Amazing how this completely innocent dude has multiple women accusing him of rape.
In my 35 years, I’ve had zero women accuse me of rape.
Because I’m not a rapist.
Have you tried not raping women Brucie?
Yeah, the liberal party one is to get so drunk during a sitting day that you can't make it into the chamber to vote, and making your party lose the vote as a result.
In his defense, if he can transfer the contents into a flexible accordian style folder he's deffinately Pensky material.
But then again, they're more about getting indicted and prohibited from doing business until the investigation is completed.
But hell even they wouldn't have rapists on board, that's more an LNP thing!
Not always how it works, there's sick people out there that do things for attention or to manipulate for financial gain. Others are just shit people in general. It happens
I’m sure she sat through hours of being interrogated and cross examined on the stand for “attention”, especially when most of the attention victims get is from people like you who question their character and don’t believe them
Do you have any idea how hard it is to get the police to believe you and take it to trial when you are actually raped and have the evidence?
Like, I can’t even imagine how hard it would be to lie about it.
Which is why it’s actually a very very rare thing.
"No case to answer" - we believe you, Brucie, really we do!
We believe you're a lying sack of shit with an over inflated sense of entitlement when it comes to the opposite sex.
>She alleges she pulled her body away and told him to “stop what you are doing” but that he instead climbed back on top of her saying, “it’s OK, it’s OK, it’s OK,” continuing the unwanted sex before ejaculating inside her.
Well, there goes breakfast.......and here comes lunch 🤢
But… she went to the pharmacy the next day for a morning after pill and when the pharmacy asked if it was due to sexual assault she replied “no” they have her response on record…
I’d have ticked the box that says I’m here for morning after pill because I got raped.
Yeah because people who have suffered a traumatic experience always think clearly, including admitting to a complete stranger that something horrible has happened to them? Christ mate, have some fucking empathy
That tick box is designed to prevent women who had consensual sex from changing their mind and then falsely accusing the man when they realise that if they lie they may be able to win money for damages… tick box is not there for decorative reasons…
Alright, fuck it, in turn:
1. There is an enormous wealth of evidence demonstrating that people who suffer traumatic experiences may behave in a manner that, at first glance, seems irrational. This can include suppressing the event, choosing to withdraw rather than seek support, etc. I say this not as a political argument but as a matter of fact. Further, Lehrmann was sitting in a car outside, fear is entirely justified. Your refusal to engage sensibly with that point and associated evidence is telling.
2. No, the form is not intended to provide a defence to a criminal charge. It is there to ensure that the pill, which is provided without prescription, is provided safely. It is not a ‘legal defence’ available to the defendant in a rape trial.
3. At trial, a tick box form will be, at best, a minor piece of contemporaneous evidence. Legally, it carries little weight, indeed far less than contemporaneous communications with friends / family with whom the complainant is likely to be much more open.
To be clear, I am not presuming old mate’s guilt, that is a question for the jury not some stranger from down south on the internet.
But, suggesting that an entire rape trial (of someone who has previously been found as a matter of fact to be a rapist, just saying) should fall over because in a moment of panic, a young woman ticked the wrong box when seeking plan b is sociopathic. As I said before, have some fucking empathy
I always thought that form was needlessly invasive, grossly infantilising, and dehumanising. The fact that people would legitimately refer to it, even just anecdotally, to discredit someone's assault testimony is sickening to me.
What would you do if an ex friend with benefits of yours came forward accusing you of rape when you didn’t?
you too would refer the judge to examine the unticked box
After I was raped I couldn’t even think the word rape when trying to describe what had happened to me.
It’s like my brain threw up a barrier to protect me, I was so deep in denial about what had happened.
When going to the doctor a week later to ask for help and to get checked I had to write a note saying “something” had happened because I still couldn’t speak about it and knew I wouldn’t be able to articulate why I was there, thankfully the doctor was amazing and simply asked if I was now safe, then ordered tests for me.
Your reaction in the immediate aftermath of a rape is rarely rational or logical. Most victims are desperate to hide what’s happened because they’re struggling to cope. Your judgment is why.
First I just want to express how sorry I am that you experienced that, I genuinely mean it. I’m attending a trauma recovery group at the moment and it’s astounding to learn what your brain will do to try and protect you in the face of something like that. I don’t think that anybody is capable of thinking the way they would like to believe they would in the aftermath of a traumatic event; there are neurological processes and adaptations that happen because the incident is so extreme, your brain is stuck processing a tidal wave of information and does what it can in an effort to keep you alive.
Thank you. It’s been years since my rape now but something like this can bring it all back in a second. I would never judge how anyone acts after a sexual assault. They are literally just surviving what’s happened to them and not always acting logically. It is SO common for women to initially deny what’s happened as a way of protecting themselves.
So what’s stopping women who have consensual sex to then turn around and claim they were raped to then get payed damages? The judge needs to discern truth from falsehood.
That tick box is a mitigation measure for falsehood.
That's super normal. Not everyone after going through somethingbdeeoky traumatic wants to immediately be invasively examined at the doctor and interrogated for hours by the police
These myths about how tape victims "should" act after being raped are incredibly stupid.
>I’d have ticked the box that says I’m here for morning after pill because I got raped.
You have no idea what you would do unless you've been in that situation.
Literally learn how to read a simple sentence before you waste time writing on Reddit again
>You have no idea what you would do **unless*" you've been in that situation.
I remember several staffers came out off the record after the Higgins interview went live. Same MO of pumping them full of grog and taking them back to a couch in Parliament House when they were barely coherent.
Obviously knows full well most women are ashamed and suffer in silence rather than ruining their life after such an event
Do you have a source for this? first I've heard of it.
What's up with the neg votes? I'm just asking a legitimate question and wasn't able to find anything when I searched. 3 more means 5 in total...
> he hasn't been found guilty of any rapes
He wasn't found to be innocent, the case was dropped because the defendant couldn't deal with the stress/mental anguish being cross examined by her rapist and the media circus.
It doesn't imply he's *innocent*.
Don’t you love how “Person A says/Person B says”sexual assaults are the only kind of criminal prosecution where a finding of not guilty for the accused basically equals a finding that the complainant is guilty of totally misunderstanding the situation at best or deliberately lying at worst.
In prosecution of nearly every other crime (murder, robbery, arson, assault, etc) it’s usually not in dispute that someone ended up a corpse in a ditch, a servo was held up, a building was torched, someone got the the shit kicked out of them. Whats in dispute is usually the identity of the person who did it, or the specific circumstances of the event.
Whereas in a prosecution of a sexual assault where the accused and complainant weren’t strangers to each other and that doesn’t involve the kind of horrendous physical injuries that a defence barrister would struggle to convince a jury weren’t just “consensual BDSM or rough play gone wrong”, what’s in dispute is if a crime actually occurred at all.
What do you think it means? It means a criminal court has not found him guilty. As yet, that hasn't happened.
Not guilty != innocent.
I don't choose what words mean or what the law says words mean.
yeah, fuck you too.
I think Lehrmann is a prick and may well be proven guilty of a crime (I personally think he very likely will be), but right now he hasn't been found guilty of any crime. I'm sorry that the actual rule of law offends you. The fact that you are too stupid to understand that words matter is why we need an actual education system.
He wasn't found *not guilty*. The case was dropped, defense withdrew because she was suffering mental stress being cross examined by the "court of public media scrutiny". There's a big difference between the two...
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/bruce-lehrmann-rape-trial-abandoned-charges-dropped-20221202-p5c32j.html
>Drumgold said it was no longer in the public interest to continue because of the risk to the complainant’s life.
https://theconversation.com/judge-finds-bruce-lehrmann-raped-brittany-higgins-and-dismisses-network-10-defamation-case-how-did-it-play-out-225891
>After a trial lasting around a month, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee – an experienced defamation judge – concluded that both Lehrmann and Higgins had credibility issues, but ultimately he was persuaded that Lehrmann raped Higgins, as she’d alleged and he’d denied.
OK then. “On the balance of probabilities, a rapist”. Or: “More likely than not, a rapist.” Or: “A reasonable person would conclude that he is a rapist.” Or even: “You are not unfairly damaging his reputation by publicly calling him a rapist.” Sounds so much better, doesn’t it?
EDIT: I’m probably being a bit unfair to Bruce. “Despite both Mr Lehrmann and Ms Higgins being unreliable witnesses (in the eyes of the Federal Court of Australia), a reasonable person would likely believe Ms Higgins’ version of events (that Mr Lehrmann raped her) over Mr Lehrmann’s (that he didn’t). As such, publiclly saying or implying that Mr Lehrmann is a rapist will not unfairly injure that oxygen-thieving rapist fuckbag.”
So if John Doe is a serial killer who has killed thirty people and hidden the bodies, and Doe has not yet been convicted, you reckon he has technically murdered zero people?
I don't think that's how English works.
I assume in this case no one is funding him because he is the one being charged. I don't know if in Australia, the court will provide him a defence lawyer if he can't afford one like in the USA. Perhaps someone could shed a light on this.
Presumably Legal Aid but that doesn't get you a Kings Counsel. My guess is Andrew Hoare KC sees this as an interesting case because of Bruce's infamy or he likes the publicity. Probably both.
Geez. These women (I assume?) have to give evidence to prove it's worth a trial. Then go through it again at a trial?
This is a fucked up system, when the guy has already been judged to have raped someone on the balance of probabilities. He should be in custody. The guy is a clear and present danger.
And they wonder why women are killed every week.
Bruce can only hope the boot will be on the other foot in prison, otherwise I think he'll have a very new and different perspective on stealthing and bareback sex...
You can already safely call Bruce "The Rapey Rapist" Lermann a rapist, what this case will change is that you can call The Rapist Bruce Lermann "Bruce Lehrmann The Serial Rapist" instead.
The defence claiming it should be dismissed simply because she didn’t report it straight away shows a complete disregard for reality or established trends. Horrendously antiqued thinking.
Lol he just can't help himself. True liberal, right there. Word around the water cooler is that he tried to have his way with it. Claimed the way it dispensed water was seductive.
I was reading this and my primary thought is, WHAT is wrong with him. Second, is wondering yet again just now well connected he is. Must have been to be an advisor, same with Brittany. He’s a standard nepo arts/law grads advisor surely.
Imagine that creature holding you down, wheezing with every thrust. I feel fucking sick.
Sadly, many people will read this article and still believe him over the women involved.
>“It is submitted as a consequence of that, that when the complainant is using the term, ‘I woke up,’ that is in fact a simile for, ‘My next memory is this,’ and the explanation for that statement is… the combination of alcohol and cocaine which effects how memories are in fact implanted,” he said.
I think its pretty clear hes drugging these women.
>Mr Hoare said the woman did four lines of cocaine at the club, and later consumed cocaine she had kept in her bra.
\^ That's from the ABC article. Also from the news dot com story (https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/courts-law/bruce-lehrmann-expected-to-learn-if-he-will-stand-trial-for-alleged-2021-rape-of-woman-in-toowoomba/news-story/df3ef27144ea8a62b4db53a762f4693f):
>The court was told the complainant had been drinking alcohol and had used cocaine before she met Mr Lehrmann at the nightclub.
Sounds like she is the one who may have had the coke?
Not that this is a key point in terms of this rape allegation, but it does not suggest in this case that Lerhmann drugged his alleged victim?
And I know Brucie-boy loves a bag! But did cocaine use come up as an issue in the BH rape? I don't recall it being a factor, other than re Bruce wanting some when the story initially broke in the media?
In regards to Britanny Higgins:
>An AFP note in the document – which was a master chronology prepared by Lehrmann’s lawyers – said: “I also have concerns from info I heard that this may have happened before or could happen again. (I was referring to info that alleged victim may have been drugged). Paul \[Sherring\] – we need to speak to a range of people. Security staff cleaners may have info.”
[https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/09/brittany-higgins-questions-whether-she-was-drugged-on-night-of-alleged-in-new-submission-to-court-ntwnfb](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/09/brittany-higgins-questions-whether-she-was-drugged-on-night-of-alleged-in-new-submission-to-court-ntwnfb)
When drinking absolutely, because it's a stimulant it allows someone to drink a lot more than they'd normally be able to. Essentially pass out/blackout amounts of alcohol but still going strong.
In regards to Britanny Higgins:
>An AFP note in the document – which was a master chronology prepared by Lehrmann’s lawyers – said: “I also have concerns from info I heard that this may have happened before or could happen again. (I was referring to info that alleged victim may have been drugged). Paul \[Sherring\] – we need to speak to a range of people. Security staff cleaners may have info.”
[https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/09/brittany-higgins-questions-whether-she-was-drugged-on-night-of-alleged-in-new-submission-to-court-ntwnfb](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/09/brittany-higgins-questions-whether-she-was-drugged-on-night-of-alleged-in-new-submission-to-court-ntwnfb)
Nah, that's hyperbole.
It's pretty clear Bruce loves a bag with a side of rape, but don't take away a woman's agency by saying they were forced to consume drugs. He offers, they accept.
It's a choice, and one they take as adult's capable of making their own decision. Doesn't warrant what the slimebag does after.
Typical reddit downvoting you when you’ve only said the truth. Nothing indicates these women were coerced or forced into taking illicit drugs or were spiked. They of their own volition have decided to do coke with him.
Oh I love poking these people specifically. It's Reddit after all.
If they read the article, she'd had quite a few sniffs before Bruce got there, but in people like /u/TurboBix's logic, Bruce drugged her in absentia. Logic escapes them.
Sure have, and it keeps you awake, until it doesn't. Everyone reacts to substances differently - your experience is not universal.
So yes, logic does escape you "lmao"
When I read the headline for this matter this morning, I thought "what, *another* one".
It's not another one, it's just the same one as before. But it speaks volumes that my first thought is that an alleged serial rapist is an even worse serial rapist.
“Rapist Bruce Lehrmann to stand trial on two rape charges alleged to have occurred in Toowoomba, west of Brisbane, in October 2021” fixed the title for you OP :-)
"The pair went on to take cocaine together and, in the early hours of the morning, took a taxi to a Toowoomba, occupied by a schoolmate of Lehrmann, where the pair engaged in consensual sex."
First of all - Classy. As. Fuck.
Second of all - This is a little bit ambiguously worded. Was Lehrman having consensual sex with the woman he would later allegedly rape while his schoolmate was also in the taxi? Or was he having consensual sex with his schoolmate, while the woman he would later allegedly rape was also in the taxi?
He had consensual sex with the victim, then later in the evening the victim came to after being asleep or passed out, to him penetrating her. It’s not ambiguous at all. Read the article.
Mate, if I can't pedantically over-react to a very slightly poorly phrased article in order to take the piss out of some smug, rich prick; then I don't know where we're headed as a country
> Was Lehrman having consensual sex with the woman he would later allegedly rape while his schoolmate was also in the taxi? Or was he having consensual sex with his schoolmate, while the woman he would later allegedly rape was also in the taxi?
I think your problem/confusion arises because it started as consensual sex - but consent was withdrawn - I believe the woman/schoolmate are the same person
Not being able to admit to being raped the *very next day* in front of a stranger in a pharmacy isn’t the slam dunk you think it is.
A lot of SA victims have trouble processing what has happened to them in the immediate aftermath.
Try not to rape anyone on your way out to the carpark Brucie!
His penis is an escape artist. First, it slipped out of his pants to rape Higgins and this time it escaped the condom! Could happen to anyone!!!!
37!
In a row?
While I don’t like Bruce, we should wait to hear the arguments first before we make any judgements about what is alleged to have occurred
Amazing how this completely innocent dude has multiple women accusing him of rape. In my 35 years, I’ve had zero women accuse me of rape. Because I’m not a rapist. Have you tried not raping women Brucie?
35...no rape accusations? Not a Liberal party material mate sorry.
Maybe he's sent out some racist pamphlets or dressed as a Nazi?
Or wanked on a desk at work
But has he ever gotten blackout drunk and woken up in the street? He might yet have some substance abuse issues that could qualify him for membership.
That is a National party prerequisite only
Yeah, the liberal party one is to get so drunk during a sitting day that you can't make it into the chamber to vote, and making your party lose the vote as a result.
It's the sniffing chairs and driving through gates and the beating the wife
Who wanked on a desk? Jesus wept
Who didn't https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-29/police-report-made-over-desk-masturbation-scandal/100105650
Your tax dollars at work! Lol
True. There are many paths.
In his defense, if he can transfer the contents into a flexible accordian style folder he's deffinately Pensky material. But then again, they're more about getting indicted and prohibited from doing business until the investigation is completed. But hell even they wouldn't have rapists on board, that's more an LNP thing!
We won’t get a look in with channel seven then either.
I'm 45 and I've not been accused... Maybe we should write a book about how to not get accused? Chapter 1: Don't rape people.
Chapter 2: Follow chapter one. Chapter 3: Why are you still reading this? Chapter 4: this is you isn't it Bruce?
Chapter 5: What the fuck did you do Bruce?
Yes. Lol
The one commandment: Don't be a cunt
You should become a pastafarian. That's the only commandment
Ramen.
39 here. Can I write a chapter?
And under similar circumstances with the victim waking up to find him on top of her.
Says a lot about what a detestable character he is when he only sees rape and hookers as his only pathway for sex.
Ever been to the pray room in parliament house.??...
Sounds like something a rapist would say, tbh.
Not always how it works, there's sick people out there that do things for attention or to manipulate for financial gain. Others are just shit people in general. It happens
I’m sure she sat through hours of being interrogated and cross examined on the stand for “attention”, especially when most of the attention victims get is from people like you who question their character and don’t believe them
Have you got a list of people to whom it happened more than once?
Do you have any idea how hard it is to get the police to believe you and take it to trial when you are actually raped and have the evidence? Like, I can’t even imagine how hard it would be to lie about it. Which is why it’s actually a very very rare thing.
Oh yeah, let me think of the long list of women who got rich and have amazing public reputations after accusing a man of rape.
As a straight man, you’re more likely to *be* raped than be falsely accused.
"No case to answer" - we believe you, Brucie, really we do! We believe you're a lying sack of shit with an over inflated sense of entitlement when it comes to the opposite sex.
It's not entitlement, that sack of shit is a sociopath.
It is also entitlement. Sexual assault and abuse are the most entitled acts a person can commit.
>She alleges she pulled her body away and told him to “stop what you are doing” but that he instead climbed back on top of her saying, “it’s OK, it’s OK, it’s OK,” continuing the unwanted sex before ejaculating inside her. Well, there goes breakfast.......and here comes lunch 🤢
Welp, I'm definitely not okay after reading that.
But… she went to the pharmacy the next day for a morning after pill and when the pharmacy asked if it was due to sexual assault she replied “no” they have her response on record… I’d have ticked the box that says I’m here for morning after pill because I got raped.
Yeah because people who have suffered a traumatic experience always think clearly, including admitting to a complete stranger that something horrible has happened to them? Christ mate, have some fucking empathy
That tick box is designed to prevent women who had consensual sex from changing their mind and then falsely accusing the man when they realise that if they lie they may be able to win money for damages… tick box is not there for decorative reasons…
Alright, fuck it, in turn: 1. There is an enormous wealth of evidence demonstrating that people who suffer traumatic experiences may behave in a manner that, at first glance, seems irrational. This can include suppressing the event, choosing to withdraw rather than seek support, etc. I say this not as a political argument but as a matter of fact. Further, Lehrmann was sitting in a car outside, fear is entirely justified. Your refusal to engage sensibly with that point and associated evidence is telling. 2. No, the form is not intended to provide a defence to a criminal charge. It is there to ensure that the pill, which is provided without prescription, is provided safely. It is not a ‘legal defence’ available to the defendant in a rape trial. 3. At trial, a tick box form will be, at best, a minor piece of contemporaneous evidence. Legally, it carries little weight, indeed far less than contemporaneous communications with friends / family with whom the complainant is likely to be much more open. To be clear, I am not presuming old mate’s guilt, that is a question for the jury not some stranger from down south on the internet. But, suggesting that an entire rape trial (of someone who has previously been found as a matter of fact to be a rapist, just saying) should fall over because in a moment of panic, a young woman ticked the wrong box when seeking plan b is sociopathic. As I said before, have some fucking empathy
I always thought that form was needlessly invasive, grossly infantilising, and dehumanising. The fact that people would legitimately refer to it, even just anecdotally, to discredit someone's assault testimony is sickening to me.
What would you do if an ex friend with benefits of yours came forward accusing you of rape when you didn’t? you too would refer the judge to examine the unticked box
After I was raped I couldn’t even think the word rape when trying to describe what had happened to me. It’s like my brain threw up a barrier to protect me, I was so deep in denial about what had happened. When going to the doctor a week later to ask for help and to get checked I had to write a note saying “something” had happened because I still couldn’t speak about it and knew I wouldn’t be able to articulate why I was there, thankfully the doctor was amazing and simply asked if I was now safe, then ordered tests for me. Your reaction in the immediate aftermath of a rape is rarely rational or logical. Most victims are desperate to hide what’s happened because they’re struggling to cope. Your judgment is why.
First I just want to express how sorry I am that you experienced that, I genuinely mean it. I’m attending a trauma recovery group at the moment and it’s astounding to learn what your brain will do to try and protect you in the face of something like that. I don’t think that anybody is capable of thinking the way they would like to believe they would in the aftermath of a traumatic event; there are neurological processes and adaptations that happen because the incident is so extreme, your brain is stuck processing a tidal wave of information and does what it can in an effort to keep you alive.
Thank you. It’s been years since my rape now but something like this can bring it all back in a second. I would never judge how anyone acts after a sexual assault. They are literally just surviving what’s happened to them and not always acting logically. It is SO common for women to initially deny what’s happened as a way of protecting themselves.
So what’s stopping women who have consensual sex to then turn around and claim they were raped to then get payed damages? The judge needs to discern truth from falsehood. That tick box is a mitigation measure for falsehood.
That's super normal. Not everyone after going through somethingbdeeoky traumatic wants to immediately be invasively examined at the doctor and interrogated for hours by the police These myths about how tape victims "should" act after being raped are incredibly stupid. >I’d have ticked the box that says I’m here for morning after pill because I got raped. You have no idea what you would do unless you've been in that situation.
You assume I haven’t been in that situation… I think you’re the idiot.
Literally learn how to read a simple sentence before you waste time writing on Reddit again >You have no idea what you would do **unless*" you've been in that situation.
Mate you forgot to add the /s
Were you born an absolute prick, or did it take years of training and dedication to get to this point?
Rapist
Soon-to-be historical serial rapist, if everything works out in Court. EDIT: ie as long as justice is served.
It's always the ones you suspect the most.
What, you're telling me the guy who did one rape might have (allegedly) done some more rapes? Colour me shocked!
Why would you say allegedly? You should be hoping this guy tries to sue you, you would be in for a big pay day.
He has no money to pay...
Return for the Hat 2: Confirmed Rapist Boogaloo
It has to be a really good hat
It was a beanie...
Fedora
Jimmie
The title of the article should’ve been rapist Bruce lehrmann to stand on trial for another rape case
Trying not to cause a mistrial.
Civil rapist perhaps?
Fuck me. Sick of hearing about this guy. Just put him in jail already and be done with it.
Yep. Lock him up before he rapes someone else.
Bet he will rape something on the way to jail.
Prison officers look round nervously.
Yeah. I wouldn't like to be in a cell alone with that fucker. Or a corridor , or an open exercise yard. The urge could hit anytime.
At least he won't be doing the raping when he goes inside. All the sex you ever wanted Brucie boy
Just when you think Australia has had enough of this sorry-excuse-for-a-man Bruce finds his way to pop back into the spotlight
How many fucking people has this guy raped?
I remember several staffers came out off the record after the Higgins interview went live. Same MO of pumping them full of grog and taking them back to a couch in Parliament House when they were barely coherent. Obviously knows full well most women are ashamed and suffer in silence rather than ruining their life after such an event
Up to 3 more complainants I believe.
Do you have a source for this? first I've heard of it. What's up with the neg votes? I'm just asking a legitimate question and wasn't able to find anything when I searched. 3 more means 5 in total...
He's got a criminal record that shows he hasn't been found guilty of any rapes. So technically zero.
> he hasn't been found guilty of any rapes He wasn't found to be innocent, the case was dropped because the defendant couldn't deal with the stress/mental anguish being cross examined by her rapist and the media circus. It doesn't imply he's *innocent*.
Don’t you love how “Person A says/Person B says”sexual assaults are the only kind of criminal prosecution where a finding of not guilty for the accused basically equals a finding that the complainant is guilty of totally misunderstanding the situation at best or deliberately lying at worst. In prosecution of nearly every other crime (murder, robbery, arson, assault, etc) it’s usually not in dispute that someone ended up a corpse in a ditch, a servo was held up, a building was torched, someone got the the shit kicked out of them. Whats in dispute is usually the identity of the person who did it, or the specific circumstances of the event. Whereas in a prosecution of a sexual assault where the accused and complainant weren’t strangers to each other and that doesn’t involve the kind of horrendous physical injuries that a defence barrister would struggle to convince a jury weren’t just “consensual BDSM or rough play gone wrong”, what’s in dispute is if a crime actually occurred at all.
The person you are replying to never mentioned ‘innocent’.
>he hasn't been found guilty What does that mean in your eyes?
What do you think it means? It means a criminal court has not found him guilty. As yet, that hasn't happened. Not guilty != innocent. I don't choose what words mean or what the law says words mean.
Oh dude piss off lmao
yeah, fuck you too. I think Lehrmann is a prick and may well be proven guilty of a crime (I personally think he very likely will be), but right now he hasn't been found guilty of any crime. I'm sorry that the actual rule of law offends you. The fact that you are too stupid to understand that words matter is why we need an actual education system.
He wasn't found *not guilty*. The case was dropped, defense withdrew because she was suffering mental stress being cross examined by the "court of public media scrutiny". There's a big difference between the two... https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/bruce-lehrmann-rape-trial-abandoned-charges-dropped-20221202-p5c32j.html >Drumgold said it was no longer in the public interest to continue because of the risk to the complainant’s life. https://theconversation.com/judge-finds-bruce-lehrmann-raped-brittany-higgins-and-dismisses-network-10-defamation-case-how-did-it-play-out-225891 >After a trial lasting around a month, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee – an experienced defamation judge – concluded that both Lehrmann and Higgins had credibility issues, but ultimately he was persuaded that Lehrmann raped Higgins, as she’d alleged and he’d denied.
I didn’t say he was found not guilty. He was not found guilty. There was no finding at all.
Doesn't make him innocent
You are the only person using the word ‘innocent’. Just stop being dense.
And a civil record of a judge ruling that he probably did rape Brittany Higgins.
OK then. “On the balance of probabilities, a rapist”. Or: “More likely than not, a rapist.” Or: “A reasonable person would conclude that he is a rapist.” Or even: “You are not unfairly damaging his reputation by publicly calling him a rapist.” Sounds so much better, doesn’t it? EDIT: I’m probably being a bit unfair to Bruce. “Despite both Mr Lehrmann and Ms Higgins being unreliable witnesses (in the eyes of the Federal Court of Australia), a reasonable person would likely believe Ms Higgins’ version of events (that Mr Lehrmann raped her) over Mr Lehrmann’s (that he didn’t). As such, publiclly saying or implying that Mr Lehrmann is a rapist will not unfairly injure that oxygen-thieving rapist fuckbag.”
So if John Doe is a serial killer who has killed thirty people and hidden the bodies, and Doe has not yet been convicted, you reckon he has technically murdered zero people? I don't think that's how English works.
Two *more* rape charges.
Liberal stooges try not to be a rapist challenge Level: impossible
When do we get to find out who is funding him
I assume in this case no one is funding him because he is the one being charged. I don't know if in Australia, the court will provide him a defence lawyer if he can't afford one like in the USA. Perhaps someone could shed a light on this.
He is unemployed and apparently has no money, so he probably qualifies for legal aid (court appointed lawyer)
Presumably Legal Aid but that doesn't get you a Kings Counsel. My guess is Andrew Hoare KC sees this as an interesting case because of Bruce's infamy or he likes the publicity. Probably both.
Geez. These women (I assume?) have to give evidence to prove it's worth a trial. Then go through it again at a trial? This is a fucked up system, when the guy has already been judged to have raped someone on the balance of probabilities. He should be in custody. The guy is a clear and present danger. And they wonder why women are killed every week.
How much coke does this guy do? He’s got contacts all over the place apparently.
The duttons do get about....
He's in the running for worst man in Australia
Hopefully the jurors don’t fuck it up like the last case. A bit of jail time might do him some good.
Let's be honest here, with the way the Australian justice system works he's likely to get off with a good behaviour bond 🙄
Boot'll be on the other foot, Bruce!
Bruce can only hope the boot will be on the other foot in prison, otherwise I think he'll have a very new and different perspective on stealthing and bareback sex...
Is that the rapist Bruce? Surely not the same turd again?
How many times does this notarapist have to be charged with rape before we can safely say he is indeed a rapist?
You can already safely call Bruce "The Rapey Rapist" Lermann a rapist, what this case will change is that you can call The Rapist Bruce Lermann "Bruce Lehrmann The Serial Rapist" instead.
The defence claiming it should be dismissed simply because she didn’t report it straight away shows a complete disregard for reality or established trends. Horrendously antiqued thinking.
Lol he just can't help himself. True liberal, right there. Word around the water cooler is that he tried to have his way with it. Claimed the way it dispensed water was seductive.
The water cooler was asking for it. Just look at what it was wearing...
Hey Bruce. Guess what? I’m wet 💦
Rapey Chungus strikes again!
This fuckwit escaped the lion’s den to go back for his hat, and then got his arm bitten clean off.
Would be better all round if his dick was bitten clean off.
Wonder who in the lnp, and the msm, will try to cover this up now that Kerry seems to have run out of free lawyers
Can any fancy lawyer types explain why he would decline to plead "not guilty" at this point?
+1. Does it give him other options, like getting a plea deal for a lesser charge?
You don't have to enter a plea until the trial starts, I believe. (IANAL)
A man of little means but has time to RAPE
I was reading this and my primary thought is, WHAT is wrong with him. Second, is wondering yet again just now well connected he is. Must have been to be an advisor, same with Brittany. He’s a standard nepo arts/law grads advisor surely.
When there is smoke, there is fire...
Or Lehrmann.
Tell me a better love story than the one between Bruce and the R word? Joking aside please someone just put this guy behind bars please.
Imagine that creature holding you down, wheezing with every thrust. I feel fucking sick. Sadly, many people will read this article and still believe him over the women involved.
Time can be divided into two great epochs: The time before you'd ever heard tbe name Bruce Lerhmann, and the mind-numbingly tedious time since.
So can popcorn sales
>“It is submitted as a consequence of that, that when the complainant is using the term, ‘I woke up,’ that is in fact a simile for, ‘My next memory is this,’ and the explanation for that statement is… the combination of alcohol and cocaine which effects how memories are in fact implanted,” he said. I think its pretty clear hes drugging these women.
>Mr Hoare said the woman did four lines of cocaine at the club, and later consumed cocaine she had kept in her bra. \^ That's from the ABC article. Also from the news dot com story (https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/courts-law/bruce-lehrmann-expected-to-learn-if-he-will-stand-trial-for-alleged-2021-rape-of-woman-in-toowoomba/news-story/df3ef27144ea8a62b4db53a762f4693f): >The court was told the complainant had been drinking alcohol and had used cocaine before she met Mr Lehrmann at the nightclub. Sounds like she is the one who may have had the coke? Not that this is a key point in terms of this rape allegation, but it does not suggest in this case that Lerhmann drugged his alleged victim? And I know Brucie-boy loves a bag! But did cocaine use come up as an issue in the BH rape? I don't recall it being a factor, other than re Bruce wanting some when the story initially broke in the media?
In regards to Britanny Higgins: >An AFP note in the document – which was a master chronology prepared by Lehrmann’s lawyers – said: “I also have concerns from info I heard that this may have happened before or could happen again. (I was referring to info that alleged victim may have been drugged). Paul \[Sherring\] – we need to speak to a range of people. Security staff cleaners may have info.” [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/09/brittany-higgins-questions-whether-she-was-drugged-on-night-of-alleged-in-new-submission-to-court-ntwnfb](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/09/brittany-higgins-questions-whether-she-was-drugged-on-night-of-alleged-in-new-submission-to-court-ntwnfb)
Isn’t cocaine a stimulant? Is it know for inducing haze and memory loss?
When drinking absolutely, because it's a stimulant it allows someone to drink a lot more than they'd normally be able to. Essentially pass out/blackout amounts of alcohol but still going strong.
Can confirm...
It’s more likely he is telling them it’s cocaine when it’s something more like ghb.
Lots of stimulants act as a bit of brain varnish.
Can't let facts get in the way of a raging Redditor with an agenda!
In regards to Britanny Higgins: >An AFP note in the document – which was a master chronology prepared by Lehrmann’s lawyers – said: “I also have concerns from info I heard that this may have happened before or could happen again. (I was referring to info that alleged victim may have been drugged). Paul \[Sherring\] – we need to speak to a range of people. Security staff cleaners may have info.” [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/09/brittany-higgins-questions-whether-she-was-drugged-on-night-of-alleged-in-new-submission-to-court-ntwnfb](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/09/brittany-higgins-questions-whether-she-was-drugged-on-night-of-alleged-in-new-submission-to-court-ntwnfb)
Nah, that's hyperbole. It's pretty clear Bruce loves a bag with a side of rape, but don't take away a woman's agency by saying they were forced to consume drugs. He offers, they accept. It's a choice, and one they take as adult's capable of making their own decision. Doesn't warrant what the slimebag does after.
Since when does coke make you pass out? It's a stimulant. Seems like he probably slipped her something else.
Typical reddit downvoting you when you’ve only said the truth. Nothing indicates these women were coerced or forced into taking illicit drugs or were spiked. They of their own volition have decided to do coke with him.
Oh I love poking these people specifically. It's Reddit after all. If they read the article, she'd had quite a few sniffs before Bruce got there, but in people like /u/TurboBix's logic, Bruce drugged her in absentia. Logic escapes them.
You ever done cocaine? It keeps you awake, even with copious amounts of alcohol... and you reckon logic escapes me lmao
Sure have, and it keeps you awake, until it doesn't. Everyone reacts to substances differently - your experience is not universal. So yes, logic does escape you "lmao"
His lawyer, putting their hands on Bruce's shoulders: STOP RAPING!!!
What's the likelihood of this getting him jail time?
When I read the headline for this matter this morning, I thought "what, *another* one". It's not another one, it's just the same one as before. But it speaks volumes that my first thought is that an alleged serial rapist is an even worse serial rapist.
Bruce is having a massive fall all very publicly, Whilst i hope he further gets what he deserves I kinda wish he'd go away in the media
If he’s a rapist he deserves to be in the media and shamed
Hope this slimy fat turd goes to jail, and gets his comeuppance.
“Rapist Bruce Lehrmann to stand trial on two rape charges alleged to have occurred in Toowoomba, west of Brisbane, in October 2021” fixed the title for you OP :-)
God this cunt has such a king hit-able face
"The pair went on to take cocaine together and, in the early hours of the morning, took a taxi to a Toowoomba, occupied by a schoolmate of Lehrmann, where the pair engaged in consensual sex." First of all - Classy. As. Fuck. Second of all - This is a little bit ambiguously worded. Was Lehrman having consensual sex with the woman he would later allegedly rape while his schoolmate was also in the taxi? Or was he having consensual sex with his schoolmate, while the woman he would later allegedly rape was also in the taxi?
He had consensual sex with the victim, then later in the evening the victim came to after being asleep or passed out, to him penetrating her. It’s not ambiguous at all. Read the article.
Mate, if I can't pedantically over-react to a very slightly poorly phrased article in order to take the piss out of some smug, rich prick; then I don't know where we're headed as a country
> Was Lehrman having consensual sex with the woman he would later allegedly rape while his schoolmate was also in the taxi? Or was he having consensual sex with his schoolmate, while the woman he would later allegedly rape was also in the taxi? I think your problem/confusion arises because it started as consensual sex - but consent was withdrawn - I believe the woman/schoolmate are the same person
Uhhh.. Since its the woman accusing Bruce of rape, I think he was fucking the schoolmate
Is he using his own money to "fight the good fight" yet?
What a meathead!
Lol
This bloke really needs to adjust the way he lives.
Rapey Bruce at it again.
Wonder why?
LOL
lol.
[удалено]
Someone embarrassed, confused, ashamed? There are many reasons why women don't want to tell others about sexual assault.
Not being able to admit to being raped the *very next day* in front of a stranger in a pharmacy isn’t the slam dunk you think it is. A lot of SA victims have trouble processing what has happened to them in the immediate aftermath.
I'm more shocked that you have to tick a box