Ooooh - lookee this one!
"Justice Lee found, “it is more likely than not that Mr Lehrmann’s state of mind was such that he was so intent upon gratification to be indifferent to Ms Higgins’ consent, and hence went ahead with sexual intercourse without caring whether she consented.”So Bruce - being a man - is so intent on 'having his way' that nothing would stop him... and that is the sole basis on which Mind-reader Lee said
" 'e must 'ave done it! You know what blokes are like!"Does that amazing stereotype also apply to you, 'Mr' Lee? And all your male friends and male relatives? This is, after all - 2024...... not 1954, you know.... and I was of the belief that one of the foundations of 'feminism' was that 'stereotypes' were out of the game.... and yet you cling to this as your ONLY excuse for asserting that a man was guilty despite the absolute lack of ANY corroborative evidence.
A bloke cleared to work in one of the highest and most secure offices in the country is a lust-crazed monster?
The bloke has a girlfriend at home yet is so overcome - at that single time - by lust that he cannot control himself with young Brittany sprawled drunk and dress up wearing no pants all night already on the minister's couch - who - let's face it - is hardly that exciting a prospect.
Where is the evidence of intercourse having taken place - to be placed in the 'balance'? Only that Bruce is assumed to be a raging monster with a monster in his pants after downing a heap of spirits all night and the 'judge' has magically read his mindset at that time?
Can someone tell me this - is this Lee a poof without a single real idea of what a Man is and does? He sure sounds like a mammy's boy.
No wonder they're all running scared... and are trying to push Broke Bruce out of the game using Lawfare.
Your right to be innocent stops at the end of your bank balance.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-17/annabel-crabb-lehrmann-judgment-a-lesson-... From the mouth of Higgins as she was in the witness box sworn to tell the truth, that's where.