Reply With QuoteLip reading is fucken voodooOriginally Posted by Jamez11
They may as well bring in a Tarot Card reader and Palm reader
It is estimated that only 30% to 40% of speech sounds can be lip-read even under the best conditions and extra information is usually required to understand what is being said.
https://www.ndcs.org.uk/information-...20being%20said.
Lip reading is fucken voodoo
They may as well bring in a Tarot Card reader and Palm reader
I like the narrative that the man went back to the office at 1am in the morning with an attractive drunk lady, to do some office work. So dedicated, that he didn't bother taking the poor lady home safely first. His work was just that important
His gf was ringing him and he didn't answer, it's in the Court transcripts, because he had to do paperwork
Not saying it's true or false, just that it reflects a great work ethic
Mate. The court case needed 3 lip readersLip reading is fucken voodoo
They may as well bring in a Tarot Card reader and Palm reader
Some many people testifying and talking through the sides of their mouths
Maybe she had to do paperwork as well and they decided to share a cab
Yes. 10 vodkas later and the typical woman is thinking of going back into the office to do office work. I call BS on that
That's exactly the part I don't get, Why an intoxicated persn after having 10 shots had to go inside the building and then the ministerial office? Bruce had to get his keys or whatever she could have clearly waited outside or in the Uber.
Bruce had to get his keys, something that takes less than 5 minutes?
So he had to bring a very drunk Brittany in to the office with her ? A drunk lady that he had paid to get drunk
I call BS on that too
He also had to drink Whisky and do paperwork according to court transcripts
I don't understand the basis of the claim that the taxpayer was liable for what happened to Brittany and paid her over $2 million
What does the taxpayer have to do with funding her paymemt of a French house??
Very drunk??? She was walking thru security OK...if she was "very drunk" she would have been staggering.
Yeah, I honestly don't know where this perception of them being drunk came from. Both of them didn't look like they were drunk. And where's the proof that they drank a lot of alcohol?
I mean, Bruce was even getting his car keys. How can he drive if he was drunk?
You can walk with a very high blood alcohol. But the problem is more obvious when you try to do something more complex like drive a car
The CCTV shows Brittany was bought a large number of vodkas. She states she vomited in her bosses office, she was very drunk
It's pretty obvious that Bruce was trying the oldest trick in the book - get a girl drunk and then take advantage of her.
This has been going on in every bar and party in the world forever.
Whether he did fuck her or whether she consented we will never know for sure.
Absolutely
This is also what I have been implying
Funny how there are people who can suggest there was a legitimate cause for the events of that night
At 1am, on a Friday night, after a night on the drink, absolutely zero people are thinking about returning to work to complete work related activities in their place of employment
Work can be done the next morning or Sunday, makes absolutely no sense
Well said brother rooter,
I might just add one point, to me, this Bruce guy is just cheap, if he would have taken the girl to a hotel room and did it in style, we would have heard none of this . Back to the office and fuck on a couch, it’s basically a freebie , no wonder the girl felt violated afterwards.
Or did anything even happened? Only the two people involved would know !
Bring more popcorn 🍿?
Will we ever get to find the full story out
Maybe it was her idea for fucking. Possible scenario...in the office, she takes off her dress, she says to him "fuck me"...he says no...she feels rejected. If you have ever rejected a woman, you will know that you will never get to fuck her in the future and she will do anything to get back at you. It is highly embarassing to a woman to get sexually rejected. After all she was found naked in the office, she wore the dress on multiple occasions after the alleged rape. Wouldn't you think that she would never wear that dress again if she was traumatised by the alleged rape,?
Oh for fucks sake.
There's still the Toowoomba case going through the courts as well. Where there's smoke, and all that.
Both parties are deliberately hiding some facts in their stories, we would never know what actually happened that night, but the story about getting to office at 1 am for paperwork doesn't make sense and why on earth she has to follow him! There are many flaws in their stories. The girl claims that her phone was wiped but then suddenly she finds a photo and when questioned about it she says I'm not good with technology, I don't know how I managed to get this photo. She didn't even bother to get medical check after that night and she says I didn't know or something similar. Bruce also claimed nothing sexual happened between them but he was seen kissing the girl in pub (Testimony by Lauren).
According to my lawyer friend, the court is not about the truth , but about who tells a better story. I don't see a good story at either sides
Posting Permissions
|
|
|
|