The 'Higgins' Trial

[Aussie]

So...it started today. Jury empannelled and Prosecutor made the opening address which included:

Before the lunch break, ACT Director of Public Prosecution Shane Drumgold provided a detailed outline of the case against Mr Lehrmann.

He told the court the prosecution would allege the incident happened after Ms Higgins and Mr Lehrmann returned to Parliament House after a drunken night out, as staffers prepared for an election they believed they would lose.

Mr Drumgold told the jury the pair arrived at Parliament House after Mr Lehrmann told Ms Higgins he needed to pick something up for work.

The prosecutor said Ms Higgins said she fell asleep on a couch and woke to find Mr Lehrmann having sex with her.

The court heard Mr Lehrmann would deny that the pair had sexual intercourse.

The case continues.

So.....no consent, or suggestion of an act involving consent.

I wonder if it will become known if he ever did pick anything up from 'work.' Did he leave with anything he did not arrive with.

[UnSubRocky]

The case does hinge on whether Lehrmann did what he said he would do and whether he had sex (consensual or otherwise) with Higgins. If he started having sex with Higgins whilst she was drunk and passed out, it is rape. But, if she was conscious (woke up) during sex and did not object to the sex, she has consented.

The embarrassment shown on Brittany Higgins face during rally speeches she has provided seem to indicate a reluctance to speak the truth. And with the statement made by the female guard saying "Oh my god(?)" during a 60 Minutes interview, I was left with the impression that she was just embarrassed herself at seeing two adults having finished copulating.

If Lehrmann keeps to his story, he should be found not guilty.

[Aussie]

The case does hinge on whether Lehrmann did what he said he would do and whether he had sex (consensual or otherwise) with Higgins. If he started having sex with Higgins whilst she was drunk and passed out, it is rape. But, if she was conscious (woke up) during sex and did not object to the sex, she has consented.

The embarrassment shown on Brittany Higgins face during rally speeches she has provided seem to indicate a reluctance to speak the truth. And with the statement made by the female guard saying "Oh my god(?)" during a 60 Minutes interview, I was left with the impression that she was just embarrassed herself at seeing two adults having finished copulating.

If Lehrmann keeps to his story, he should be found not guilty.

There seems to be an abundance of evidence to the effect that she was thoroughly smashed, and if the Jury accepts she was, then she would be incapable of giving a valid consent.

Lots of nuances in this pie, for sure.

[Aussie]

This is part of what she told the Cops when she was interviewed by them.

During the 2021 interview, she told police that she had felt "stressed, and scared and embarrassed" as she left Parliament House the morning after the alleged offence.

She said she had gone to the building with Mr Lehrmann after a night of heavy drinking, fell asleep on a couch, and woke to find him having sex with her.

Ms Higgins said she had not refused Mr Lehrmann's request that they go to Parliament House, where they worked, late at night, as it felt safe.

"I was really open to [the] suggestion … It didn't seem inconceivable to go to Parliament," she told police.

"It felt like a safe space for me, and I didn't say no to going to Parliament."

Ms Higgins told police that she remembered saying no as Mr Lehrmann allegedly raped her.

"I said no, at least half a dozen times. He did not stop, he kept going," she said in the police interview.

"To my knowledge, he finished, but I'm not exactly sure. I don't know if he used a condom, I don't remember."

That describes rape.

[Aussie]

I may have misheard but I thought ABC TV said that the accused denied that anything happened....so......the issue is not consent.

If I heard correctly...........

Edit......Yes........he is denying there was any sex.

Mr Lehrmann, who was also a Liberal staffer at the time of the alleged offence, has pleaded not guilty, and has said he did not have sex with his then colleague Ms Higgins.

Hmmmm.......lots of evidence suggesting otherwise, including what Higgins asserts, and that she was found naked.

Will he give evidence?

Presumably, when interviewed by the Cops, he made the denial....so to that extent, the Jury will be at least aware he told the Cops there was no sex.....but......will he risk getting in the box to make that denial. On the one hand, yes he should as the Jury then has a sworn denial from him.....but on the other hand he has nothing to prove....the Crown has to prove it happened.

That decision has to be be made at the end of the Crown's case. Part of what is taken into account then will be how well Higgins held up in cross-examination.

If she holds firm and no dent is made on her credibility, that is a strong indication he will need to get in the Box.

If he does not, in final address to the Jury, the Crown will assert that the Jury has her SWORN and UNSHAKEN testimony and the denial from the accused comes ONLY via the Cops..........a denial NOT made under oath.

So....forget all the stuff about consent...that is a non event.

It either happened or it did not, and proof that it did is on the Crown...beyond reasonable doubt.

Much will depend on how Higgins goes in the Box.

[Aussie]

From her second interview with the Cops.

Of interest is that she went to Police after talking to media....probably Lisa Wilkinson, but that at the moment is a guess of mine.

In the taped interview from May 2021, played to the jury this afternoon, Ms Higgins told officers she had later taken a pregnancy test as a result of the alleged assault, but had not sought medical treatment.

When questioned by police about a text Ms Higgins had sent to a former partner telling him she had been to a GP, she said that was just to placate him because he was worried about her and she had not visited a doctor.

Though she told officers she had later visited a GP to receive treatment for related mental health challenges.

When asked by police officers if she had taken the morning after pill, Ms Higgins said she had not.
Brittany Higgins walks outside court.
Brittany Higgins arrives at the court for the second day of Bruce Lehrmann's trial.(AAP: Mick Tsikas)

Ms Higgins also told police about how she felt in the aftermath of the alleged rape, saying she was left feeling "trapped" and "not human".

"It didn't feel like it was about me at all," she said in the police recording.

Ms Higgins said that, after Mr Lehrmann allegedly finished sexually assaulting her, "he didn't say anything and he left the room".

"I do remember that he got up and he looked at me and it was a strange moment of just … eye contact and at that point, I didn't say anything to him anymore," she said.

She told police that, during the alleged incident, Mr Lehrmann "wasn't looking at me, he was looking over me".

She also said that when she became conscious, she thought Mr Lehrmann had already been penetrating her for some time.

"I was coming late to the party and it felt like me saying no … it was like this strange sort of afterthought," she said.

"He wasn't reactive to it. He was almost finishing so it wasn't acknowledged, he just kept going."
'The disparity between him and me was huge'

Earlier this morning, the jury heard that Ms Higgins considered herself "disposable" at work and told police of the "huge" power imbalance between herself and Mr Lehrmann.

"The disparity between him and me was huge," she said.

"I was very disposable."

Ms Higgins described Mr Lehrmann to police as "the most senior adviser that [then defence industry minister Linda Reynolds] had".

"He was nice to me sometimes, he'd sometimes buy me coffee, but at the same time he'd sort of demand me to do all these things that were outside my job and I did them on the basis that … I don't know," Ms Higgins said in the interview.

"Sort of being a ministerial staffer, the roles are sort of blurred and you do what is asked of you.

"I did what was asked."

In a second police interview, conducted three months later, Ms Higgins said that, as a junior in the office, she would often carry out tasks for staffers higher up the hierarchy.

"If anyone in the office asked me to do a task, I would have to say yes because I was at the bottom of the food chain," she said.

[UnSubRocky]

The case does hinge on whether Lehrmann did what he said he would do and whether he had sex (consensual or otherwise) with Higgins. If he started having sex with Higgins whilst she was drunk and passed out, it is rape. But, if she was conscious (woke up) during sex and did not object to the sex, she has consented.

The embarrassment shown on Brittany Higgins face during rally speeches she has provided seem to indicate a reluctance to speak the truth. And with the statement made by the female guard saying "Oh my god(?)" during a 60 Minutes interview, I was left with the impression that she was just embarrassed herself at seeing two adults having finished copulating.

If Lehrmann keeps to his story, he should be found not guilty.

There seems to be an abundance of evidence to the effect that she was thoroughly smashed, and if the Jury accepts she was, then she would be incapable of giving a valid consent.

Lots of nuances in this pie, for sure.

If she was "thoroughly smashed" (inebriated), she need not object to having sex with the accused. She was not capable of giving consent. But, if she woke up to Lehrmann having sex with her and she repeatedly told him "no", it would contradict the claims that she was inebriated to the point of not being able to object. Even though both sets of alleged circumstances state a non-consensual sexual encounter, they are inconsistent stories. Higgins would have to keep with the idea that she was blackout drunk to be able to establish that she was raped.

[Aussie]

Well, I reckon the accused goes a long way to being acquitted if the person who required that he go to Parliament House to pick up documents at that hour of the night gives evidence to that effect, and ALSO gives evidence about WHEN and in what circumstances the accused delivered those documents to them and when and why and how they asked the accused to get them.

Phone records, ey?

[Aussie]

Well, I reckon the accused goes a long way to being acquitted if the person who required that he go to Parliament House to pick up documents at that hour of the night gives evidence to that effect, and ALSO gives evidence about WHEN and in what circumstances the accused delivered those documents to them and when and why and how they asked the accused to get them.

Phone records, ey?

I that regard, I note these people have been named as likely witnesses.

Witnesses for the trial of Brittany Higgins' accused rapist include TV star Lisa Wilkinson, journalist Samantha Maiden and coalition senators Linda Reynolds and Michaelia Cash.

It comes after the chief justice of the ACT reminded potential jurors in the trial of the man accused of raping Brittany Higgins of the importance of impartiality.

Bruce Lehrmann is charged with raping Ms Higgins at Parliament House in March 2019.

Police allege the assault took place in the office of former defence minister Ms Reynolds.

Senator Reynolds has been named as a witness in the trial, along with Liberal senator Ms Cash and former Liberal MP Steven Ciobo.

Fuq, I'd love to cross-examine Cash, just for the sheer fun of having a go at the Liberal bitch.

[UnSubRocky]

There are ministers who have been named as witnesses for the trial? How on Earth can they be credible witnesses to what went on, unless they were present at the time just before, during or after the rape. What is alleged is that Higgins made covert recordings with Parliamentary staffers and an interview with Wilkinson before Higgins made a complaint to the police.

Higgins' credibility is hanging by a thread.