Brittany Higgins / Bruce Lehmann case

I'm not sure but I think she received 2.4 and after deductions 1.9 because she didn't get enough support /care from the government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Dear OP, how long did you think that would last? :miao: Unless you were being intentionally mishievous ha.

Higgins not being able to work for forty years??!!

Never be productive again, ever? Reduced to a lifelong blob, eating, shitting and watching tv?

Dead set that has got to be the most passively defeatest claim I've ever heard. In actual fact it is patently, cynical, money grubbing bullshit.

I hear the new federal corruption commission is likely to look into the circumstances of the lightning fast undisputed granting of her claim.

My question is, if corruption is found, will she have to give the $1.9 mill back?

---

I have retracted this post as it related to a different legal case,
It has no association or relevance to the current legal case under discussion
The unrelated legal case related to a colleague, who can be re-employed as she had skills, and this colleague isn't in the Canberra bubble

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yonah

Sorry, my name isn't Vincent as you can see.

What does visible panty line anything to do with asking to be fucked? Some guys just trying their luck to fuck almost anything that moves that's all.

I've seen some post of a guy named Vincent888. Do I sound as arrogant as him? I'm only answering a post.

If this is trolling, I'm not validating. Toodles~

---

I didn't think I'd have to explain it but. Girl wears a light fabric dress so doesn't wear underwear so as to avoid visible panty line. Girl alleges rape. Defendants lawyers suggest that she wanted to be fucked because she wan't wearing underwear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frisson

My work colleague was sacked, and she was granted a few thousand dollars only when she took them to court for unfair dismissal

Something just doesnt seem right with the payout revealed in this case

Seems you can make a more ambitious claim if the taxpayers are footing the boot

The mistake my friend made was that she didn't work as a public servant in Canberra
She also actually has skills so she can't argue that she forever can't find work

My work colleague said that if she ever finds herself naked and bruised in the bosses office, she could not walk out that morning as if nothing happened

---

Case closed I guess. They should've called your colleague as a witness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yonah

That's typical trolling tho. Things we do as kids - name calling, false accusations etc.

Don't like to sound "educated" but there is a way to insult a person's intelligence in a more pompous way: ask them a question related to common sense and don't tell them the answer if they can't figure it out. It makes them boil from the inside scrambling to find the answer to the universe's simple truths.

---

C'mon that's gotta be you Vinnie!

Sorry, just to confirm. If a lady wears a dress with a certain type of fabric, she must wear no underwear? There are no options at all ? I don't know anything about fabrics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frisson

Sorry, just to confirm. If a lady wears a dress with a certain type of fabric, she must wear no underwear? There are no options at all ? I don't know anything about fabrics

---

There are always options, don't be too presumptuous bro. Well, playing with the idea while ogling at hotties is OK, that's what we horndogs do, but don't go thinking it's a dead set fact.

There are many "solutions" these days to the VPL problem. It depends on a lot of factors. Some can use a G-string if the dress style / their fitness permits. Otherwise they can use a stick-on type G-string.

Or if the dress doesn't show the hip area, eg. No high slits etc, they can wear one of those specialised no-VPL undies. They look like trunks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldfishMan

There are always options, don't be too presumptuous bro. Well, playing with the idea while ogling at hotties is OK, that's what we horndogs do, but don't go thinking it's a dead set fact.

There are many "solutions" these days to the VPL problem. It depends on a lot of factors. Some can use a G-string if the dress style / their fitness permits. Otherwise they can use a stick-on type G-string.

Or if the dress doesn't show the hip area, eg. No high slits etc, they can wear one of those specialised no-VPL undies. They look like trunks.

---

That's what I was thinking GFM

Walking around without underwear just doesn't seem hygeinic, and is the reason men would never even consider it

Of course noone is suggesting that if you don't wear underwear you should be assaulted, that is disgusting

Fuck me this thread is a dumpster fire.

Some of us punt because we have a high drive or are just ugly. Some of you guys are obviously just creatures.

Apparently it’s woke to think women can decide if they wear underwear or not. God forbid a woman does what she wants. Next thing she’ll want to vote and go to university am I right lads? How woke is that?!

You guys realise the defendant has been accused by 2 other women of similar shit, before this media circus happened?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frisson

That's what I was thinking GFM

Walking around without underwear just doesn't seem hygeinic, and is the reason men would never even consider it

Of course noone is suggesting that if you don't wear underwear you should be assaulted, that is disgusting

---

Even if a girl were to walk around naked on the street, doesn't mean she should be sexually assaulted. Nothing can justify that behaviour.

But I'd say one thing. A girl not wearing undies on a night out doesn't mean she doesn't wear it every day. And the thought of a girl not wearing anything at that moment when she's looking fabulous, well that's sexy as fuck. They know it's a turn on, we know it too.

Gotta put aside that stupid idea about what a girl deserves and just enjoy that sexy show she's putting on, and maybe try to hook up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frisson

Of course noone is suggesting that if you don't wear underwear you should be assaulted, that is disgusting

---

Totally weird that Lehrmann's lawyers brought it up then right??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReginaldBubbles

C'mon that's gotta be you Vinnie!

---

Hey what happened to Yonah?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReginaldBubbles

Hey what happened to Yonah?!

---

Banned like Tan for personal attacks. Are u listening RodgHerMoore ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quad

Banned like Tan for personal attacks. Are u listening RodgHerMoore ?

---

Vinnie can't catch a break!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReginaldBubbles

Totally weird that Lehrmann's lawyers brought it up then right??

---

Not at all. She was found totally naked by security. This is a faux re-run of the criminal trial. Not sure why Brittany agreed to play a part as it's leading her to be asked some very unfair questions. But then again she has a book deal right?

It's a circus and everyone has agreed to play a part. Noone will look good after this trial, and mark my words, the only winners will be the lawyers, making millions of dollars and and creating more misery for everyone

Very naive for all, to agree to join the lawyers feast

In this country we also have a naive view that lawyers will bring you justice. Actually it's a legal system, not a justice system

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frisson

Not at all. She was found totally naked by security. This is a faux re-run of the criminal trial. Not sure why Brittany agreed to play a part as it's leading her to be asked some very unfair questions. But then again she has a book deal right?

It's a circus and everyone has agreed to play a part. Noone will look good after this trial, and mark my words, the only winners will be the lawyers, making millions of dollars and and creating more misery for everyone

Very naive for all, to agree to join the lawyers feast

In this country we also have a naive view that lawyers will bring you justice. Actually it's a legal system, not a justice system

---

Yes, it has quickly become a painful farce and makes you wonder who thought this was a good idea, apart from legal teams.

Agree frisson, the law will deliver a pin point legal outcome linked to precedent, which is often at odds with generally perceived justice ..... but it is all we have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abracadabra

Yes, it has quickly become a painful farce and makes you wonder who thought this was a good idea, apart from legal teams.

Agree frisson, the law will deliver a pin point legal outcome linked to precedent, which is often at odds with generally perceived justice ..... but it is all we have.

---

Yes but we shouldn't have swallowed the Cool Aid and think lawyers want to help you. We are as litigious as the Californians with no reason for being so

Other information from the Court hearing

1. Defendant Brittany had invited a man, Nick, to the party, a Bumble date

2. Defendant sent a photo with all metadata removed, alleged bruise related to the assault. In fact this bruise had nothing to do with Mr. Lehrmann , it was sustained in the club after a fall, earlier in the night

3. Defendant confirms said the gross settlement was for $2.3m and after paying legal fees and taxes, she received $1.9m.

4. Mr Lehrmann had a girlfriend. He should have gone out for a punt instead of following the defendant as she consumed an estimated 10 vodkas, and taking her back to their bosses' office

5. Channel 7 are paying Mr Lehrmann rent for 12 months in an expensive apartment, for appearing in an interview. That's media morals for you

Court notes:
She brought a date called Nick
CCTV played to the court on Tuesday showed Ms Higgins’ bumble date Nick arriving and sitting with the group. Brittany agreed she ghosted him at the party and he left

“He was made fun of, yes, but in hindsight, I was rude to my date and he left because I was rude to my date,” "I didn't know his name was Nick' Ms Higgins said
The lawyer for Mr suggested to Ms Higgins that it was an “absolute lie” that she did not know his name, having referenced his name in a draft of her book, as well in her police interview.

Bruise:
However defendant said she now accepted it was possible that she suffered the bruise while falling up the stairs at a bar, 88MPH, on the same evening.

The court also heard that she told the TV show,The Project, that the bruise was caused by Mr Lehrmann

The court heard that when Ms Higgins sent the photo to The Project producer Angus Llewellyn, she sent him a screenshot rather than the original.

Ms Higgins denied that she sent him a screenshot so it would not contain any metadata, which would establish when it was taken

Add to that the lie about not wearing underpants. She now admits she went knickerless to the bars and said because she didn’t want a VPL (visible panty line) to show under her dress.

Her first draft of the book was loaded with fiction too.

There's too many holes in Higgins story she changed the story / facts several times and was blind drunk at the time of the alleged incident. She is not reliable in court to back up her claim how can she remember what happened when drunk off her face? I am so tired of seeing this BS case on the news every night.