He bought a drink for her. The judge had witness statements.
If you have a problem with that - don't work with me.

'One of the most intriguing research nuggets to emerge: While male sexuality is fairly predictable — they tend to be aroused by naked women'. Did you know that?

Grappler:

Quote:


Not at all, there were many other facts established which went to satisfying the burden of proof.

You have not read the Judgement carefully or at all.

Within days, she had complained of being raped, not 'long after the event' at all.

Aussie wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 9:53am:


'facts'? 

She first complained of rape when interviewed over her presence in the building early on a Saturday morning... that was days later ... and felt her job was under threat - a belief she persisted with despite apparently kind treatment.  Convenience rape accusation.

There were security people present to make an immediate complaint to on waking.... the security staff at the time noted no signs of sex .... blind and noseless .... they noted two different stages of undress when the bloke was nowhere in sight having left hours earlier (tooth fairy?)  ... there were telephones ....  and the list goes on and on... she destroyed potential evidence ... she was less than forthcoming with the truth ... those are all facts ....

Clearly your 'judge' chose to only see 'facts' he wanted to see.... highly preferentially .... clearly you have become obsessed with this to the point where you refuse facts and prefer assertions, the same as he did.

His 'additional facts' are assumptions, suppositions, assertions, follow-on accusations, and other forms of non-proven and non-provable evidence.  He CHOSE to see what he wanted to see in a totally biased way.

Of course, no lawyer can go into an appeal and say that!!  Which shows how very bad our 'jurisprudence' system is.... when simple truths cannot be told for fear of adverse reaction... a 'judge' no matter how flawed, is above criticism in an appeal.... but subject to vilification in public by the baying crowds if/when he makes the 'wrong' decision.

If this weak-cocked guy had made the proper decision - that there was insufficient evidence to say anything - and that Bruce was clearly punished without merit as a result - the outcry in the media and in the baying crowd would have been immense.  So a man suffers for life as a result of cowardice on the bench..... and the accuser is rewarded with millions and heroic status .....

Now then - why do you think he was so right when he was clearly so wrong?

How would a rape complaint help keep her job? Was she suggesting he dragged her by the hair through the security gate?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 12:58pm:


A far more useful timeline (for you) would be one setting out the events of that fateful night.

In the Higgins (non) matter I hold no brief for either party... they went there for some reason - an OPINION only is that they went there to try on the 'Mile High Club' of a shag in the minister's office.  I would suggest from the security actions, including the response from the senior called for advice, that such things were not uncommon.  Whether or not any such thing took place NOBODY KNOWS!

Was shagging in the minister's office or similar cause for sacking?  Not in Canberra ...... there'd be nobody left....

Clearly the minister chose to sack the man (what a surprise) and coddle the angel - sorry - woman... thus certifying that even she can persist with the false belief in the 21st Century that a man is always culpable and a woman an angel with no real responsibility for doing anything wrong...

.... many here argue - and probably rightly .. that coddling the Aborigines is the primary cause of many of them living in squalor and crime and violence etc... they say that not demanding and expecting personal responsibility means they will never NOT behave as children.... the same can be said of modern women.

If you want to be equal - ACT LIKE IT!  AND ACCEPT THE BURDENS OF EQUALITY, EQUAL TREATMENT AND EQUAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.

'Network Ten’s barrister, Matt Collins KC, played extensive CCTV footage to the court which showed Higgins and Lehrmann socialising and drinking on a Friday night after work with other parliamentary staffers.
The court heard the footage showed Higgins had consumed six spirit-based drinks in the Canberra bar, two of which were bought for her by Lehrmann.'

The girl dropped her shoes and panties and lay down naked as did all the other pollies and drunks.  There was no raping, let's face it, who likes nude flesh anyway?