News Brittany Higgins enquiry

[Mr 95%]

There'd be no news programs then

[/QUOTE]
That word, ‘Allegedly’ ..so important

 

[Bad Billy]

Don't see how.
He either forcibly had sex against her wishes with her or he didn't.

He might not have touched her, but she could genuinely believe he did?

 

[wendog33]

He might not have touched her, but she could genuinely believe he did?

Touching is not what she says woke her up. She described his heavy body on top of her, penetration and his ejaculation.

It either happened or it did not. Either she is telling the truth or he is.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Her team didnt pull out. It had to be aborted when a juror broke the rules by making their own enquiries and was discharged. The DPP didnt want to proceed bc of the potential further distress and mental safety of BH.

And yet here she is telling everything, literally everything, just the same as she would have had to do if the criminal case had proceeded.

It was pretty obvious to everyone, except the ACT DPP, that there would be a civil case based on a TV interview that should never have been broadcast, that the DPP warned CH10 not to air. In that inevitable civil case it was also blatantly obvious that BH would have to testify. The "mental safety" excuse was bullshit, the DPP knew he couldn't win and found a way out without looking like an idiot for pursuing it in the first place. If everything that has been revealed in this civil case was known for the criminal case then the DPP knew it was un-winnable. He was simply bending to political pressure.

It was always going to end up as a "she said / he said" case and his defence was smart, not claiming "consent" which he has to prove. Instead claiming "never happened", which places the burden of proof of her which is proving very hard to prove.


Always a Bulldog

 

[Hacky McAxe]

And yet here she is telling everything, literally everything, just the same as she would have had to do if the criminal case had proceeded.

It was pretty obvious to everyone, except the ACT DPP, that there would be a civil case based on a TV interview that should never have been broadcast, that the DPP warned CH10 not to air. In that inevitable civil case it was also blatantly obvious that BH would have to testify. The "mental safety" excuse was bullshit, the DPP knew he couldn't win and found a way out without looking like an idiot for pursuing it in the first place. If everything that has been revealed in this civil case was known for the criminal case then the DPP knew it was un-winnable. He was simply bending to political pressure.

It was always going to end up as a "she said / he said" case and his defence was smart, not claiming "consent" which he has to prove. Instead claiming "never happened", which places the burden of proof of her which is proving very hard to prove.


Always a Bulldog

Agreed, to the most part. I'm sure her mental health played some role, but I doubt it was a case of her just saying that she didn't want to deal with the mental stress. In all likelihood the DPP would have said to her, "we don't have a case. If you go through this, it's going to be even more stressful and you're going to lose"

I doubt she was thinking about a potential civil case. The DPP would have seen it coming, but they have no onus to tell her about a potential civil case, especially when it would raise her chance of continuing resulting in the DPP either wasting money on it, or dropping the case and looking like the villain.

 

[wendog33]

And yet here she is telling everything, literally everything, just the same as she would have had to do if the criminal case had proceeded.

It was pretty obvious to everyone, except the ACT DPP, that there would be a civil case based on a TV interview that should never have been broadcast, that the DPP warned CH10 not to air. In that inevitable civil case it was also blatantly obvious that BH would have to testify. The "mental safety" excuse was bullshit, the DPP knew he couldn't win and found a way out without looking like an idiot for pursuing it in the first place. If everything that has been revealed in this civil case was known for the criminal case then the DPP knew it was un-winnable. He was simply bending to political pressure.

It was always going to end up as a "she said / he said" case and his defence was smart, not claiming "consent" which he has to prove. Instead claiming "never happened", which places the burden of proof of her which is proving very hard to prove.


Always a Bulldog

Always impossible to prove.

 

[Bazildog]

I’m sorry, but unless there is any involvement of some kind of rape drug this whole things stinks. They are not 16 year olds getting drunk.

No is always no, but there is way more about this incident being proposed than what perhaps actually happened. Adding in a Wilkinson/Fitzsimmons is a recipe for a clusterfuck regardless of the truth.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I’m sorry, but unless there is any involvement of some kind of rape drug this whole things stinks. They are not 16 year olds getting drunk.

No is always no, but there is way more about this incident being proposed than what perhaps actually happened. Adding in a Wilkinson/Fitzsimmons is a recipe for a clusterfuck regardless of the truth.

It's not really an issue of inebriation. Higgins is saying that she was passed out and claiming that Bruce raped her while she was asleep. Bruce is claiming that they never had sex.

 

[Bazildog]

It's not really an issue of inebriation. Higgins is saying that she was passed out and claiming that Bruce raped her while she was asleep. Bruce is claiming that they never had sex.

I get it, if I’m not mistaken it was only 40 mins from the time they walked in looking happy and Lehman leaving?

Both although on the sauce looked in control and comfortable with what they were doing at 130am..

So in 40 mins they went inside and she passed out, he had his way and then left..?

 

[Gene Krupa]

It was BruceOMGLehrman.

She ain't the sweetest peach on the tree.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I get it, if I’m not mistaken it was only 40 mins from the time they walked in looking happy and Lehman leaving?

Both although on the sauce looked in control and comfortable with what they were doing at 130am..

So in 40 mins they went inside and she passed out, he had his way and then left..?

Yeah, I think it was about an hour. But she was really hammered.

 

[Bazildog]

Yeah, I think it was about an hour. But she was really hammered.

Mate, I have daughters in their mid twenties and my first and second instinct is “bastard”. But, the bloke looks like a geek and although she was hammered she didn’t look plastered. There was no staggering or unsteadiness in her walk and she didn’t look from the vision like she was out of control.

I hate this shit if you think about it as a parent from either side…

 

[wendog33]

It was accepted in evidence she had 11? vodkas with vid of BL grouping 3 vodkas in front of her and telling everyone they were all for her. Then he told her to scull it and not to leave any as they left for the 2nd nightclub.

The barrister said an expert advised that her alcohol level would have been 4 times the legal limit at this point of the evening.

It looks like she is ok at the security counter but she cant put her shoes on and maybe she is just managing to pull herself together and not appear too inebriated in front of the guards because it's a very unprofessional look to say the least. The last few drinks may not have kicked in her blood stream as yet either.

Regardless of he said: she said and who is lying ....I think we can all identify that we all may have tried to function as normal as possible and tried not to look drunk and stumble around in PH in those circumstances.

Just a "possible" explanation as to why she wasn't staggering around in the PH coridors?

One good thing may come of the whole sorry tale that young women are now talking about....don't drink to excess and render yourself passed out and possibly vulnerable and put yourself in harms way by all manner of dangerous possibilities.

 

[Gene Krupa]

One good thing may come of the whole sorry tale that young women are now talking about....don't drink to excess and render yourself passed out and possibly vulnerable and put yourself in harms way by all manner of dangerous possibilities.

Young women aren't talking about it. Most women don't give it a second thought when on the piss.

 

[SexBomb]

It was accepted in evidence she had 11? vodkas with vid of BL grouping 3 vodkas in front of her and telling everyone they were all for her. Then he told her to scull it and not to leave any as they left for the 2nd nightclub.

The barrister said an expert advised that her alcohol level would have been 4 times the legal limit at this point of the evening.

It looks like she is ok at the security counter but she cant put her shoes on and maybe she is just managing to pull herself together and not appear too inebriated in front of the guards because it's a very unprofessional look to say the least. The last few drinks may not have kicked in her blood stream as yet either.

Regardless of he said: she said and who is lying ....I think we can all identify that we all may have tried to function as normal as possible and tried not to look drunk and stumble around in PH in those circumstances.

Just a "possible" explanation as to why she wasn't staggering around in the PH coridors?

One good thing may come of the whole sorry tale that young women are now talking about....don't drink to excess and render yourself passed out and possibly vulnerable and put yourself in harms way by all manner of dangerous possibilities.

That's one party (and I rather discuss it in that context instead of sex-based context to remove inherent bias) what about the other party?
If the other party had a higher level of intoxication, by the letter of the law, they can't give consent to the plaintiff, so the plaintiff is liable for statutory rape.
This is one aspect I was alluding to earlier about this being a no-win situation.

 

[SexBomb]

Young women aren't talking about it. Most women don't give it a second thought when on the piss.

Exactly.
The Aussie culture is to just have fun and deal with the mess the day afterward.

 

[wendog33]

Per

Young women aren't talking about it. Most women don't give it a second thought when on the piss.

Perhaps I'm talking about the ones who actually are talking and analysing the repercussions of this case, on several various social media sites and who are not using the term "on the piss" when out clubbing and having a few drinks with friends, and have now decided to moderate their intake and also watch out for their buddies in vulnerable situations.

It's become a thing again to some. What others do is up to them.

 

[wendog33]

That's one party (and I rather discuss it in that context instead of sex-based context to remove inherent bias) what about the other party?
If the other party had a higher level of intoxication, by the letter of the law, they can't give consent to the plaintiff, so the plaintiff is liable for statutory rape.
This is one aspect I was alluding to earlier about this being a no-win situation.

Yes understand. I am only presenting the issues as raised by BH. Very few on here can think subjectively and deduce that they are BOTH innocent until proven guilty and all that is defended is BL denial on here.

 

[SexBomb]

Yes understand. I am only presenting the issues as raised by BH. Very few on here can think subjectively and deduce that they are BOTH innocent until proven guilty and all that is defended is BL denial on here.

Understand that, is why I seek a balanced discussion too.

 

[wendog33]

Exactly.
The Aussie culture is to just have fun and deal with the mess the day afterward.

So true but this case has incredible ramifications with many young women on various sites expressing how with what they've seen of what BH has gone thru both in the media, courts and social media....who the hell wants to report and put themselves thru such trauma all over again.

Lots of young women are re-assessing the vulnerable state they put themselves in, in the present day curcumstances, by getting totally wasted with minimal control over their safety. Some will modify their behaviour to compensate for that...and some won't.