mothra wrote on Dec 4^th, 2022 at 7:01am:

The most senior police officer on the Brittany Higgins case believed there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Bruce Lehrmann but could not stop the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions from proceeding because “there is too much political interference”, ­according to diary notes made by the ACT Police Manager of Criminal Investigations, Detective Superintendent Scott Moller.

In a separate executive briefing last year, Superintendent Moller advised that investigators “have serious concerns in relation to the strength and reliability of [Ms Higgins’] evidence but also more importantly her mental health and how any future ­prosecution may affect her ­wellbeing”.

On Friday the ACT DPP, Shane Drumgold SC, withdrew the charges against Mr Lehrmann, citing concerns for Ms Higgins’ mental health, so his retrial – set down for February – will no longer proceed. The original trial was aborted in October due to juror misconduct.

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.

The briefing, dated June 9, 2021, states that “there is limited corroborative evidence of sexual intercourse taking place or ­consent being withdrawn or not provided”.

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.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/police-doubted-brittany-higgins-but-case...

Aussie wrote on Dec 4^th, 2022 at 7:56am:

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...

mothra wrote on Dec 4^th, 2022 at 7:47am:

Are you not concerned about Higins' deceptive behaviour?

Frank wrote on Dec 4^th, 2022 at 8:08am:


I don't give a flying fuq what some copper believed.  What matters is that (a) a Magistrate found there was a prima facie case and committed Lehrmann to Trial, (b) Lehrmann's own Defence Counsel did not at any time make any submission to the Trial Judge that they should dismiss the indictment on the basis of there being insufficient evidence.

The Jury clearly concluded there was sufficient evidence to have him charged as even after almost a week of deliberations, they could not arrive at a unanimous decision.  It would have taken a Jury no more than an hour to acquit if they thought the case had no merit at all. 

Remember, this Trial was aborted not because of a hung Jury, but because a Juror had accessed information they should not have.

mothra wrote on Dec 4^th, 2022 at 9:37am:

Certainly, the ACT police were concerned about her behaviour towards them and her reluctance to surrender evidence to them and tampering with evidence.

Maybe Higgins is a narcissist who embarrassed herself by getting drunk and consented, then needed a reason after she became the office joke.

You cannot know that was not the case.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 4^th, 2022 at 9:42am:



You don't actually know what a narcissist is, do you.

mothra wrote on Dec 4^th, 2022 at 9:44am:

Sure I do. As do you.

You can't know that Higgins was not trying to tidy up a humiliating experience she'd consented to at the time, any more than anyone here can say they know Lehrmann did not rape her.

And we're never likely to know.

Aussie wrote on Dec 4^th, 2022 at 9:52am:

Yes. As hard as it is to accept for many, we're never going to be certain what actually happened and why.

That's a hard pill to swallow in a society that demands enough information on everything to always come to an indisputable conclusion.