chimera wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 6:25pm:



Silly Chimp .... he wasn't in the parliamentary office when the alleged rape took place.

Gnads
Oh yes but the answer you gave was about her statement in court.

Aussie wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 5:14pm:

That's what you were replying to.

chimera wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 6:35pm:



Ahhhh ... Chimp playing the selective edit bullshyte.

Quote:


That's what I was replying to you half smartarse.

chimera wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 6:41pm:


If she was so inebriated she didn't know what happened, was still there with all her gear off after Lehrmann left...

how could she be unequivocally sure of anything?

And why would anyone one say that's unconditionally a case of rape?

And what Lehrmann claims is of no matter?

Toddle on.

So now the entire burden of proof relies totally on whether or not the accuser is 'unequivocally sure' long after the event and after extreme coaching?

WTF is wrong with you, Aussie?  You used to be a lawyer claimant we could trust - claiming to have defended people from flimsy rape allegations... now you go along with some fantasist 'judge' who says - without any support for the statement, that the alleged perpetrator was overcome by lust and had his way.

Is he maybe thinking of Buford Tannen at school or something?

Let's get this right - the accuser can be as drunk as a skunk, flakes out on a lounge, recollects, after feeling her job is threatened by the late night antics, that she 'wakes up with the guy on top of her' - he has his way leaving no marks or stains etc, there is nothing on him detected when he arrives back home, no test is done, no complaint made until much later,  no substantial evidence is provided to support ANY contention, not one whit of corroborative evidence is offered other than statements made later at a time when the accuser herself says she felt her job was under threat, he 'judge' himself says the accuser was economical with the truth and recollection - and yet the 'judge' finds guilt?

That puts The Kangaroo Court to shame.... and the Pissed At the Pub Tall Story Court as well... the Martin Bryant one... must be the piggy eyes.

Again I ask - on what basis?  Assumptions, reading in selectively, bias, preconception regarding events, prejudice against men.... even poofs can have two kids and be married.... and this guy sure fits the bill... did the big boys at Catholic private school lift his lunch money and his skirts?  Has he ever been psycho-analysed?  He sure needs to be.

Sorry to consistently hold you to simple truths that are verifiable and supported by substantial corroborative evidence, Aussie.... but that's how it is supposed to work.

With that imagination 'judge' Lee could retire to become a movie script writer............................... and earn a motza at it....

Lee's Law!

... when all else fails, call Judge Lee to the bench....

chimera wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 7:01pm:


So would you mount a drunken passed-out woman on a couch?

I'd at least find her a blanket before going home.... something, BTW - that the security staff should have done at the same time as actually checking very carefully to ensure she hadn't choked on something.  Nah - quick look across the room is enough for those dopey sheilas  in our Department of Defence.... I say it again - give me control over security there...

Aussie said that on the evidence of her word alone, he would frog march his own son to the police station ... only if you wanted to be sure he got his case in first.... but then...... maybe Bruce the ex-employee had no idea at the time that he was being accused when YB was finding her 'job threatened' and needed a way out...  surely not going to police at that time is evidence of an innocent mind..... he did not know he was being accused and therefore did not bother to make any defence.... nor was he afforded any such opportunity in Reynolds' office.  He was hauled in and sacked.... she got the full hearing and an offer of a soft transfer to a quiet place.... she 'felt threatened' - he was already burning on the ground - but hell - that's a man's job, no?  To take all the hits and burn while the woman gets all the medals.....