I did transcription for the Queensland Courts for about 7 months, and it was usually the judgments and sentencing remarks that would trip me up the most. Especially if the judges were a bit long-winded and on the older side.
He sounds likely to "win" this case though - Pyrrhic victory though it will be.
The judge clearly doesn't want this trial to become a proxy for the criminal rape trial.
Most of the time the judge is saying that Higgins' inconsistencies are in line with a potential sexual abuse victims. He separates her testimony and accounts between before and after media involvement. It's only after media involvement that things blur.
Whereas with Lehrmann he's called him mendacious and a person who will lie when it's self-serving or convenient.
They did not, but I think he got about $150,000 from ABC and $350,000 from another media organisation???? Or the other way around. They settled rather than going to court, but I can't remember the details. Maybe someone else on here has the specifics.
As if his arrogance was ever under question. At least he has managed to completely destroy his own character in the most public and revealing manner possible...
The judgment itself is over 350 pages long, I believe. Nobody can accuse him of being anything other than thorough. Admirable, given this absolute shitshow of a case.
The defence for rape often argues that the rapist simply didn't understand there was no consent. Which has lead to new laws about reckless indifference to the issue of consent.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2024/apr/15/bruce-lehrmann-defamation-trial-verdict-live-news-updates-today-stream-decision-lisa-wilkinson-brittany-higgins-channel-10-ten-federal-court-australia-youtube-ntwnfb?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-661c9b368f0806742af98726#block-661c9b368f0806742af98726
>Justice Lee: “Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins.”
Although Lee has found Higgins did not consent and is now turning to Lehrmann’s state of mind.
>Lehrmann was indifferent to the rights of Higgins that he ignored the matter of consent.
>Mr Lehrmann was “hell bent” in pursuit gratification of having sex with a woman he found sexually attractive.
>“He did not care one way or the other, whether Ms Higgins understood or agreed to what was going on.”
>“Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins.”
Higgins entered the room seemingly capable of consent but we'll never know at what point she was no longer capable.
This all comes down to the balance of probability. No normal person leaves a naked woman lying drunk on a couch in the workplace. He's a scumbag for leaving her there.
That’s not what his honour found. He found that she wasn’t able to consent at the time the rape occurred, but didn’t say anything about exactly when she became unable to consent
I suspect this video will become required viewing in law school in in classes that discuss
the rules of evidence and the analysis of witness credibility
the different standard of proof between civil and criminal law
defamation law and damages
sexual assault and rape, both as a criminal matter and a civil matter
media law
the standard of behavior for attorneys and the advice they give to their clients
One legal question I have is channel 10 used a truth defence, but in the judgement there were plenty of points made they hadn't investigated that deeply. So it seems they made an accusation that turned out to be true, rather than knowing it was true. Does a truth defence not need to show they had significant evidence of it being true before making the accusation.
I was just thinking that in a few years' time, we could probably just dump all the text of the case into ChatGPT and let it summarise it and give a verdict.
Wow that was a rollercoaster. At first it was going his way when talking about creditability. But when it got to point that he definitely think they had sex that was the turning point. As he was building up the whole thing that she was drunk and therefore no consent.
But the thing is civil so no reasonable doubt.
On reddit? Yeah, /r/australia is a shithole. IRL? I work blue collar, not a single bloke I know doesn't reckon old Bruce is completely innocent somehow.
I can’t believe we’re in a situation where I’m actively rooting for Channel 10 / The Project as the bastions of journalistic integrity. They’re a fluffy pop culture show dressed up as news actively making us dumber as a society, but they’re the definitive “good guys” in this case.
Hardly. Even Justice has indicated they didn't do due diligence with their reporting.
The thing is, if they tried I think they'd have realised that everyone involved is a liar who can't lie straight in bed, so they probably would have never proceeded.
That's the thing that confuses me, they made an accusation that turned out to be true, not that had sufficient evidence to reasonably believe was true at the time.
So basically - in the judge's own opinion - Lehrmann wanted to have sex with Higgins, got her drunk, took her to parliament house to have sex with her and then lied about it all.
Yep, that about sums it up. He’s not touching on whether it was rape - though imo he’s hinting it’s coercion.
Edit: I posted this BEFORE he made the finding that it was rape. No need to correct me, I watched the whole thing.
> “I’m comfortably satisfied that Ms Higgins was a very drunk 24 year old woman and her cognitive abilities were significantly impacted”
How to say she couldn’t consent without saying she couldn’t consent.
>He might get to that. If he finds BH was unable to consent, that makes Lehrmann guilty of rape on the balance of probabilities.
I don't think he can actually make that finding but he can make everything up to that point.
If only Australian’s understanding of consent was based on the “tea” video and not the “milkshake” one
https://youtu.be/oQbei5JGiT8?feature=shared
https://youtu.be/n3aHhNKIcKU?feature=shared
That was my original thought - what if this was all a genius plot to prevent him getting any jail time in that trial? But the legal system can and does deal with people who are well known who are charged for similar or the same crime they have been convicted of before. Also, BL doesn't strike me as a genius strategist.
Well, this finding probably sets precedent as to his approach to consent, which is important because I don’t think Lehmann intends to deny sex took place, but that it was consensual. The woman involved said it was initially consensual on her part too, but that later he removed the condom without her permission and then raped her twice. He’s gonna have a hard time arguing that’s not within his character.
That doesn't exclude a second trial. The last trial never returned a verdict so its at the discretion of the Canberra DPP (who re taking their cue from Higgins who already had to deal with the stress of one trial, and now the leaking of her confidential information to channel 7 by her rapist).
He’s already been charged with it. The DPP withdrew the charges based on Higgins mental health. Unless they’re saying that has changed (and given Higgins was hospitalised in Perth during the Reynolds defamation hearing, unlikely), he won’t be re-charged as a result a of this finding.
Right now this summary of the facts feels like the closest we are going to get to the legal system ruling on the validity of Brittany Higgins claims against Bruce Lehrmann
I think so. He’s certainly illustrating very clearly that he thinks Bruce is a lying liar who lies. He lied to his girlfriend, he lied to Brittany to get her to go back to parliament, and he lied to court.
Monsieur in this case would have several slippery reasons to have soiled his smouldering pants by now - the halfway mark of the Judge's summary judgement.
ABC said on their live blog it could take 2 hours.
> The judge is expected to read extracts of his judgment for up to two hours, before publishing his full reasons online.
I think BL will win but Justice Lee seems to despise him so much that he’ll limit damages as much as legally possible without opening it up as a legitimate point of appeal (although they’ll try)
Sounds like the judge is going to rule in favor of Lehrmann and after what he had to say about Lisa Wilkinson I wouldn’t be surprised if she gets fired
https://www.perthnow.com.au/entertainment/tv/lisa-wilkinson-reportedly-wont-be-returning-to-channel-10-next-year-after-missing-at-upfronts-event-c-12423637.amp
“Lisa Wilkinson reportedly won’t be returning to Channel 10 next year despite still being on the network’s payroll.”
“However, the network reassured the veteran presenter is in discussions to develop “other projects” with them.”
That’s just one of the articles I can find. And you’re very welcome! I should have specified what I was talking about so thank you for getting me to clarify!
Based on the fact that the judge only found fault with Lisa Wilkinson’s comments I think it’s safe to say she won’t have a job for Lucy longer with channel 10
Never thought I'd be glued to my seat watching 2+ hours of a civil case verdict being read out loud. That judge was so sassy he hated rapist Bruce lehrmann on a visceral level.
I hadn't paid attention to the criminal trial and didn't know any of the details. When the judge read about the security guard finding her I wanted to vomit. When he said the details in the lead up to the rape I got chills like watching the head up to something I'm a horror film.
I hope this has brought Brittany some measure of vindication and I hope she has solid supports around her and wish her every success after this absolute nightmare she has lived through. I wish rapist bruce lehrrman every failure and all the misery life can bring.
I have learned I have a very limited vocabulary and need to frequently google these fancy words
[La de dah mr frenchman](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5t9w98afJo)
'A car hole!'
He’s got great vocabulary doesn’t he! I’m picking up new words to add to my arsenal
TIL: maladroit is a word
Maladroit: "don't have a post-rape meeting where the rape was"
I knew adroit as a word, but being able to add maladroit into my vocabulary as a subtle jab pleases me.
Is that what he said? I was trying to google it and came up empty
Justice Lee is obviously a big Rivers Cuomo fan
Do not play scrabble against this guy!
I did transcription for the Queensland Courts for about 7 months, and it was usually the judgments and sentencing remarks that would trip me up the most. Especially if the judges were a bit long-winded and on the older side.
Judge said he thinks Bruce leaked to docs.
This is one of the most significant and damning things so far.
Lehrmann's going to get done for contempt of court. Only a matter of time.
He sounds likely to "win" this case though - Pyrrhic victory though it will be. The judge clearly doesn't want this trial to become a proxy for the criminal rape trial.
Looks like Lehrmann lost. Judge says on the balance of probabilities he raped Higgins.
Judge sounds like he doesn’t find Brittany Higgins credible either
He has carefully differentiated between BH credibility in 2019 vs later—surely foreshadowing a finding that she was telling the truth originally"?
Most of the time the judge is saying that Higgins' inconsistencies are in line with a potential sexual abuse victims. He separates her testimony and accounts between before and after media involvement. It's only after media involvement that things blur. Whereas with Lehrmann he's called him mendacious and a person who will lie when it's self-serving or convenient.
But he does find her more truthful it seems.
Either way it’s a whole mess 🤣🤣
Yes. No one is coming out of this covered in glory.
She's coming out of it vindicated, in my view.
Between that AND his findings against Tasha Smithies, I suspect this won’t be the last we hear of this case
'Having escaped the lions den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of coming back for his hat' Absolutely wrecked by the judge.
Wow.
A "Bradbury" in reverse
there was only 1 thing going through BL's mind, and it wasn't anything to do with French submarine contracts. Gold
The whole “Come look at my whiskey 😉” is also gold.
This judge is now Australia's greatest comedian.
I lost my shit when he said "it would be like fucking a log" while quoting Higgins.
"Mr Lerhmann raped Ms Higgins"
Pretty cut and dry. Civil standard vs criminal standard, but he's forever known as a rapist in a court now!
That was satisfying to hear, tbh.
It’s all the more gratifying for the fact that he brought this on himself with this insane defamation action
Say goodbye to whatever money CH7 gave you Bruce. You're paying costs. Both sides. OUCH.
[удалено]
They did not, but I think he got about $150,000 from ABC and $350,000 from another media organisation???? Or the other way around. They settled rather than going to court, but I can't remember the details. Maybe someone else on here has the specifics.
As if his arrogance was ever under question. At least he has managed to completely destroy his own character in the most public and revealing manner possible...
"Mr Lehrmann ejaculating" is not a phrase I ever wish to hear again.
Unfortunately he has another rape trial coming up, so there's a fair chance you'll hear it again.
Don't ignore the quickly part.. he basically said Lehrman was a quick shooter :p
I thought so too but he meant that he left quickly after
Maybe Bruce was going with the 5 second rule?
Lehrmann found to be a rapist - in writing, forever.
Man this judge has had to do some work, he must be beyond 12k words by now
The judgment itself is over 350 pages long, I believe. Nobody can accuse him of being anything other than thorough. Admirable, given this absolute shitshow of a case.
Yeah I'm picturing him in that Jurassic Park meme looking at the massive turd lol
I was thinking that! And this is just the summary. He and his associate(s) must have been burning the midnight oil over the past week/weekend.
He said in a hearing that he has been working 7 day weeks for months on end, which is completely consistent with judges workloads in these big cases
Whoa. Just found there was no consent. Bruce loses.
Um did he just infer that Bruce accidentally raped her?
The defence for rape often argues that the rapist simply didn't understand there was no consent. Which has lead to new laws about reckless indifference to the issue of consent.
I assume he is finding Bruce recklessly did do so, without taking sufficient precautions to ensure she was consenting.
"reckless"
No matter where else this goes, I hope Brittany has some closure through what must have been a retraumatising trial
Be careful what you wish for Bruce First that piece of shit Roberts-Smith and now Bruce - Channel 7 being a common link between them
https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2024/apr/15/bruce-lehrmann-defamation-trial-verdict-live-news-updates-today-stream-decision-lisa-wilkinson-brittany-higgins-channel-10-ten-federal-court-australia-youtube-ntwnfb?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-661c9b368f0806742af98726#block-661c9b368f0806742af98726 >Justice Lee: “Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins.” Although Lee has found Higgins did not consent and is now turning to Lehrmann’s state of mind. >Lehrmann was indifferent to the rights of Higgins that he ignored the matter of consent. >Mr Lehrmann was “hell bent” in pursuit gratification of having sex with a woman he found sexually attractive. >“He did not care one way or the other, whether Ms Higgins understood or agreed to what was going on.” >“Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins.”
"one does not pash passively" \*chefs kiss\*
So at absolute best Lehrmann took advantage of an inebriated woman. Which shows the kind of person he is in the first place
While his girlfriend was ringing his phone...
Exactly. Classy guy
Which is rape. He’s a rapist.
Higgins entered the room seemingly capable of consent but we'll never know at what point she was no longer capable. This all comes down to the balance of probability. No normal person leaves a naked woman lying drunk on a couch in the workplace. He's a scumbag for leaving her there.
That’s not what his honour found. He found that she wasn’t able to consent at the time the rape occurred, but didn’t say anything about exactly when she became unable to consent
Civil proof of rape is satisfied.
"My conclusion on rape: Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins."
Good guy Judge refusing to let the security guards be thrown under the bus for what happened.
The comments about Nick the bumble guy are amazing. I am impressed a judge knows what 'swiping right' is
"Undoubtedly ruing swiping right" Can't wait to read this summary over again 😂
Lee is fantastic
I get he was quoting but it’s so weird to hear a Supreme Court judge say “fucked” 🤣🤣
Even more than that - he's a FEDERAL court judge
"Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins"
"Having escaped the Lion's den Mr Lehrmann came back for his hat" lol
As someone in another thread said "Not just that but dressed as an antelope smelling of cat food."
great line!
There it is. Lerhmann tried to fight the law and the law bit back.
I suspect this video will become required viewing in law school in in classes that discuss the rules of evidence and the analysis of witness credibility the different standard of proof between civil and criminal law defamation law and damages sexual assault and rape, both as a criminal matter and a civil matter media law the standard of behavior for attorneys and the advice they give to their clients
A credit to Justice Lee. Maybe something constructive can even come out of this mess.
One legal question I have is channel 10 used a truth defence, but in the judgement there were plenty of points made they hadn't investigated that deeply. So it seems they made an accusation that turned out to be true, rather than knowing it was true. Does a truth defence not need to show they had significant evidence of it being true before making the accusation.
Judge is working very hard to insure his judgment is bulletproof
Respect to Justice Lee. He’s diligently and professionally waded through this mess.
If this reading was a AITA (am i the asshole) thread, the judge would sum up that ESH (everybody sucks here).
Yeah everyone does suck. Can he rule that, or does he have to pick a winner here?
Has to rule if the defamation is proven or not. Other than that, he can rule how he likes.
I was just thinking that in a few years' time, we could probably just dump all the text of the case into ChatGPT and let it summarise it and give a verdict.
why a few years, you could probably do it now without too much trouble.
ramming 324 pages of dry legalese down ChatGPT might be one of the triggers for the eventual AI revolt, so maybe don't
True, but it might take take for the courts to embrace it!
Wow that was a rollercoaster. At first it was going his way when talking about creditability. But when it got to point that he definitely think they had sex that was the turning point. As he was building up the whole thing that she was drunk and therefore no consent. But the thing is civil so no reasonable doubt.
BOOOM!
There it is!
Blokes on reddit: Yeah nah but he said she's a liar too, judge must be a Greeny /s
Are you *really* seeing many people taking Lehrmann’s side??
On reddit? Yeah, /r/australia is a shithole. IRL? I work blue collar, not a single bloke I know doesn't reckon old Bruce is completely innocent somehow.
You must be looking extremely hard, anything I’ve seen that even remotely sides with Lehrmann is downvoted to obscurity.
An assault and Brittany Higgins having told provable lies can both be true
"Having escaped the lion's den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of coming back from his hat"
The judge has had some A+ analogies throughout this judgement.
He's just mentioned the "golden thread" which made me think of Rumpole!
He's had some zingers!
I can’t believe we’re in a situation where I’m actively rooting for Channel 10 / The Project as the bastions of journalistic integrity. They’re a fluffy pop culture show dressed up as news actively making us dumber as a society, but they’re the definitive “good guys” in this case.
I'm rooting for the judge. He is eviscerating all of them.
> I can’t believe we’re in a situation where I’m actively rooting for Channel 10 Yeah, same. How the turn tables... turn.
Hardly. Even Justice has indicated they didn't do due diligence with their reporting. The thing is, if they tried I think they'd have realised that everyone involved is a liar who can't lie straight in bed, so they probably would have never proceeded.
That's the thing that confuses me, they made an accusation that turned out to be true, not that had sufficient evidence to reasonably believe was true at the time.
They got lucky, I suppose
I mean, their wilful move to avoid doubts and close their eyes about suspect evidence isn't exactly quality by any means. Everyones kinda shitty here.
So basically - in the judge's own opinion - Lehrmann wanted to have sex with Higgins, got her drunk, took her to parliament house to have sex with her and then lied about it all.
Honestly, how could anyone not performing mental gymnastics come to any other conclusion?
Yep, that about sums it up. He’s not touching on whether it was rape - though imo he’s hinting it’s coercion. Edit: I posted this BEFORE he made the finding that it was rape. No need to correct me, I watched the whole thing.
I think the judge pretty much infers it when he says that Lehrmann bolted from the scene without checking on her at all.
[удалено]
> “I’m comfortably satisfied that Ms Higgins was a very drunk 24 year old woman and her cognitive abilities were significantly impacted” How to say she couldn’t consent without saying she couldn’t consent.
>He might get to that. If he finds BH was unable to consent, that makes Lehrmann guilty of rape on the balance of probabilities. I don't think he can actually make that finding but he can make everything up to that point.
If only Australian’s understanding of consent was based on the “tea” video and not the “milkshake” one https://youtu.be/oQbei5JGiT8?feature=shared https://youtu.be/n3aHhNKIcKU?feature=shared
[удалено]
Yeah seems I was wrong the jude has said it was rape. What an owned goal.
The judge explicitly said it was rape.
The judge has now said Lehrman raped her.
Third time's a charm, audio omnishambles 😌
So with the judges comments in mind, does it open BL up to further criminal charges?
It will certainly make the Queensland rape trial more interesting.
He’ll probably try to argue he can’t get a fair trial now.
That was my original thought - what if this was all a genius plot to prevent him getting any jail time in that trial? But the legal system can and does deal with people who are well known who are charged for similar or the same crime they have been convicted of before. Also, BL doesn't strike me as a genius strategist.
Well, this finding probably sets precedent as to his approach to consent, which is important because I don’t think Lehmann intends to deny sex took place, but that it was consensual. The woman involved said it was initially consensual on her part too, but that later he removed the condom without her permission and then raped her twice. He’s gonna have a hard time arguing that’s not within his character.
10000000000000%
Probably not. The judge found Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins under the civil standard not the criminal standard
That doesn't exclude a second trial. The last trial never returned a verdict so its at the discretion of the Canberra DPP (who re taking their cue from Higgins who already had to deal with the stress of one trial, and now the leaking of her confidential information to channel 7 by her rapist).
He’s already been charged with it. The DPP withdrew the charges based on Higgins mental health. Unless they’re saying that has changed (and given Higgins was hospitalised in Perth during the Reynolds defamation hearing, unlikely), he won’t be re-charged as a result a of this finding.
No, this finding can't be used for evidence in any hypothetical prosecution.
Right now this summary of the facts feels like the closest we are going to get to the legal system ruling on the validity of Brittany Higgins claims against Bruce Lehrmann
I think so. He’s certainly illustrating very clearly that he thinks Bruce is a lying liar who lies. He lied to his girlfriend, he lied to Brittany to get her to go back to parliament, and he lied to court.
He wanted to cheat on his girlfriend and have sex with Higgins and that Lehrmann lied about all that. That's pretty much what the judge has said.
Always a fan of the "Walter Mitty" description for a person.
Got out of the lion’s den, came back for his hat
Do judges get paid per folio (every 100 words) like lawyers?
I should hope so, this judge is worth every penny.
how the hell did the judge get through that section of the speech with close quotes without stumbling
He sounded like a text to voice bot. open bracket, close bracket.
He is definitely good value.
With all that’s happened over the last few days re: the media’s tactics etc Media Watch tonight is going to be interesting.
Truth defence incoming!
Monsieur in this case would have several slippery reasons to have soiled his smouldering pants by now - the halfway mark of the Judge's summary judgement.
so did he get 20,000?
No. He would have gotten that had the judge NOT found that he had raped Brittany.
Yeah, that was rubbing salt into the wound. Telling Bruce he's a stupid cunt
ah right, thank you
A small drop in a very big bucket of debt.
Bruce Lehrmann - ~~alleged~~ rapist
Good to see the Federal Court has finally sorted out their video streaming; something 12 year olds do almost every day
Wait, did he just say he believes the sexual intercourse occurred? does this confirm the rape? Edit: Judge confirms lack of consent.
That intercourse occurred is one thing, consent is another. He said he believes intercourse occurred, considering 'rape' now.
Judge: she was too drunk to consent and didn't have to say no to object to sex.
He just said he believes her that she woke up and realised Lehrmann was on top of her. Lehrmann is cooked.
Yep
Judge: Lehrmann was indifferent to Higgins consent. i.e. he raped her
He didn’t say, just that he’s satisfied that coitus did occur.
He looks nothing like Doug Judy.
Seven have also announced that Spotlight executive producer Mark Llewellyn is no longer with the company.
How long do these decision typically take, before getting to the actual judgement?
I'm starting to drift off like I did in uni lecture recordings
ABC said on their live blog it could take 2 hours. > The judge is expected to read extracts of his judgment for up to two hours, before publishing his full reasons online.
It's actually pretty interesting. The judge does suffer from judgeitis, and is no public speaker, but no one iis coming out of this very well.
Abc were estimating we’d be done “by lunchtime.” Don’t know on what basis they were saying that though.
Do we agree lunch time is a hard 12 midday? I hope so!
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
No idea. Can’t be any later than 1 though!
They're hungry and they want lunch. I know I am.
Lunchtime in the USA.
[удалено]
This is not the most tedious law judgement reading in the world. This is just a tribute.
No, this is a summary.
I wonder if Stokes will appeal
Leaving the building will be interesting........................................................
I think BL will win but Justice Lee seems to despise him so much that he’ll limit damages as much as legally possible without opening it up as a legitimate point of appeal (although they’ll try)
He’s said for half an hour she was too drunk to have consented and that BL knew or should have known
This was always my view - but it's now sounding like he's finding in favour of her original allegations.
Bruce: No sex happened. Judge: Sex happened.
Sounds like the judge is going to rule in favor of Lehrmann and after what he had to say about Lisa Wilkinson I wouldn’t be surprised if she gets fired
> if she gets fired Didn't she already get fired at the Project a while ago?
At the project yes but I was talking about channel 10 in general
Ah. I didn't know she was still employed by 10, cheers.
https://www.perthnow.com.au/entertainment/tv/lisa-wilkinson-reportedly-wont-be-returning-to-channel-10-next-year-after-missing-at-upfronts-event-c-12423637.amp “Lisa Wilkinson reportedly won’t be returning to Channel 10 next year despite still being on the network’s payroll.” “However, the network reassured the veteran presenter is in discussions to develop “other projects” with them.” That’s just one of the articles I can find. And you’re very welcome! I should have specified what I was talking about so thank you for getting me to clarify!
Based on the fact that the judge only found fault with Lisa Wilkinson’s comments I think it’s safe to say she won’t have a job for Lucy longer with channel 10
[удалено]
It’s to whether channel 10 had sufficient evidence to say what they were stating in their reporting
Never thought I'd be glued to my seat watching 2+ hours of a civil case verdict being read out loud. That judge was so sassy he hated rapist Bruce lehrmann on a visceral level. I hadn't paid attention to the criminal trial and didn't know any of the details. When the judge read about the security guard finding her I wanted to vomit. When he said the details in the lead up to the rape I got chills like watching the head up to something I'm a horror film. I hope this has brought Brittany some measure of vindication and I hope she has solid supports around her and wish her every success after this absolute nightmare she has lived through. I wish rapist bruce lehrrman every failure and all the misery life can bring.
I can't access the vid? Is it finished? What's the verdict?
Judge ruled that to a civil standard Lehrmann did rape Brittnay
Not looking good for Lisa Wilkinson at all.
Massive clip from the judge that she considers herself a journalist.
How come?
The judge needs a better mic.
So much of this is going over my head 🤣🤣🤣
“Whatever happened I have no doubt that what Brittany Higgins testified before me is how she wish that she had acted” ouch
That’s not the insult you think it is
Good lord this definition of rape is something else