Johnnie wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2022 at 11:52am:



was that a report from scummos best mate and neghbour and fellow bible thumper, the police commissioner?

John Smith wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2022 at 11:25am:


He didn't 'run away - he relied on his RIGHT to not have to speak to oppose what was essentially a non-case.

That is all....

The attack I cited was by that stupid sheila victims commissioner -another fuking Job For the Girls with a clear intent and even mandate to pursue 'protection' for one social group over another...... Hutu/Tutsi In Australia.

Johnnie wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2022 at 11:52am:


Yep. The DPP has a big ? on his head.

The executive briefing lists a series of concerns by senior police, including that Ms Higgins had ­repeatedly refused to provide her original mobile phone; had ­deliberately deleted messages from a second phone; had lied about seeking medical attention after the incident; and had joked about wanting “a sex scandal” a month before the incident. Some became issues at the trial.

An attached minute signed by Detective Inspector Marcus Boorman, the investigation manager assigned to the case, states: “Investigators at this juncture have a number of concerns ­regarding inconsistencies in disclosures and other evidence ­obtained during the investigation. In light of the issues identified, ­serious concerns exist as to whether there is sufficient ­evidence to prove the alleged ­offence.”

The documents obtained by The Weekend Australian also ­reveal that Ms Higgins texted boyfriend David Sharaz in May last year saying: “F..k it, if they want to play hard ball I’ll cry on The Project again because of this sort of treatment.”

Ms Higgins first spoke to police on April 1, 2019, a week after the events at Parliament House, but informed them two weeks later she did not wish to continue with the allegations. On February 5, 2021, she re-engaged with police, telling them she had been interviewed by the media and didn’t want to do an evidence-in-chief interview until her interview with The Project host Lisa Wilkinson had aired on television.

The following day “police ­advised Ms Higgins the intended media events … may jeopardise any subsequent criminal investigation; however Ms Higgins made it clear to police she was not willing to provide investigators with a formal statement in relation to the allegations until the media stories had been published. Ms Higgins stated that she wanted to ensure the sexual assault investigation was ‘active’ in anticipation of the media events.”

The TV program aired on February 15 and Ms Higgins sat down with police for her evidence-in-chief interview nine days later.  At that interview investigators reiterated to her the need to examine her mobile phone for potential evidence. “Ms Higgins refused to hand over her phone despite being explained the evidential value of the process,” the police report says.

The AFP statement of facts prepared by Superintendent Moller reflects police frustration over difficulties in obtaining Ms Higgins’ mobile phone after the interview to extract data.

On March 15, when police had arranged for a second time to meet Ms Higgins to obtain the phone, she failed to turn up or to respond to calls. “During the afternoon on the same date police observed Ms Higgins on commercial television at the March4Justice march at Parliament House,” Superintendent Moller wrote.  “She attended the location and gave a speech to the persons ­present.”

On May 5, 2021, Superintendent Moller was informed that ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner Heidi Yates had advised that any contact with Ms Higgins was now to go to her rather than directly to Ms Higgins.

Three weeks later, Superintendent Moller and other detectives met Ms Higgins, who was accompanied by Ms Yates, at the Winchester Police Centre in Canberra, where she gave a second ­interview.

“During this conversation I stressed to Ms Higgins the importance of refraining from participating in any media interviews in relation to this matter,” Superintendent Moller says in his police statement.

On this occasion Ms Higgins handed over a mobile phone. Police recovered a text ­exchange between Ms Higgins and former boyfriend Ben ­Dillaway dated February 7, 2019, six weeks before the alleged rape, in which the pair joked about wanting a political sex scandal.

“The bar for what counts as a political sex scandal nowadays is REALLY low,” Ms Higgins wrote.  “I want a sex scandal I can be like whoa. Impressive. Didn’t think he had it in him,” Mr Dillaway wrote.  “Exactly! A sex scandal the party can be proud of. Another Barnaby but without the baby haha,” Ms Higgins responded.

On July 12 last year Superintendent Moller again met Ms Higgins and Ms Yates, this time at AFP headquarters in Brisbane to update her on the investigation.  “Ms Higgins advised that any photos taken on the night of the incident were saved on her Google drive attached to her iCloud but she could not recall taking any photos.  “Ms Higgins advised (of) the photo of an injury to her leg she took herself on WhatsApp during budget week, however she could not recall the exact date. Ms Higgins advised she shared this photo with The Project on 19 January 2021. “Ms Higgins advised she had seven iPhones since 2019, most had been supplied by the government as part of her work and they had been returned when she changed jobs, however Ms Higgins was happy for police to take the old phones she had.”

During the conversation Superintendent Moller showed Ms Higgins text messages ­between herself and Mr Sharaz on May 21, 2021 about her sending him an audio file because she was “clearing out her phone ahead of the police”.

“Ms Higgins told me that the files she had sent to David Sharaz and deleted from her phone related to taped conversations of her talking to various ministers and she was concerned she had committed an offence by taping the ministers so she didn’t want the police to find them.”
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/police-doubted-brittany-higgins-but-case...

Frank wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2022 at 2:16pm:


I doubt it, the MSM have probably read the article you just put up and are ducking for cover, they seemed to have dropped poor Brittany since Drumgold with the big Abbo tie around his neck (i think i know where on the political spectrum he sits) did a backflip.

Frank wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2022 at 2:16pm:


I've tried ever so hard to support this woman but I just could not do so. It weighed heavily on my conscience given I myself was attacked as a young woman (well I was younger than Brittany in that I was 21 years old) but I was attacked during a work function at a point in time where my much older manager and I were alone.

Unlike Brittany even as a 21 yr old I had enough sense to know that I should stop at 1 drink AND unlike Brittany I always wore undergarments when at work (undies, a bra and shape wear corsets to hide undie lines etc). And so when I was attacked I was able to get away and run. Why? I wasn't drunk at all so I was in full control whereas my manager was intoxicated AND the undergarments I had on meant I had time on my side to help me get away. The clothes I wore that night were never worn by me ever again and I could not return to work under that manager ever again. I could not bear the sight of him as it traumatised me. In fact any guy who remotely looked like him frightened me. The visual prompt of his face or a garment worn by me during the attack was all it took to rattle me. Oh and there was the issue of the smell of his type of deodorant. Brut 33. That fragrance sends me back in time to the time and space of the attack. Note : I was not raped. But I was sexually assaulted.

Meantime Bare Bottomed Brittany who allegedly suffered rape whilst intoxicated (remember CCTV footage showed she had some 12 drinks <-- mind you that amount of alcohol is quite telling given she could still stand up and walk around) not only kept the dress she wore but she kept wearing it (she was caught out in a lie over this by her own online social media pages) AND she kept initiating phone contact with her alleged rapist AND also hid HER texts to him.

And then there's this : Her partner at that time dumped her. Not to worry because she's now with a guy who is the spitting image of her alleged rapist.

The sudden attention, the massive amounts in potential book deals along with the media sensationalism and the possibility of her making lots of $$$ in appearances etc masked the ugly reality that her life and privacy was about to be attacked and raped by every possible pariah in the industry. And I bet the reason why Bare Bottomed Brittany is currently in hospital is because of this : the penny has dropped and she's in shock because now she truly does feel that she's been raped..both emotionally and psychologically.

And right now I place the blame at the feet of that pathetic weasel DPP because he strung her along from the get go and created the conditions for the cringeworthy circus we've seen.

The fact that the DPP is STILL saying the case which he's dropped STILL has good prospects of securing a conviction means this : HE is essentially saying that if the court process is too much for 1 victim then the alleged criminal is free to walk the streets and thus free to harm others.

And that my dear friends is why the DPP has contributed nothing to this case but pure unadulterated bovine faecal matter. 

Edit : This morning said DPP saw fit to alter his Wiki page too. In effect he sanitised it. He's totally and utterly devastated 2 Liberal Party colleagues. And after lying about the GOOD prospects of a criminal conviction ALL throughout this case (including yesterday even) his "job" is done ✅

So yeah ...right now we're left not knowing if a rapist is still walking amongst us because the DPP has said Brittany isn't coping too well with the court process. And get this ...the D bloody PP ALSO sensationally stated this (and I STILL can't believe he even said this) ... the matter is NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST!

BS it isn't! What woman in the community wants a rapist alleged or otherwise let loose you moron esp if there's still a good prospect of a criminal conviction??? 😐

Sounds awfully like Yates and Co coached her.  At what point does this 'commissioner' stand in for legal representation at an interview?

Getting a bit above ourselves aren't we?  I'm beginning to see this more as a stunt and a setup than a real case, and organised by the feminist lobby in all their glory for their set purpose.... clearly this twerp of a 'commissioner' sees herself as above the law and in a position to dictate to the law and its handlers.....

WTF is the ACT coming to?  Time to sack that silly cow and get her out of the hair of genuine investigators.

Sadly I am losing faith in Higgins ... and losing my impartiality.