Its even worse than.  There are activist legal academics who are pushing to have rape charges adjucated e to the civil standard, because so few can actually prove that rape took place to the criminal standard.

This Judge is demonstration why that should never happen.  Many different things could have happened in that room that were not rape.  The Judge himself said only those two know what really happened, yet he decided it was rape, because he didn't believe Lehrman's account. The Judge went further and not only guessed what was on Lehrman's mind, but that he actually carried it out, on the basis that Higgines was found naked and didn't cover herself up to hide her modesty.

Its not for Lehrman to prove something didn't happen-that's for his accuser.  Its not for Lehrman to provide alternate explanations.

Its for his accuser to prove her case

What matters is what he said under oath in Court. 

Higgins told told plenty of bullshit herself prior to the trial.

Back peddle all you want. It's what he said.

As for Higgins I already said the whole lot of them are awful people. Including her.

Amazing. Besides everything else you're an expert in you're also one of the greatest legal minds in the country.

I'm not sure why the judge bothered with a 324 page judgment when he could have just asked you.

Is there nothing you can't do? Do you ever have any doubt about anything? Is there no subject you are not immediately 100% all over no matter how complex?

Does your natural sense of superiority come naturally or did you have to work on it?

Its called being educated and intelligent with a capacity for critical reasoning.

If you actually wached the decision you would have heard him say words to the effect that this is what he thinks happened whilst admitting that only Higgins and Lehrman really know what happened.  At the same time he tells what was in Lehrman's mind. 

I suspect he enjoyed the limelight in one of the hottest cases right now.

In fact I always retain doubt, unlike you who just follows what fits your world view.  You ask no questions, you challenge nothing, as long it fits your desired outcomes.

So yes I have many doubts.  For example, its doubtful that this Judges decision would stand in a criminal case,  which given that rape is a criminal offense is actually pretty fucking important.

In fact, its certain that it wouldn't.

OTOH is put to rest any doubt that Judge-only hearings should happen in criminal cases.

I think this was Justice Lee's interpretation as well, but he upgraded it to rape on the basis Higgins consumed something like 11 or so drinks over the course of about 8 hours and stumbled a bit when going through security, and because of those two things she must have been "extremely intoxicated" and therefore wasn't able to consent. No disinterested  person could watch that CCTV footage and arrive at the same conclusion that  the person who walked through security was so plastered beyond recognition that within the next 40 minutes or so they were rendered unable to consent. 

I did watch the decision. The difference between you and me is I didn't sit in judgement of a trial and listen to hundreds of hours of testimony and then think I knew better than someone eminently more qualified than I am.

That's the difference between you and me.

You think you know better than everyone else, all of the time, when either things go for you or against your viewpoints.

I, on the other hand, will willingly admit when I am out of my depth. Only the most arrogant of people, you, would sit here, a couple of hours after a verdict and, with a straight face, go 'the judge got it wrong'.

The sheer arrogance is unbelievable. 

I agree.

The two security guards both said that she didn't look that drunk, yet the Judge thought she was that drunk based on her not covering herself up when security entered the room. 

It points to why juries need to be retained in criminal cases. 

He did get it wrong though.

Yeah I thought this was an odd comment as well. Did the judge canvass the idea that perhaps Ms Higgins didn't cover up because she believed she was already in a dress, as per her testimony? I imagine in that moment, when confronted with the realisation that her political career had just been detonated, that it's unlikely her mind would have immediately turned to putting her undies back on.

I thought the initial 99% of Lee's judgement was shrewd and clinical, but then suddenly veered into speculation, conjecture and fantasy , and it was the weakest and least prudent parts of his judgment that formed his belief rape occurred. 

At the end of the day he is a human being and it's just his opinion. The reality is his judgement was probably shaped as much by his personal and political beliefs as much as his qualifications and experience. No matter how convinced one is in their powers of objectivity we are all slaves to the unconscious biases lurking in our minds.

Remember when Pell was convicted and his conviction was upheld on appeal 2-1, only to then be exonerated by the high court 7 -1? The justice system fucks up all the time. Every day innocent people are thrown behind bars or their reputations unfairly trashed. Judges are just people , it's entirely reasonable to suspect that Justice Lee got it wrong. Maybe the High Court got it wrong in respect to Pell. 

Great post.

I was about to reply in his earlier go at me also using Pell as the example.  I said the Judge(s) were wrong to convict Pell at the time.  I was right.  The High Court said the Judge(s) were wrong. The High Court actual 7-0 against the decision of the lower Court..  The convicting Judges ( tiirc there were TWO) could not have been more wrong in fact.

And what about Judge Salv Vasta.  Not only was he wrong, this Judge was successfully sued for $300,000 by the man who he wrongly jailed.

As for Muz, if something affirms his life views, it must have been the right call, that, and because someone is "qualified" and "more experienced"  they too must be right and anyone who disgrees is an arrogant RWNJ

modern medicine
the environment
financial system 
housing market
legal system 

off the top of my head it's an impressive list to be the ultimate expert in 

Oh he's nothing short of amazing. If only they'd ask he'd solve the all indigenous issues tomorrow. (Probably before breakfast.) I wouldn't mind betting he has ready to go a solution to the middle east imbroglio if only they'd ask.

You also forgot astrophysicist who literally intimated he was smarter than Einstein and other astronomers and physicists at the the time and  that they were all fools because if 'only they looked' they'd have known the universe was expanding.

No problem too big, no problem too small.

You really are a fool.

Change the words here and it exactly describes you. Weeks spent in court, hundreds and hundreds of hours of testimony, thousands of pages of documents, dozens of witnesses and because SOMETHING didn't affirm your life view IT HAS TO BE WRONG. No ifs, no buts, no possible consideration that perhaps you've misjudged the situation and perhaps Lehrmann is actually a giant cockhead.

Nope. Simply unfathomable to you.

You are apparently more than qualified than a person who's spent decades in the field and profession because of the 'vibe' and your 'experience'.

Your lack of introspection would keep a psychologist busy for months.

You are a cynical misanthrope. 

How could I forget about his social expertise and solutions for the indigenous population 

It's an incomplete list. More will come to mind shortly.

He also smarter than Ange and Graham Arnold but these are trite concerns for a giant brain like his. Barely an inconvenience. Could jot something out on his morning commute.

Would love to see the cockhead in a doctor's surgery arguing with his oncologist to see which journals the papers on the treatment they're about to start were published in to make sure they meet with his approval.

'I'm sorry The Lancet is a pharma shill etc etc rhubarb, rhubarb, mumble mumble'.

Here's my paper based on the 'vibe'.

Your bark is truly bigger than your bite, muz. When you’ve been outclassed and outsmarted you have this habit of resorting to petty schoolyard name calling. 

Change the words here and it exactly describes you. Weeks spent in court, hundreds and hundreds of hours of testimony, thousands of pages of documents, dozens of witnesses and because SOMETHING didn't affirm your life view IT HAS TO BE WRONG. No ifs, no buts, no possible consideration that perhaps you've misjudged the situation and perhaps Lehrmann is actually a giant cockhead.

rusty and enzo the last two in Australia behind him 

in your world no. On planet earth with normal people. Yes, yes it is. 

Bruce Lehrmann has pulled out of a conference called “Restoring the Presumption of Innocence” the day after Justice Michael Lee found that, on the balance of probabilities, he raped Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in 2019.The sponsors, Mothers of Sons, said Lehrmann “decided not to appear”.

He is being subject to extremely aggressive pursuit by the media and is concerned that his participation may threaten the audience, jeopardise this important event, and distract from its main purpose.

Bettina Arndt, who describes her work as “denouncing feminism and advocating for men’s rights”, is organising the conference along with Australians for Science and Freedom (ASF).

Tickets are $110 for ASF members and $132 for non members.

I have little sympathy for BL. He may well have raped BH but I didnt think the reasons the judge gave were compelling or persuasive. I see the woman hurdling through security on CCTV and cant believe she was comatose on her bosses lounge mere minutes later. But the judge needed to make a decision one way or the other, and he probably needed to stretch this “blind drunk” theory to fit the narrative that she was raped. If she is only moderately drunk then the whole argument falls apart. 

And card magician.

I didn't come up with the dark sky evidence for an expanding universe- philosophers did centuries ago.  Just because you read it from me first doesn't give me the credit, but thanks anyway. 

You mean like the 3 Judges who imprisoned Pell wrongly when I had said they had imprisoned him wrongly.

Or like Judge Vasta that got sued when he imprisoned a man wrongly?

Muz is the man-child dummy spitting rattle thrower who cannot handle things not fitting his world view

Sure. On appeal a case was overturned. In other news a man was mistakenly convicted.

Really there's no other solution than to tear down the whole stinking edifice. Clearly it's fucked and not fit for purpose.

Nah. You're the bloke in the comments saying 'edited' or 'CGI' or bad mouthing his close-up work.

Rusty is the bloke in the comments saying 'can't even beat the U15 jets' and 'but how cheap were the tickets'

Weeks spent in court, hundreds and hundreds of hours of testimony, thousands of pages of documents, dozens of witnesses and because SOMETHING didn't affirm your life view IT HAS TO BE WRONG. No ifs, no buts, no possible consideration that perhaps you've misjudged the situation and perhaps Lehrmann is actually a giant cockhead.