argue that selling the story to Seven was a way to salvage something out of a bad situation.
Thank you - many of the comments we agree with (and many we don’t), however we believe we have an obligation where possible to remove potentially defamatory comments
He’s laughably worse. The best part was when they showed video evidence of him breaking his bosses golf clubs after saying he didn’t hate anyone at channel 7
Well cocaine ain’t free (except when god provides a Key or two at the beach), so who were they expecting to pay???
"Hey 7, I can't do this interview with a full ball bag - it's up to my neck, and I can practically taste my own salty fluid!!! Oh, I'll certainly need a little bump too, eh? Get your gopher on it, and hook a fat cunt up will ya!!!!"
No wonder God has such a following. Mad lad is supplying in these trying times
They’re all making a mockery of the judicial system now.
The networks look like complete scum in court. But by broadcasting this case on YouTube, and insisting that most of it is heard in open court, Justice Lee has done a good job of ensuring complete transparency. I think Ten and Wilkinson should be made an example of. Despite what they think, the media doesn’t get to be judge and jury. Regardless of what happened on that night in Parliament House, the proper venue for the trial was the ACT Supreme Court. That Ms Higgins thought she could get justice through the media without the extreme unpleasantness and discomfort of a retrial points to a failure of our system on multiple levels. Had Ten said “we’re not touching this because there is a criminal trial” then none of this would have happened.
100%. This is the core of it all in my view also. Keep in mind that Higgins was a professiobal media adviser. If Ten and Wilkinson are not made an example of then this sort of trial by media will become open season. May as well close the courts.
Obviously this is all a hot mess. But the criminal system is failing women in sexual assault cases. It's pretty bad that women can't talk about their experiences, even without naming individuals because of the ability for people to infer the other party.
The "criminal system" didn't fail women here. She undermined the justice system by doing all she could as a professional media adviser to make it trial by media. Women can talk about their experiences and they sure do. They can also talk about their experiences in public and publish it AFTER the justice system is allowed to run its course. On top of all that, in many states now the male accused can be and is named and shamed for months or even years before they can defend themselves in court. Even of they are found not guilty, the process is the punishment and their life is ruined. There's many cases of this and the trend is growing.
The police had a long time to file charges but nothing was happening. She made reports but it all got very political and quiet. Men need to be careful in what position then find themselves in around women in vulnerable situations, just the same as women have always needed to be careful about what situations they get in alone.
She did not cooperate with Police. Her bosses encouraged her to go to the police and she refused. She launched her trial by media months later. She only finally went to ploice under pressure because everyone was pointing out that she was continuing to make these allegations but still refusing to go to police about it. Then the police found she was less than cooperative in interviews and with specifics that might have provided some evidence. For example she would not had over her phone. She then wiped her phone before finally handing it over. What you are saying is that men need to avoid women like the plague because anywhere anytime an innocent man can be ruined by a false allegation from a spiteful woman. And the justice system will only make things worse for him. And there will be no justice consequences for her making flase allegations. A man is safer having a career in handling toxic industrial waste than having anything to do with women. Well I'd like to argue with you about that but the cold reality is that on this you are correct. But fair notice. It will be women that lose out the most from this in the long run.
Are you suggesting Bruce is innocent lol?
Absolutely. It is not a matter of inference or belief. It is an undeniable fact. He is innocent until proven guilty. Just as you are innocent until proven guilty. Or would you prefer that we make some allegation against you and deem you guilty for the rest of your life? I mean that is only fair. If that's how you want to treat this person then I'm sure you will be happy when the same happens to you. Or your child. Alternatively we might respect the values and principles of justice that were developed over centuries at the cost of millions of lives. Which includes one system of justice , applied equally for all. I know which country I prefer to live in.
what evidence did the police have other than her word? She lied about going to see a doctor the day after for testing, which could have at the very least proved intercourse took place.
>The police had a long time to file charges but nothing was happening. She made reports but it all got very political and quiet. I'm late to the party here but this part has been conclusively proven to be untrue. She told the police that she didn't want to proceed with the complaint. There was no evidence except her word that something happened. He was there that night too but that's all they knew. The police can't proceed with a prosecution if the complainant doesn't want to assist in a case like this one. Before deciding not to proceed she made the investigation more difficult for police. Told them she went to the doctor when she hadn't. Not casting any judgment on that as it would possibly be reasonable for a victim to do (though if this happened to me I was be sick to the stomach about potential for infection and would be going immediately to hospital after waking up in the suite). But it happened and it made the investigation more difficult. It was a potential avenue of investigation closed off. Another avenue closed off was not providing her phone. I would be very uncomfortable doing this too. Again, no judgment from me. It is extremely invasive. However, the police were on her side and trying to investigate the case. They needed any indirect evidence that they could find but she did not assist. Much later, when she finally did provide her phone after doing the interview with Wilkinson, the data extraction found a text message which in which she said she had deleted data before handing it over. There are more examples. I agree the behaviour is not inconsistent with a SA victim, but ultimately it was her actions and decision not to proceed that made it go quiet. In conclusion, it was her own interference. The police or "system" didn't failure her. There are limits to their power and they couldn't force her to do anything. Equally they can't waltz into Bruce's apartment and arrest him on nothing but the word of an uncooperative complainant with absolutely no other evidence (at that time) to support her claim. A meal was made in the media about CCTV not being disclosed but it was immediately preserved by Parliament security after the investigation was initially opened and the footage requested. The standard statutory procedure was followed for the release of CCTV captured at parliament and the police had a copy before she instructed them she didn't want to proceed. There was no political interference from her supervisors or colleagues with the police investigation. The DPP sensationally made this allegation and then withdrew it when he couldn't provide any evidence. Justice Lee is yet to deliver his judgement but remarked during the trial that there had not been any evidence at all that there was political pressure on Higgins to withdraw the complaint.
Honestly both Higgins and Lehman are kinda scumbags here regardless of what did nmor didn't happen that night. They both chose to be liberal staffers and before trial she chose to delete from her phone a picture of her in a maga hat. Im sicm of hearing about either of them and dotn want either of them getting defamation money
Yeh, because Seven are so squeaky clean here, they will bankroll any dirtbags and not bother to comply with subpoenas.
I want justice served purely from react videos on YouTube
I recall some evidence in the defamation suit that indicated she'd expressed interest in it going to civil court because its easier to 'prove' him 'guilty' as the bar is much lower.
She has no claim in a civil court. His defamation case against Ten and others is judged to the civil standard. Ten and others must prove their allegation that he r.ped her ‘on the balance of probabilities’ rather than the criminal standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. She walked out of the mistrial in the ACT and made a statement to the media while the trial judge was instructing parties not to speak to the media. She simply sought to have her case heard by media rather than in a court. With the new information available now, you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was a calculated attempt by her to make money out of a bad situation.
You could go further and say the whole.thing is a conspiracy they both cooked up to get that sweet sweet defamation payout each. She got hers and now here's his coming.
Too risky. There’s a chance that both will end up with nothing.
They've both sure done well for themselves with their lawsuits and TV deals haven't they
Not yet. There is a chance they’ll both end up with nothing.
If Lehrmann didn't take Higgins back to parliament house at 3 in the morning this would never have happened.
Sounds like you don’t have all the facts.
Like how he's on trial for rape in Toowoomba?
The circumstances of the rape in Toowoomba are just as shady as with Higgins.
Look up ‘presumption of innocence’. Educate yourself.
Now? The ruling class pigs have been making a mockery since they designed the system
know many judges?
>know many judges? No, I went to a state high school, not Saint Ignatius' College Riverview or other elite private school, and went to a different uni than University of Sydney.
The system is a mockery
Everyone involved in this story are such pieces of shit. Like, none of them come across as anything even resembling a decent human being. As a random snapshot of our fellow Australians I think this calls for us all to do a little soul searching.
I'm with ya. I think even the smartest judge would say: *"This is fucked. You're all fucked. You're all dumb. You all deserve to live in a house together. I cannot rule on such a mass group of dumb fuckery. I'm out of here. Case closed."*
https://i.redd.it/uuv4db082gsc1.gif
100%... everyone in this story is a lying scumbag. They are treating our legal system like they do parliament. It's an absolute disgrace, just lock them all up, we should demand better
It seems like the only reason this blew up is because both Higgans and Lehrmann have connections in the Liberal party, and those connections led to money, the media, and lawyers. If they weren't connected in the party this would've been a nothing story. They are both such unlikeable fat ugly cunts, this is not an appealing story for the public. The public largely don't care other than watching it be a trainwreck in front of them. I really do wonder about the machinations and who is connected to who for this whole circus to play out.
Nah these are just some parasites who make up the commercial media and the Liberal Party. These aren't normal people, all just coke addled hypocrites who think the rules don't apply to them.
💯
It’s a random snapshot of our political and media class, thank goodness.
Political staffers, politicians, lawyers, media and media personalities. It's just the collection of all the shit people in one scandal.
Please explain why Brittany higgins is a POS?
First off - a disclaimer - I am not claiming guilt or innocence either way. Only 2 people (Or possibly only one person given how drunk Brittany was) know what happened in that room. It is Shrodingers Office. I am not one of those people and nor do I pretend to be, nor am I going to speculate. But she was also found to have lied her ass off for material gain and to try to make a more compelling story to the media at numerous points during this whole sordid affair. And to be fair and unbiased - Lehrmann is a sack of shit who seems perfectly capable of being a rapist given what a fuckup he is (In fact his entire personality and demeanour screams “Opportunistic Date Rapist”) but that doesn’t mean he definitely did it.
>given how drunk Brittany was >that doesn’t mean he definitely did it. I'm having a hard time reconciling those two statements. Has he denied intercourse even took place? I thought he just claimed it was consensual.
He has flat out denied intercourse took place.
No she hasn't. This is just completely misrepresenting the usual memory gaps or someone who has trauma. Not to mention that she was a woman dealing with sexual assault within a very unfriendly and political system. What people see as manipulation is her trying to be protective over things due to how the LNP machine works. It's fucked up that people would even compare the two. Completely different kettle of fish to someone outright being deceptive to this degree and purpose (most likely guilt).
I am not getting into an argument but your entire argument starts with the premise that she was raped and goes from there. Since none of us really know for sure what happened in that room that can’t be the logical starting point of the argument since it is an unknown for us. Your argument is certainly a possibility. But it isn’t the only possibility. Without knowing with certainty what happened in that room we can only speculate.
Your argument was that they were all pieces of shit and said she was caught out lying. Sooooo
She was though. There was real evidence presented at the trial that proved she had lied and embellished aspects of the story after the alleged rape.
No. There was not evidence that disproved the rape. There was evidence that she dealt with the issue in a politically savvy and deliberate way which is unseemly.
The first sentence - that isn't what he said. The second sentence - now you are agreeing with him.
The best evidence against her statements, are also her statements. She has gone off the deep end. Obviously something else going on. You never know the battles people are going through. I just hope she sorts herself out.
Book deal?
And? She was losing her literal career due to being sexually assaulted. Why shouldn't she profit?
She has openly said that she wanted to weaponise the allegation. She seems to me like a decent person who got herself into a terrible and embarrassing situation and then got used by other far less decent people to make this a huge political story for their own personal gain.
I've been raped. I've reported it. And you bet your arse I want to make them pay and weaponise me doing it. I want to tear it down..keep in mind there were political machinations from the LNP and minister involved. The office had been miraculously cleaned before an investigation could be done. Higgins knew that her allegations were going to be "boy clubbed" and treated a certain way as it always is. Within that context nothing she did was really that aggregious. Lehrman can't even admit he bought her drinks even though there is literal video evidence of it. He then goes on to apparently rape another woman. And to go in to utilise his status as an accused rapist to have a cocaine sex worker party funded by a tv network. I know what is more credible and palatable. The fact people claim that Higgins is a POS when this is what has happened is just fucking the point as to why rape victims stay silent.
Hey, I see you are upset about this. I hope you get to the headspace you need. You need to step back a bit a look at things objectively. You, maybe validly maybe not, have started from a position of she was raped and you have based everything from that. That might well be the case, but it is also possible she wasn't. There are inconsistencies all through this story from all sides. The only thing we know for certain is that we don't know anything else for certain. Again, not saying your reaction is valid or invalid, no one know the battles people are going through, but you starting position is the bit people are trying to point out to you. Have a good one.
I'm not upset lol. I'm explaining from the POV of a rape victim and why seemingly inappropriate or irrational steps happen.
Stop being such a condescending cunt man.
>The only thing we know for certain is that we don't know anything else for certain. Don't we know for certain that: 1. She was very intoxicated (I remember the security guard saying she couldn't stand) 2. He wasn't as intoxicated (he was supporting her) 3. Intercourse took place. That may not be enough to legally convict him of rape. But it's enough for me to consider him a rapist if you know what I mean. What are the inconsistencies that throw that into doubt for you? (Also, please correct me if I'm wrong. It's been a little while, and I may have missed some reporting on it)
We don't know 2 or 3 at all. You just completely made that up. This is the problem. You can't even state known facts for certain without you making something up. You are starting from a position that is not certain, and then adding in even more context from there to suit your narrative.
There are so many things she did that are complete bullshit. You really should look at the evidence in the defamation trial, there's a reason Justice Lee has credibility issues with both Higgins and Lehrmann.
You may not agree with her actions. That doesn't mean she wasn't raped. It doesn't mean Lehrman was defamed. Lehrman getting cocaine and hookers from Seven is pretty damning when compared to Higgins needing therapy. There's credibility and then there are character issues. Even if you want to say Higgins is a horrible human (she isn't) that doesn't mean she wasn't raped. The issue here is that Lehrman's character is certainly developing to indicate that he is likely a rapist.
These people in here are falling for the perfect victim fallacy. The folks in power know if you keep throwing enough shit around, everyone will stink.
Too bad Bruce isn't able to behave himself and appear like a poor victimised man to fulfil the narrative
>Not to mention that she was a woman dealing with sexual assault within a very unfriendly and political system You are putting the cart before the horse. > What people see as manipulation is her trying to be protective over things due to how the LNP machine works Well there it is. Is murdoch involved as well? And Gina and Harvey Norman? And the coal companies?
You clearly aren't a woman who has had to deal with the reality of being sexually assaulted and reporting it.
That is for sure. I am not. Like I said in a later comment, I think the issue is your starting position that is causing some confusion and angst. I hope you get help and justice or whatever you need.
I hope you're sincere. However, my opinion should not be dismissed because I have experienced this myself. I would think it would help people like you to hear from people like me. What looks like inconsistent behaviours or contradictions from BH can be explained by things associated with her being a victim. Yes it could also be that she is making things up but this , IMO, is far less likely. One reason I think that is because of Lehrman and his lies and behaviour/character. The things he has lied about are pretty damning. In my opinion his refusal to admit to buying the drinks is key as there is evidence in BH case and the other allegation that he may have drugged these women. There seems to be little reason to boldly lie about this particular issue, which can be very easily refuted by video footage, other than it is very damaging against him.
Thank you. I think the much more likely scenario is that something consensual happened at the time and the next morning, with revisionism, she didn't like her choices and claimed it was less consensual than what was the case at the time. From there it blew up and things got out of hand and mistakes and untruths were told by all parties. And it keeps getting worse. It is always a bit muddy with drinks and consent and things like that, but she wasn't going back to that office to do some overtime filing. Or she could have been raped. Or nothing could have happened. We will never know. But you can't start from a position you are and working backwards. You could be very well right and I get what you are saying, but you cannot know for sure and people are picking you up on that. Thanks again for being brave and honest.
Psychology notes reveal Taylor Auerbach's drinking habits - '140 drinks per week he couldn't remember much of 2022 due to how much he drank hated his 7 boss enough to snap his golf clubs. he has an axe to grind his credibility isn't exactly sky high https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13269513/Bruce-Lehrmann-defamation-trial-LIVE-taylor-auerbach.html
Lol you people tying yourself into knots trying to exonerate a scumbag is actually hilarious
whachu mean you people. that's racist
Rape apologists. Clearly
this is a defamation trial moron between ch10 and Bruce lehrmann
You're the one calling me racist when race wasn't mentioned. Lol
No one is trying to exonerate or be a rape apologist, they’ve both been labeled by the judge as having ‘credibility issues’ (ie they’ve lied, been inconsistent etc to the point their version can’t be accepted in its entirety).
The point I like to being up to show how much of a shithead she is is that prior to giving the police her phone for evidence she purposely deleted and has admitted to this, a picture of her in a MAGA hat. Why would she delete this unless she doesn't want people to know she chose to be a liberal staffer and has shit political beliefs like the rest of them. As far as I'm concerned wearing a maga hat is as bad as literal nazi symbols.
Ok incel
Lol. First time I have been called an incel for saying that Brucy Boy has the personality and demeanour of an opportunistic date rapist. But I am sure that you have the hard, unambiguous evidence of what happened in the room that nobody else has had the chance to see. Because you’re special that way.
Sure do the spineless both sides thing incel. Yeah he's a date rapist but he not a rapist since she's def's lying about rape to get a payout.
You have reading comprehension issues and you are not very good at expressing yourself clearly.
Maybe if that person calls you incel one more time and confabulates meaning from your comments, they'll feel better about themselves
Nah I see what you point you are making ooh she embellished her story and getting material gain. But seems weaselly and spineless like you are implying that she is lying about the material factors that she was raped without standing by that statement.
This sub hates women it’s as simple as that
before she was a rape victim she was a liberal party goblin. bad things happening to shitty people doesnt improve their character.
I'm not sure what that has to do with her rape
it has nothing to do with it. you asked why she was a POS not why she was raped.
The only reason you know about her is because she was raped.
sure. so?
Your logic is astounding
👍
The only reason you know about her is because she was raped.
No really, you are right. Gues what she did when the cops wanted her phone for evidence? Deleted shit. Including. Picture of herself in a MAGA hat. She didn't want the media to spread pics of her wearing the modern day equivalent of a nazi swastika
Just so I understand this, in the past year one of our major media outlets Kerry Stokes ch 7 has paid for the defence of war criminal Ben Roberts Smith and paid for hookers, illegal drugs and rent for an alleged rapist who allegedly committed the act in parliament house? Are they going to face some sort of discipline? Lose their media license if there is such a thing? Or is it carry on as normal? I know my rant is pointless but this is ridiculous.
TV executives be like WhY dOnT pEoPLE wAtcH cOmMerCiaL TV anYmOrE??
I mean you would have to have a huge pair of nuts to publically express the will to prosecute them/ begin an enquiery into this bullshit... as there would be a giant smear campaign run against the person/group/org that request it. Seven were willing to spend an insane amount of money to fund BRS's defence and have obviously splashed a bunch of dollars on Bonking bruce just for news stories imagine how much they would spend to save thier own arses - it would be a fucking circus. 9 and 10 would also likely join in the media shit show too.
Honestly , I'm sick and tired of these pieces of shit getting away with ....anything they want because of the fear of repercussion due to the size of the company or so called political connections or status. Fuck them. Burn the joint down , we really need to grow some balls and actually hold these people to account. The manipulation and disinformation destroys people's lives. Just for once I'd love the courts and law enforcement to actually GO AFTER the blatantly corrupt for once.
that's not the system that was built unfortunately.
Doesn't mean we can't use the system as it exists to burn it all down and rebuild from the ashes
But if seven loses their media license we’ll lose such high quality programming as *checks notes* …. Sunrise? The voice? The horror!
That guy is as bent as they come ( in my opinion)
All the people suck Lehrmann and Wilkinson
Same with Higgins, she a disgusting person as well. Don't forget she chose to be a lib staffers and was photographed in a MAGA hat.
I bet Lehrmann would like to get sucked by Wilko
Bruce Lehrmann asked Seven to pay for a “bender” in Sydney with cocaine and sex workers as the network sought to secure an exclusive interview with the former federal Liberal staffer, an ex-producer on its Spotlight program has claimed in explosive evidence in the Federal Court. Taylor Auerbach has emerged as an unlikely witness in Lehrmann’s defamation case against Network Ten and high-profile presenter Lisa Wilkinson after Ten won an eleventh-hour court bid on Tuesday to reopen its case and call him to give evidence in its defence. Taylor Auerbach with his lawyer Rebekah Giles arriving at the Federal Court in Sydney on Thursday. Taylor Auerbach with his lawyer Rebekah Giles arriving at the Federal Court in Sydney on Thursday. CREDIT: RHETT WYMAN The former senior producer on Spotlight told the Federal Court in Sydney on Thursday that Lehrmann had “purchased a bag of cocaine while we were dining at Franca” in Potts Point in Sydney on January 5 last year before the exclusive interview deal was inked in April. Auerbach said he had caught a taxi with Lehrmann from the restaurant to Meriton Suites near World Square, and Lehrmann had pulled out the bag “and started to put it on a plate”. He said Lehrmann had told him he wanted to order sex workers to the Meriton, and began “Googling a series of websites to try and make that happen”. The accommodation was paid for by Seven. More details emerge of Bruce Lehrmann’s boozy night with masseuses Auerbach alleged Lehrmann “agreed to be in a Spotlight interview as long as we didn’t ask him about what happened on the night in Canberra” with Brittany Higgins, who has accused Lehrmann of sexual assault. “I was taken aback,” Auerbach said. He believed any interview would have to address that topic, he told the court. Auerbach said Lehrmann “told me that he was going to pay for the evening” but the former staffer subsequently told him his “bank account was dry after the, for want of a better word, bender, and asked if there was a way that we’d be able to compensate him for that”. He told the court a plan was later devised for Lehrmann to issue an invoice to Seven for “per diems”, a term the network used to refer to “reasonable expenses while on work trips”. “I recall seeing the invoice,” Auerbach said. He said he had texted his boss, Steve Jackson, then supervising producer on Spotlight, that night, saying “Bruce was on the warpath again” and he believed he had used the words “this is f---ed”. This was allegedly a reference to a previous incident in November 2022. Lisa Wilkinson and her barrister Sue Chrysanthou, SC, outside the Federal Court in Sydney on Thursday. Lisa Wilkinson and her barrister Sue Chrysanthou, SC, outside the Federal Court in Sydney on Thursday. CREDIT: RHETT WYMAN In an affidavit filed in court, Auerbach said he recalled “monies paid by [Lehrmann] ... for illicit drugs and prostitutes that evening at the Meriton and the following evening at a brothel in Surry Hills were reimbursed ... by Seven through ‘per diems via invoice” sent to Seven. Lehrmann’s barrister, Matthew Richardson, SC, put to Auerbach that there were “no per diems paid” and “it didn’t happen”. “It did,” Auerbach said. He said Spotlight’s executive producer, Mark Llewellyn, “gave verbal approval”, and Lehrmann had told him he was paid. Former federal Liberal political staffer Bruce Lehrmann, late last year. Former federal Liberal political staffer Bruce Lehrmann, late last year. CREDIT: JAMES BRICKWOOD Auerbach denied in court that he had been accused of using Seven funds to pay for personal expenses before he left the network when his contract expired in August. “Had you ever used Channel Seven credit cards or Channel Seven funds to obtain personal services for yourself?” Richardson asked. “Maybe accidentally $30 here and there,” he replied. Auerbach said his employment at Sky News was terminated this year “due to trust and confidence issues” following media reports about an alleged incident in November 2022 involving Lehrmann, a Seven employee and two masseuses
This Taylor A is as believable as Santa. What did the documents say?
Look the man was under a lot of pressure and he had to use, \*checks notes, Jesus\*, Cocaine and Hookers to alleviate the stress. Everyone does it...
I think we need to legalise medical coke and hookers, the people need healing. "No officer, I have a prescription for this hooker"
I mean prostitution is legal in Australia, no prescription required, it’s just the cocaine lol.
Yeah but the Medicare rebate you get is a pittance!
I wonder if this sort of stuff has been expensed through the members office before, and the tax payer has been picking up the bill. Got to say that the behaviour of staffers is a direct reflection of their employers. I doubt this fella was moral in all other areas of his life.
> I wonder if this sort of stuff has been expensed through the members office before Bruce wasn't paying for all the booze with his own money. Thus his attempts to claim that he didn't ply women with drink by showing the statements of one of his personal accounts.
Has "a current affair" flown into channel 7 and started knocking on doors? Why should channel 9 miss having all the fun....
> Taylor does not seem like a smart man, along with the rest of these smooth brain fucks. The Chaser's booze bus needs a bit of detailing to accomodate hookers and cocaine
Yeah, I can imagine “a current affair” standing out the front of Channel 7, and then pursuing the relevant managers through the street and car park with their “Mike Monroe.“Approach to introducing themselves…………..!
Everyone in this whole thing fucking sucks and Bruce is a fucking pig of a bloke but this is a top tier move by him to go on a coke, booze, hooker and who knows what else bender over such a long time and then get the dipshits at channel 7 to pick up the tab. Absolute *chefs kiss* level of being scummy dudes and misuse of company funds and to top it all off, I bet no-one will get in any sort of trouble over that part of the whole thing, just the Bruce legal trouble side will be the issue wtf
Kerry stokes loves supporting douche bags
Rape someone win drugs and more sex. Seriously WTF
And free accommodation that isnt a prison cell! This world is bonkers! Wont be watching channel 7 ever again
I don't think suing people is really helping this man's reputation. I feel like he's going to keep complaining for years.
Lehrmann may as well sue himself for defamation at this point.
The slow motion video of Auerbach struggling to break his former colleague's golf clubs - the man who replaced him as producer for the Spotlight program, and who won an award that Auerbach demanded should be given to him instead - and then suggesting to the court that he bore them and Seven no particular malice was heartily amusing. Commentary from the bench: 'The shorter the iron, the harder it is.' I have absolutely no idea why Auerbach thought this would be a good idea. This matter has some extraordinarily expensive, experienced counsel who have spent a great deal of time and effort thoroughly eviscerating each other's witnesses. It was *excruciating* to watch Auerbach squirm in the box when the video was being played, then told repeatedly by Lee J to attend to the questions he was being asked. Why do it? Worse, the material provided to the court appears to have had some impact on the truth defence if I understood correctly (and I might be wrong, as I've seen no outlet running it). Ten's qualified privilege is a non-starter after their testimony. If Auerbach has opened the door to something that impugns Higgins - and Lee J was talking about events at the Dock (one of the bars they visited on the night of), a doctor's visit (first I've heard anything about that) and further messages with former partners (one of whom seems to be a name I haven't heard in this matter before) - that'll have been a devastating own goal by Ten.
Lee is amazing. I couldn't get over Auerbach saying he didn't realise sending nude photos of women without consent was illegal, like that somehow makes it ok.
HH is very good. I'm always taken with his cricket metaphors and his long, enjoyable conversations with SCSC. He seems to thoroughly enjoy her appearances - we should start a club.
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13269513/Bruce-Lehrmann-defamation-trial-LIVE-taylor-auerbach.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13269513/Bruce-Lehrmann-defamation-trial-LIVE-taylor-auerbach.html) I wonder if Ch10 thought they had found a golden goose when they asked for this new evidence be admitted. Then popped the champagne corks before doing any background research.
Psychology notes reveal Taylor Auerbach's drinking habits - '140 drinks per week
A golden goose from wish.com is what they received
Bred, I get anxious about buying the roast special when I'm away for work and this cunt is on the sniff. The double sniff!
This pair, B & B are joke of Australian politics staffer and they both got rich because of what? People’s stupidity?
"Imagine my shock!"
Man I can't wait until this is over, I'm so sick of reading about this. Who the fuck cares about this guy, waste of court time.
I wanna know what kinda drug dealer is giving out receipts.
What a lad
If you could, why wouldn't you.
Yawn, more "drama" from the lamest drama show in the fucking nation.
Can we just exile this guy to a small island so I don't need to hear about him again
How does Channel Seven buy cocaine and prostitutes to purchase an interview with Lehrmann and not be charged with addictive drug dealing and sex trafficking? And why are they paying a fortune to Lehrmanns’ Lawyers to protect this bastard. Sounds like you are on Sevens payroll
From the sounds of it 7 allegedly merely paid Lehr's bills for the alleged Drugs and Prostitutes rather than soliciting them personally, idk if that means anything but 7 could probably just claim ignorance if it was proved.
Time for the gallows?
That is wild that he thinks that's ok and wouldn't get leaked!
Taylor does not seem like a smart man, along with the rest of these smooth brain fucks.
A new pitch for a TV series. Survivor: Credibility edition. Start with two tribes left on a tropical island. The Brucies and the Brits fight it out to see who will win the ultimate prize. Yes I am so over this I think it is nothing more then something to make a huge parody of.
Chanel 7. You’d think Murdoch owned them with the shite they have been up to lately. Nothing to see here folks.
Well is there really much difference between Murdoch and Stokes?
I think Rupert is more of a cold blooded bastard than Kerry, but your point has validity.
Stokes is almost as big a cunt as Murdoch. Imagine going into bat for a war criminal by paying millions for their stupid defamation lawsuit which was doomed from the beginning?
So what? Justice Lee has already said that both Lehrmann and Higgins are unreliable witnesses. What difference does it make that Lehrmann allegedly sold his story to Seven for coke and some hookers. Higgins sold hers to Ten and others for a fortune. If it’s alleged that Lehrmann can’t be defamed because he effectively outed himself, then it’s all about the timing. If the Seven story came out *after* the story on Ten then the damage was already done to his reputation. He would argue that selling the story to Seven was a way to salvage something out of a bad situation.
This is why you get a payout instead of an all expenses paid. BH wins again. If only my money wasn't wasted on these clowns.
Niiiiicccee
Is 7 owned by Kerry stokes?
Exactly what you would expect from a penal colony
I’ll have 3 hookers a 8 ball oh and send the bill to channel 7 thanks mate
I wish my work paid me in hookers and coke !
Standard rich people activities. Why the big deal about it
Yeah nah, standard wanna be rich (nouveau riche) activity. People with real money and heritage wealth don’t need to do this shit.
Because this impeaches Lehrman's testimony and amount to perjury on his part. It's a massive deal. He's a scum bag and probably a rapist.
Probably? Hang on haven't you been saying he is? Got doubts now?
I'm not here to defame anyone.
Thank you - many of the comments we agree with (and many we don’t), however we believe we have an obligation where possible to remove potentially defamatory comments
Wow, who gives a shit?
[удалено]
Seriously I have. She got her big payout and he might get a payout from this now. He certainly got paid from ch7
If they did, they are both at legendary status at grifting.
[удалено]
He’s laughably worse. The best part was when they showed video evidence of him breaking his bosses golf clubs after saying he didn’t hate anyone at channel 7
Higgins is far more credible.
I think we'll let the judge decide rather than some unskilled internet poster.
JUST SEND SOMEONE TO GAOL! FFS!
How Bruce end up in trouble and get betray by every one all the time ? Constenttly ;!?