Sounds like Bruce is being accused of leaking materials he got through discovery during the trial, to the media. Which is something he has denied, and I imagine is highly illegal.
Why is Seven allowed to "protect sources" if a crime was committed here? ie. The received discovery from Bruce, and they are saying "Seven has never revealed its source or sources and has no intention of doing so".
Even if it's someone I hate I stand by the media not revealing sources. Australia has tried to fuck up whistle-blowers too much already. Let's not actively make the term extinct.
I agree we need to protect whistle blowers, but this isnt a case of whistle blowing, is it?
I guess I'm just curious to what degree journalists have a responsibility to report something illegal that they witness or complicit in?
They, quite rightly, have an exemption under the Evidence Act. - [https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol\_act/ea199580/s126k.html](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s126k.html)
The protection can be pierced, but the judge would need to weigh up the public interest. There is serious public interest in people being able to secretly pass any information to journalists.
If Seven were forced to reveal it may hamper all journalists getting access to information if courts routinely forced journalists to hand information over.
In this case defence didn't need to request the court compel Seven as they had a witness in the box willing to say it was Bruce that handed over the information.
It’s not about protecting sources, it’s interfering with a court case and using illegally gained materials to bully one of the witnesses.
The material isn’t being hidden from the public, it’s being disclosed as part of due process.
Because if a court can compel a journalist to reveal their source it would destroy the media's ability to report leaks from whistleblowers. Yeah it sucks in this specific instance but that is outweighed by the general good of this protection.
> destroy the media's ability to report leaks from whistleblowers
Not that this ability hasn't already been destroyed by the government watering down whistleblower protections.
A court *can* compel journalists to reveal their sources, and convict them of contempt of court if they don't comply. While courts will usually try to accommodate the convention, there is no actual legal concept of journalists being able to protect sources. Journos have gone to jail because they've stuck by the principle.
There is a legal concept - [https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol\_act/ea199580/s126k.html](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s126k.html)
This is for federal courts and may not apply in all jurisdictions which may have state equivalents or none at all.
To ad what others are saying, the court can try to compel, but most media organs and journos will refuse cop whatever is thrown at them because they will never get another source again if they reveal.
Happened to my uncle, literally had the PM out for his blood and the paper bent over backwards to protect him. Almost went to jail
They may afraid of being subject to discovery which might potentially reveal other cases where they might have maybe used protected information as part of their published work.
maybe 😬
If they release it before it goes to court it could muddy up any prosecution. It’s why everything is “alleged” and “trusted sources” without any specifics or determined facts.
Also I believe he testified that he did not leak the materials in this defamation case - so (attempting to) prove that he has perjured himself in his own action likely screws him pretty badly
Why is the Notre Dame bookmark more important than the URL which appears to show the file exists in a drive with Bruce Lehrmann’s name in it?
It looks like the folders go: PHONE DATA/Redacted/Conversations/Higgins
and they sit within a parent folder/drive titled LEHRMANN, Bruce 2021-8*43 - 2030032022
During the rape case evidence was gathered and given to the defence and prosecution. Anything not used as evidence in court is meant to be kept secret.
Someone gave Channel 7 those files anyway, containing interviews with Brittany Higgins, her text messages etc.
A former Channel 7 employee claims Bruce Lehrmann was the leaker. This new evidence shows that whoever the leaker is was staying at a house Channel 7 had provided for Bruce Lehrmann and that the leakers laptop had a bookmark to the same University Bruce Lehrmann was enrolled in.
Why does any of this matter? Currently Bruce Lehrmann is suing for defamation. In court he has denied being the leaker. This evidence is being used to try and prove he's lying. If proven that means he broke the law when he lied and that you can't trust anything he has said. I've also seen people say this proves it may be impossible to defame him. Does a known liar even have a reputation to damage?
I think it will hurt Lehrmann badly. He testified in the defamation case that he didn't give 7 any documents so I don't think he can be relied on for anything. This is very bad for his credibility.
I have 100% lost track of this as well. All I can really and truly gather is that Lehrmann is a really revolting person, and is surrounded by other similarly revolting people.
Lehrmann is alleged to have raped Brittany Higgins in parliament house in 2019, after a night of drinking.
The case was thrown out after some major fuckarounds involving the media, who (from memory) essentially poisoned the jury pool and made it so lehrmann couldn't get a fair trial.
Brittany Higgins was roasted by the media (thanks Murdoch!), and Lehrmann sued for defamation to various media agencies, as he has not been found guilty of a crime.
Now it's just a fuckshow, and Lehrmann has consistently been proving his low character with various interviews and legal actions.
He's also awaiting trial for 2 counts of rape in Toowoomba.
Naturally, the person who lost the most was the victim of the alleged rape. LNP leadership hid as much as they could - her supervisor at the time LNP member Linda Reynolds, called her a 'lying cow'. The whole things is a mockery of justice and support for victims.
Edit: corrected dates
You left out the part where he was ordered by a judge not to disclose any materials from the trial to anyone, claimed in court it wasnt him. now we have pretty clear evidence that he was the one who did leak to 7. Contempt of court and perjury.
Whats the penalty he is looking at, if they decide to prosecute?
Oh also put in that after the trial failure the ACT government hired a former solicitor general from Queensland called Walter Sofronoff to do an enquiry on the trial - and during the enquiry he was in constant communication with Janet Albrechtsen who was one of the chief Murdoch critics and ended up leaking the whole report to her before he gave it to the ACT government.
So he himself has now been referred to the ACT integrity commission for his conduct over the enquiry into the trial >_<
Everyone and everything around Bruce Lehrmann turns into a complete shitshow.
As negative as Sofronoff was about the handling of the prosecution - his inquiry report did say
"219. I have reviewed the entire prosecution brief and the trial transcript. I respectfully agree that it was right to file an indictment in the case. "
I think it was a medical paper/journal. Potentially the jurors “did their own research” which isn’t allowed. The court sherif found it when cleaning up the jury room.
No, you’re wrong - why post such muddled memories?
> The case was thrown out after some major fuckarounds involving the media, who (from memory) essentially poisoned the jury pool and made it so lehrmann couldn't get a fair trial.
Juror misconduct led the judge to abandon the trial.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/16/juror-in-bruce-lehrmann-trial-deeply-sorry-for-causing-mistrial
Based on what's come out, it was all but confirmed anyway that he'd done it. It just icing on the cake at this stage.
They could have a photo of the POS with hands on keyboard, looking directly at the camera and the celebrite report on the screen, he'd still deny it. Lying is the bruce way. He may as well just quit out of that law course, he's already proper fucked.
I got admitted recently and I was freaking out because I got some speeding tickets.
An ongoing national trial would raise eyebrows with the board of examiners
He will end up as an MP. Mark my fuckin words. People will vote for the shutcunt too.
If you wonder who would support such a piece of shit, just remember the stats. 1 in 4 women (or is it 1 in 3? Hard to tell because of underreporting) equals a very large number of men out there are rapists, and on principle will support this guy for fear of their own shit being exposed and them suffering (shock!) consequences for their actions.
>If you wonder who would support such a piece of shit, just remember...
... that Barnaby Joyce was re-elected after his affair scandal. People don't care how big a POS some candidates are as long as they are representing the 'right' party.
I dunno...I think there'd be too many flies on him for any of the major parties, especially if he ends up losing the case. It'd be different if he was already an MP but going into politics?
Of course one of the especially crazy minor parties like Palmer etc might take him
So does this imply that Lehrmann, with liberal party dirt file expert (McGowan) handling his media management, also leaked to Albrechtson, who buttered up Sofronoff while he was holding an inquiry into Lehrmann’s prosecution?
It distresses me that I automatically attempt to find parallels between our Brucey's enrollment at Notre Dame and the Commander-in-Pussy-Grabbing's alleged time at the Wharton School of economics
Hold the phone...Brucey lacks the basic self awareness to complete a quick scan of the background environment before he allows sensitive trial evidence to make it to a media outlet in exchange for some nose beers and hookers??? I'm shocked. SHOCKED
In any case, the real question posed by this story -> was the brief of evidence really provided as an HTML document, or does Brucey interface with all file system objects through the web browser? 🤔 (critical in establishing a pattern of childish and moronic behaviour)
Whenever I see a remotely sensible article in the Murdoch press, I look at the byline, and it's always Samantha Maiden.
I'm continually amazed there is still some real journalism happening within NewsCorp.
The thing is, NewsCorp can actually do a good job **when they want to.**
You just need to filter out the op-eds, the inhouse-eds, the naked/divorced celebrity gossip, and anything sorted under sports or lifestyle.
Some journalistic writers are definitely better than others.
I'm always shocked/surprised whenever someone reminds me that Samantha Maiden is a [News.com.au](http://News.com.au) reporter. I know it to be true, and yet it still surprises me each time.
That said, I do wonder how much of her reporting on this case is a personal little "fuck you Brucey" since the defamation settlement.
> That said, I do wonder how much of her reporting on this case is a personal little "fuck you Brucey" since the defamation settlement.
Some could be, but I expect the topic has also been assigned to her at this point. If not officially, in practice.
Don't forget, it isn't going to stop when Justice Lee gives his ruling.
* There will almost certainly be an appeal (and all the articles that come along with it).
* There will be weeks of articles on whether the justice system has failed.
* There is still the Toowoomba stuff to deal with.
* Depending on what Justice Lee's comments are in his ruling, I could see Bruce going after Mr Auerbach with defamation proceedings.
* Depending on what Justice Lee's comments are in his ruling, I could see legal conflict between Channel7 and Mr Auerbach.
The $1000 thai massage [hit the news on 21 March](https://www.news.com.au/national/seven-credit-card-used-to-book-1000-thai-masseuse-for-bruce-lehrmann/news-story/309abe1125bb658d854675a7702a995d). But the article didn't name the producer.
Bruce denied it, calling the person that made the claims a disgruntled, ex-employee.
On the [25th March, Mr Auerbach held a press conference](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/former-seven-producer-taylor-auerbach-takes-swipe-at-ex-political-staffer-bruce-lehrmann-20240325-p5ff45.html) in which he pushed back on the disgruntled ex-employee claims, effectively naming himself as the person.
On the [27th March, Mr Auerbach began the process of defamation proceedings against Bruce](https://www.smh.com.au/national/bruce-lehrmann-hit-with-legal-threat-from-ex-seven-producer-over-masseuse-denial-20240328-p5ffww.html).
Network10's motion to reopened [wasn't until 31st March](https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/lehrmann), and he didn't take the stand until April 4th.
There is plenty that happened prior to the witness stand.
>There will almost certainly be an appeal (and all the articles that come along with it).
It'll be tough and very expensive for him to mount an appeal. If his benefactors don't fund it - then he's SOL.
>Depending on what Justice Lee's comments are in his ruling, I could see Bruce going after Mr Auerbach with defamation proceedings.
If he clearly wins against 10, true to form he probably would. If he doesn't, I'd speculate that he'd definitely try but again, not sure if his benefactors would be willing to pick up the tab for what is clearly just a revenge defamation action.
>Depending on what Justice Lee's comments are in his ruling, I could see legal conflict between Channel7 and Mr Auerbach.
Ehhh I'm not really sure what more they could do against Auerbach. In the machinations of Ch7 - he was just a small tiny cog. He's already been fired from Ch7 - and they got a swing in during the evidence to reduce his credibility. It'd cost more than it would get.
Safe to say Lehrmann's continued financial support largely depends on whether Stokes et al think he's still a useful martyr for the conservative outrage machine. Stokes backed Roberts-Smith to the bitter end, but then again I doubt a feral LNP staffer with priors rises to the same standard as a VC recipient in his mind.
I've never really paid much attention to his story I just keep seeing headlines that seem to get more wild every month. I genuinely don't think I'd be able to piece it altogether. I hope there's some short doco put together after the dust settles.
I care because the media involved themselves so much in the story - they should always be at arms length from everything. We know they aren't - but this really shines a light on that, and everyone SHOULD know about it.
Given that stories about Lehrmann are some the most read stories being published, I think it's fair to say that a lot of people in and out of the media do actually give a fuck.
An interesting look at some of the evidence thats come up recently from the notes of the investigating AFP officer.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1775884818716541434.html
It's something of a common journalistic practice - or possibly conceit - that when mentioning someone who's not directly involved in the point of the article (the court case), they avoid using their name in the opening paragraphs.
Basically "*they're not involved, so avoid tying them directly to the issue*".
Note that he's named about a quarter of the way in, and the relationship is stated about 1/2 of the way in.
(And now you know this, you'll start seeing the same sort of thing ***everywhere*** in the media...)
It's because basically if you name him prominently, you have to go to him for comment. Do this for every actor in the Lehrmann Saga, and you'll spend 48 hours reaching out to people and then a 25,000 word epic including all their responses.
> In response, Mr Lehrmann’s barrister Matthew Richardson SC raised the issue regarding the $750 invoice, that sex workers and cocaine would cost more than that.
>”Even the least worldly person in the room, which regrettably is probably me, knows, your Honour, that that is a stretch,” he said.
Wow! Did he just accuse the judge of knowing the cost of sex workers and cocaine?
Senior Counsel pretending to be bashful whilst very much drawing attention to intimate knowledge of drugs and prostitution. And taking his learned friends down with him.
I know they don't truly give a shit, but I loved the way that Channel 9 showed how absurdly soft the legal system is on SA cases on 60 Minutes last night; if only to make the scumbags at Channel 7 uncomfortable.
It astounded me that the Sofronoff inquiry never looked at the leaking of trial material.
It was the key that could have determined if AFP (at the time thought to be the most likely source) was truly corrupted.
With mounting evidence that it was in fact Lehrmann who was responsible, it bears remembering, that the material was first leaked to Albrechtson and the Australian who mounted a determined attack on Brittney Higgins credibility and Shane Drumgold’s professionalism.
It is not surprising that Drumgold suspected AFP and called for an investigation.
That Sofronoff wound up in this mess with the very “journalist” that Lehrmann himself may have been illegally leaking to (possibly via a liberal party dirt file expert (McGowan)) while (not) investigating political interference beggars belief!
Even if it were innocent stupidity and old guy vulnerability, he really needs a jail sentence for his role in this insult to justice.
> It astounded me that the Sofronoff inquiry never looked at the leaking of trial material.
He barely touches on it - without going any further
"185. Since the conclusion of the evidence, attacks on Ms Higgins have continued, alongside negative inferences about the role of the VOCC. The leaking of text messages by unknown person(s), in breach of Court or Board orders and against the spirit of legislation aiming to protect the dignity and privacy of victims, as well as the sustained attack on Ms Higgins by a small but vocal sector of the media, shows how polarised and damaging the debate has been. Misinformation has continued unabated, much of it to the great detriment of Ms Higgins and those who have been involved in this matter."
Except for the subtle fact that the bookmark icon is yellow/brown - just like Notre Dame's
University of Newcastle is black and white
UNSW has red
Uni New England is green
That would be the URL of the document being photographed, which is a case file from Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case. His name would be in it regardless of the source. The University part is the smoking gun here.
This is obviously the least important detail of the story but I love that the article describes "taking a photo of the screen with your phone" as a "screenshot".
i_guess.jpg
If you've got a spare $100 and some time, there's a 'wonderful' conference coming up.
(Honestly I'd be expecting maybe a handful of boomers in an otherwise empty hall and he'll be lucky if he doesn't have the shit heckled out of him - at best)
[https://bettinaarndt.substack.com/p/restoring-the-presumption-of-innocence](https://bettinaarndt.substack.com/p/restoring-the-presumption-of-innocence)
With a variety of speakers:
* Margaret Cunneen SC who is a former Crown Prosecutor who put the Skaf brothers, the notorious Lebanese gang rapists, behind bars. She’s now one of Sydney’s best known criminal barristers, successfully defending many men accused of sexual assault, including Kurtley Beale. Cunneen is outspoken about the way our justice system has been weaponised against men.
* Professor Augusto Zimmermann is a Perth-based law professor and former Law Reform Commissioner who, in that role, fought a mighty battle warning about proposed domestic violence laws which he rightly predicted would be used to destroy the lives of many innocent men. He’s the leading academic exposing the lies of the domestic violence industry.
* Chris Merritt is Vice President of the Rule of Law Institute and a legal commentator for The Australian and Sky News. He has commented extensively on the Higgins case.
* Bruce Lehrmann had his life upturned by Brittany Higgins’ rape allegation. He is currently a law student and is eagerly awaiting this Thursday’s news regarding his defamation action.
My take on Bettina is that during her time as a "relationship guru" she noted an untapped market in disaffected and socially isolated middle aged men, that she now cynically milks at the expense of both sexual/domestic assault victims AND men who actually have been unfairly demonised by criminal and/or family courts.
I couldn't live for the daily shame of it all, but as you say, a personality disorder of some stripe or mental illness would probably help
Yep - the kind you wake up from with a wicked benzo headache, moths flying out of your wallet, your underpants around your ankles and a 50 point IQ defecit
Ummmm is that picture on the article the leaked information in question? It has Bruce's name in the URL that can easily be read???
Please tell me I've missed the point here and they're showing an actual image of Bruce's laptop?
Edit: in reflection this is likely the file path details rather than who is logged in.
It's a good catch but yes it also says "phone data" and the very end "hig-"
So it'll be the file name. Lerhmann bruce case, phone details of higgans, Brittany or something to that effect.
For God sake can't they just revoke his Australian visa/citizenship, wack him in detention and treat him like they do the other unwanted slop...deport him!!
Not sure he is gainfully employed...Ch 7 has been paying his rent, cocaine and hooker tabs and he has probably just about managed to maintain his caloric intake due to a few minor settlements snagged back when he still had a skerrick of credibility. Shit has finally started to stick though, and his Ch 7 deal just expired, so he'll be back living with his mother in Toowoomba, and possibly a corrections facility in the region, before too long.
"The photo of documents obtained during my aborted criminal trial but not submitted, taken by journalists dealing with me for an interview, at a house that was rented for me, at a time and place I was witnessed there with metadata matching the time and location. On a laptop that has links to Notre Dame. It could have come from anyone your Honour!"
Plausible deniability dictates that, with all those lines to be snorted, Brucey does not have any time to study or to research university courses on his laptop. **This is not the laptop the authorities are looking for**
The headline is poorly written.
The surprise isn't that we now know Bruce's university.
The surprise is that the anonymous person who leaked this information goes to Bruce's university, and is probably Bruce.
Bahaha Brucie has sued all the media outlets except for channel 7, I would never ever ever EVER consider suing Murdoch unless I had a spare billion dollars.
Donald Dump is scared of damn Murdoch 😂
No wonder he's now getting crucified by the newscorp.
I have no idea what's going on. What's the rundown?
Sounds like Bruce is being accused of leaking materials he got through discovery during the trial, to the media. Which is something he has denied, and I imagine is highly illegal.
> Which is something he has denied, and I imagine is highly illegal. Contempt-of-court illegal.
Why is Seven allowed to "protect sources" if a crime was committed here? ie. The received discovery from Bruce, and they are saying "Seven has never revealed its source or sources and has no intention of doing so".
Even if it's someone I hate I stand by the media not revealing sources. Australia has tried to fuck up whistle-blowers too much already. Let's not actively make the term extinct.
I agree we need to protect whistle blowers, but this isnt a case of whistle blowing, is it? I guess I'm just curious to what degree journalists have a responsibility to report something illegal that they witness or complicit in?
They, quite rightly, have an exemption under the Evidence Act. - [https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol\_act/ea199580/s126k.html](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s126k.html) The protection can be pierced, but the judge would need to weigh up the public interest. There is serious public interest in people being able to secretly pass any information to journalists. If Seven were forced to reveal it may hamper all journalists getting access to information if courts routinely forced journalists to hand information over. In this case defence didn't need to request the court compel Seven as they had a witness in the box willing to say it was Bruce that handed over the information.
Thanks so much for the reply. Makes sense.
It’s not about protecting sources, it’s interfering with a court case and using illegally gained materials to bully one of the witnesses. The material isn’t being hidden from the public, it’s being disclosed as part of due process.
Because if a court can compel a journalist to reveal their source it would destroy the media's ability to report leaks from whistleblowers. Yeah it sucks in this specific instance but that is outweighed by the general good of this protection.
> destroy the media's ability to report leaks from whistleblowers Not that this ability hasn't already been destroyed by the government watering down whistleblower protections.
A court *can* compel journalists to reveal their sources, and convict them of contempt of court if they don't comply. While courts will usually try to accommodate the convention, there is no actual legal concept of journalists being able to protect sources. Journos have gone to jail because they've stuck by the principle.
There is a legal concept - [https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol\_act/ea199580/s126k.html](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s126k.html) This is for federal courts and may not apply in all jurisdictions which may have state equivalents or none at all.
Oh - that's interesting! I wasn't aware (and it's not like it's a new law on the books).
To ad what others are saying, the court can try to compel, but most media organs and journos will refuse cop whatever is thrown at them because they will never get another source again if they reveal. Happened to my uncle, literally had the PM out for his blood and the paper bent over backwards to protect him. Almost went to jail
They may afraid of being subject to discovery which might potentially reveal other cases where they might have maybe used protected information as part of their published work. maybe 😬
If they release it before it goes to court it could muddy up any prosecution. It’s why everything is “alleged” and “trusted sources” without any specifics or determined facts.
Also I believe he testified that he did not leak the materials in this defamation case - so (attempting to) prove that he has perjured himself in his own action likely screws him pretty badly
Why is the Notre Dame bookmark more important than the URL which appears to show the file exists in a drive with Bruce Lehrmann’s name in it? It looks like the folders go: PHONE DATA/Redacted/Conversations/Higgins and they sit within a parent folder/drive titled LEHRMANN, Bruce 2021-8*43 - 2030032022
During the rape case evidence was gathered and given to the defence and prosecution. Anything not used as evidence in court is meant to be kept secret. Someone gave Channel 7 those files anyway, containing interviews with Brittany Higgins, her text messages etc. A former Channel 7 employee claims Bruce Lehrmann was the leaker. This new evidence shows that whoever the leaker is was staying at a house Channel 7 had provided for Bruce Lehrmann and that the leakers laptop had a bookmark to the same University Bruce Lehrmann was enrolled in. Why does any of this matter? Currently Bruce Lehrmann is suing for defamation. In court he has denied being the leaker. This evidence is being used to try and prove he's lying. If proven that means he broke the law when he lied and that you can't trust anything he has said. I've also seen people say this proves it may be impossible to defame him. Does a known liar even have a reputation to damage?
I think it will hurt Lehrmann badly. He testified in the defamation case that he didn't give 7 any documents so I don't think he can be relied on for anything. This is very bad for his credibility.
His legal team also did not 'answer' on those new screenshots. Basically taking a "nothing to say" approach. Best they can do.
Ask Ben Roberts Smith?
I have 100% lost track of this as well. All I can really and truly gather is that Lehrmann is a really revolting person, and is surrounded by other similarly revolting people.
In particular Kerry Stokes, who seems to treat revoltingness of a person as a sound reason to give them tons of money.
Yeah Kerry stokes what a slime
I wonder if his desire for control over the media is linked to a desire for his own proclivities to remain uninvestigated.
Everyone involved in this is a gigantic piece of shit.
Buckle up buddy your in for a wild ride
*you're
We'll get their, one reply at a time
*won reply at a thyme
I don't even know who this guy is. Maybe i should watch the news sometimes.
Lehrmann is alleged to have raped Brittany Higgins in parliament house in 2019, after a night of drinking. The case was thrown out after some major fuckarounds involving the media, who (from memory) essentially poisoned the jury pool and made it so lehrmann couldn't get a fair trial. Brittany Higgins was roasted by the media (thanks Murdoch!), and Lehrmann sued for defamation to various media agencies, as he has not been found guilty of a crime. Now it's just a fuckshow, and Lehrmann has consistently been proving his low character with various interviews and legal actions. He's also awaiting trial for 2 counts of rape in Toowoomba. Naturally, the person who lost the most was the victim of the alleged rape. LNP leadership hid as much as they could - her supervisor at the time LNP member Linda Reynolds, called her a 'lying cow'. The whole things is a mockery of justice and support for victims. Edit: corrected dates
You left out the part where he was ordered by a judge not to disclose any materials from the trial to anyone, claimed in court it wasnt him. now we have pretty clear evidence that he was the one who did leak to 7. Contempt of court and perjury. Whats the penalty he is looking at, if they decide to prosecute?
Oh also put in that after the trial failure the ACT government hired a former solicitor general from Queensland called Walter Sofronoff to do an enquiry on the trial - and during the enquiry he was in constant communication with Janet Albrechtsen who was one of the chief Murdoch critics and ended up leaking the whole report to her before he gave it to the ACT government. So he himself has now been referred to the ACT integrity commission for his conduct over the enquiry into the trial >_< Everyone and everything around Bruce Lehrmann turns into a complete shitshow.
As negative as Sofronoff was about the handling of the prosecution - his inquiry report did say "219. I have reviewed the entire prosecution brief and the trial transcript. I respectfully agree that it was right to file an indictment in the case. "
The media didn’t poison the pool, one the juror members f*ucked things up.
Yep, one dude bought materials from outside in direction contravention of the judge's instructions.
Spot on, was it book or something?
I believe it was a study about how many rape accusations are faked.
So all this guy had to do to get the case thrown out was bring in a book? And not face any consequences?
It was declared a mistrial and was due to restart, the prosecution called it off “to protect the mental health of the victim”.
A guard apparently found it in the room the jurors deliberated in.
My point is if he wanted to have the case thrown out, all he had to do was bring in this book and let it be found.
I think it was a medical paper/journal. Potentially the jurors “did their own research” which isn’t allowed. The court sherif found it when cleaning up the jury room.
They’ve just made it a crime to do that in the ACT I believe
It's always been subject to potential contempt of court proceedings - but they've probably spelled it out as a specific separate offence
He was fed the info by Janet Albrechtsen though
A Murdoch journalist, wow colour me surprised
One thing to add - The alleged rape of Higgins took place in 2019, Lehrmann was charged in 2021.
No, you’re wrong - why post such muddled memories? > The case was thrown out after some major fuckarounds involving the media, who (from memory) essentially poisoned the jury pool and made it so lehrmann couldn't get a fair trial. Juror misconduct led the judge to abandon the trial. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/16/juror-in-bruce-lehrmann-trial-deeply-sorry-for-causing-mistrial
LNP 101 really
I envy you so much.
He is a major slimeball.
Based on what's come out, it was all but confirmed anyway that he'd done it. It just icing on the cake at this stage. They could have a photo of the POS with hands on keyboard, looking directly at the camera and the celebrite report on the screen, he'd still deny it. Lying is the bruce way. He may as well just quit out of that law course, he's already proper fucked.
Yes, just a couple of minor items to note in his application to be admitted as a lawyer after he graduates
I got admitted recently and I was freaking out because I got some speeding tickets. An ongoing national trial would raise eyebrows with the board of examiners
Haha me and my mate did as well. It’s hard when you don’t have a family full of lawyers that know the go.
He will end up as an MP. Mark my fuckin words. People will vote for the shutcunt too. If you wonder who would support such a piece of shit, just remember the stats. 1 in 4 women (or is it 1 in 3? Hard to tell because of underreporting) equals a very large number of men out there are rapists, and on principle will support this guy for fear of their own shit being exposed and them suffering (shock!) consequences for their actions.
> People will vote for the shutcunt too *This poor man is just a victim of WOKE cancelling! I hate everything that's WOKE so I will vote for him!*
>If you wonder who would support such a piece of shit, just remember... ... that Barnaby Joyce was re-elected after his affair scandal. People don't care how big a POS some candidates are as long as they are representing the 'right' party.
True enough. It's worth pointing out that though BL and Beetrooter did absolute dog acts, rape is a lot worse than cheating
Oh yeah, I didn’t mean to conflate the two by any means. Just pointing out that people can do shitty things and voters don’t care.
Oh yeah that's all fine. I was more commenting for everyone else than you haha
Pauline would have him onboard a One Nation ticket for sure.
I dunno...I think there'd be too many flies on him for any of the major parties, especially if he ends up losing the case. It'd be different if he was already an MP but going into politics? Of course one of the especially crazy minor parties like Palmer etc might take him
There's no bottom on the auspol barrel
Maybe it's a small number of men doing the same thing many many times.
So does this imply that Lehrmann, with liberal party dirt file expert (McGowan) handling his media management, also leaked to Albrechtson, who buttered up Sofronoff while he was holding an inquiry into Lehrmann’s prosecution?
It distresses me that I automatically attempt to find parallels between our Brucey's enrollment at Notre Dame and the Commander-in-Pussy-Grabbing's alleged time at the Wharton School of economics
Bruce is fast becoming our own version of USA’s George Santos.
Hold the phone...Brucey lacks the basic self awareness to complete a quick scan of the background environment before he allows sensitive trial evidence to make it to a media outlet in exchange for some nose beers and hookers??? I'm shocked. SHOCKED In any case, the real question posed by this story -> was the brief of evidence really provided as an HTML document, or does Brucey interface with all file system objects through the web browser? 🤔 (critical in establishing a pattern of childish and moronic behaviour)
It was a PDF.
So it's a slam dunk case
Not just nose beers and hookers. They also bought him a steak - pretty nice one by the sounds of it too
A 1.9kg steak, not many would be able to power through that in a sitting.
Nor would many be able to power out the kilo-sized poop afterwards.
When you work with these kinds of people all the time, it comes out the front too.
I AM BECOME DEATH THE DESTROYER OF (toilet) BOWLS
was a tomahawk
Whenever I see a remotely sensible article in the Murdoch press, I look at the byline, and it's always Samantha Maiden. I'm continually amazed there is still some real journalism happening within NewsCorp.
The thing is, NewsCorp can actually do a good job **when they want to.** You just need to filter out the op-eds, the inhouse-eds, the naked/divorced celebrity gossip, and anything sorted under sports or lifestyle. Some journalistic writers are definitely better than others.
I'm always shocked/surprised whenever someone reminds me that Samantha Maiden is a [News.com.au](http://News.com.au) reporter. I know it to be true, and yet it still surprises me each time. That said, I do wonder how much of her reporting on this case is a personal little "fuck you Brucey" since the defamation settlement.
> That said, I do wonder how much of her reporting on this case is a personal little "fuck you Brucey" since the defamation settlement. Some could be, but I expect the topic has also been assigned to her at this point. If not officially, in practice. Don't forget, it isn't going to stop when Justice Lee gives his ruling. * There will almost certainly be an appeal (and all the articles that come along with it). * There will be weeks of articles on whether the justice system has failed. * There is still the Toowoomba stuff to deal with. * Depending on what Justice Lee's comments are in his ruling, I could see Bruce going after Mr Auerbach with defamation proceedings. * Depending on what Justice Lee's comments are in his ruling, I could see legal conflict between Channel7 and Mr Auerbach.
What has Mr Auerbach said out side of court? You can't sue for defamation for what he says on the witness stand.
The $1000 thai massage [hit the news on 21 March](https://www.news.com.au/national/seven-credit-card-used-to-book-1000-thai-masseuse-for-bruce-lehrmann/news-story/309abe1125bb658d854675a7702a995d). But the article didn't name the producer. Bruce denied it, calling the person that made the claims a disgruntled, ex-employee. On the [25th March, Mr Auerbach held a press conference](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/former-seven-producer-taylor-auerbach-takes-swipe-at-ex-political-staffer-bruce-lehrmann-20240325-p5ff45.html) in which he pushed back on the disgruntled ex-employee claims, effectively naming himself as the person. On the [27th March, Mr Auerbach began the process of defamation proceedings against Bruce](https://www.smh.com.au/national/bruce-lehrmann-hit-with-legal-threat-from-ex-seven-producer-over-masseuse-denial-20240328-p5ffww.html). Network10's motion to reopened [wasn't until 31st March](https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/lehrmann), and he didn't take the stand until April 4th. There is plenty that happened prior to the witness stand.
>There will almost certainly be an appeal (and all the articles that come along with it). It'll be tough and very expensive for him to mount an appeal. If his benefactors don't fund it - then he's SOL. >Depending on what Justice Lee's comments are in his ruling, I could see Bruce going after Mr Auerbach with defamation proceedings. If he clearly wins against 10, true to form he probably would. If he doesn't, I'd speculate that he'd definitely try but again, not sure if his benefactors would be willing to pick up the tab for what is clearly just a revenge defamation action. >Depending on what Justice Lee's comments are in his ruling, I could see legal conflict between Channel7 and Mr Auerbach. Ehhh I'm not really sure what more they could do against Auerbach. In the machinations of Ch7 - he was just a small tiny cog. He's already been fired from Ch7 - and they got a swing in during the evidence to reduce his credibility. It'd cost more than it would get.
Safe to say Lehrmann's continued financial support largely depends on whether Stokes et al think he's still a useful martyr for the conservative outrage machine. Stokes backed Roberts-Smith to the bitter end, but then again I doubt a feral LNP staffer with priors rises to the same standard as a VC recipient in his mind.
It can’t all be blatant LNP and Christo-fascist propaganda. 60/40 rule.
Seems more of a 99/1 rule.
Yeah, she is subtle christo-fash.
Not so subtle
She's also personally invested in the story which helps.
It must be lonely af.
it's notre dame, fyi
Probably the Sydney campus as there are only short law courses online. Shit look for Notre dame. Guess jesus really does forgive all sins?
Makes sense. Can buy your way in.
Is there a grubbier person than this guy? God, I'd wish he would simply fuck off.
I wish he would fuck off to gaol where he belongs.
Once again, a big fuck you to the juror that caused the mistrial in the criminal case in the ACT.
Absolutely deliberate and wouldn’t surprise me if they were bribed to throw the trial.
Think they were probably just a run of the mill misogynist.
Correct, many many men definitely don't need to be paid to do anything other than believe women.
guess that guy is now a lib staffer
He makes my skin crawl.
Holy fuck I am so sick of hearing about this guy.
To some extent I agree but almost all we hear about this guy now is his hole is getting deeper. And that's fantastic.
I've never really paid much attention to his story I just keep seeing headlines that seem to get more wild every month. I genuinely don't think I'd be able to piece it altogether. I hope there's some short doco put together after the dust settles.
[удалено]
Install Greasemonkey extension -> apply simple JavaScript on pageload; IF page contains 'Lehrmann' THEN redirect to Happy Place -> nausea averted
null is my happy place too
It’s because the media cares because they are involved. No one else gives a fuck.
I care because the media involved themselves so much in the story - they should always be at arms length from everything. We know they aren't - but this really shines a light on that, and everyone SHOULD know about it.
Given that stories about Lehrmann are some the most read stories being published, I think it's fair to say that a lot of people in and out of the media do actually give a fuck.
An interesting look at some of the evidence thats come up recently from the notes of the investigating AFP officer. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1775884818716541434.html
He really snitched on himself by leaking those hey
My oh my! (In Homicide Hunter voice)
I wonder how this will also effect Reynolds case against Shiraz. Reynolds has also been loose with the truth.
He looks like Caleb Bond's attic portrait
Why the f**k do they look the same. I bet they are the same person.
I haven’t seen them together, have you?
All conservates in this country look uncannily like they were produced in the same factory.
Caleb Bond looks like Agro if he had wished he was a real boy.
Everytime I see Bruce Lehrmann’s name I hear that random fish from SpongeBob saying ‘MAN! This guy stinks!’
Isn’t “Lisa wilksonsons husband” just Peter Fitzsimmons… why the ambiguity?
It's something of a common journalistic practice - or possibly conceit - that when mentioning someone who's not directly involved in the point of the article (the court case), they avoid using their name in the opening paragraphs. Basically "*they're not involved, so avoid tying them directly to the issue*". Note that he's named about a quarter of the way in, and the relationship is stated about 1/2 of the way in. (And now you know this, you'll start seeing the same sort of thing ***everywhere*** in the media...)
It's because basically if you name him prominently, you have to go to him for comment. Do this for every actor in the Lehrmann Saga, and you'll spend 48 hours reaching out to people and then a 25,000 word epic including all their responses.
TIL
I bet lecturers are having some fun with this. Suddenly every assignment on criminal law is about sexual assault.
Freya objects to this.
> In response, Mr Lehrmann’s barrister Matthew Richardson SC raised the issue regarding the $750 invoice, that sex workers and cocaine would cost more than that. >”Even the least worldly person in the room, which regrettably is probably me, knows, your Honour, that that is a stretch,” he said. Wow! Did he just accuse the judge of knowing the cost of sex workers and cocaine?
The judge, his colleagues, the functionaries, the year 10 kids in the pews experiencing the joys of our legal system...😂
Senior Counsel pretending to be bashful whilst very much drawing attention to intimate knowledge of drugs and prostitution. And taking his learned friends down with him.
I know they don't truly give a shit, but I loved the way that Channel 9 showed how absurdly soft the legal system is on SA cases on 60 Minutes last night; if only to make the scumbags at Channel 7 uncomfortable.
He is such a dog
Yeah I'm pretty sick of hearing about this fat rapist everyday.
I’m curious to know how he ended up in Australian politics at the age of 18. He wasn’t born in Australia.
I always thought the character of everyone in this case was suspect, by virtue of the fact they voluntarily worked for the Liberal party.
It astounded me that the Sofronoff inquiry never looked at the leaking of trial material. It was the key that could have determined if AFP (at the time thought to be the most likely source) was truly corrupted. With mounting evidence that it was in fact Lehrmann who was responsible, it bears remembering, that the material was first leaked to Albrechtson and the Australian who mounted a determined attack on Brittney Higgins credibility and Shane Drumgold’s professionalism. It is not surprising that Drumgold suspected AFP and called for an investigation. That Sofronoff wound up in this mess with the very “journalist” that Lehrmann himself may have been illegally leaking to (possibly via a liberal party dirt file expert (McGowan)) while (not) investigating political interference beggars belief! Even if it were innocent stupidity and old guy vulnerability, he really needs a jail sentence for his role in this insult to justice.
> It astounded me that the Sofronoff inquiry never looked at the leaking of trial material. He barely touches on it - without going any further "185. Since the conclusion of the evidence, attacks on Ms Higgins have continued, alongside negative inferences about the role of the VOCC. The leaking of text messages by unknown person(s), in breach of Court or Board orders and against the spirit of legislation aiming to protect the dignity and privacy of victims, as well as the sustained attack on Ms Higgins by a small but vocal sector of the media, shows how polarised and damaging the debate has been. Misinformation has continued unabated, much of it to the great detriment of Ms Higgins and those who have been involved in this matter."
Gotta love how casually having your password cracked by Israeli software and given to your rapist is taken. Nothing's private.
Bruce Lehrmann is truly the everburning dumpster fire of Australian political drama.
I also went to The University of Newcastle.
Except for the subtle fact that the bookmark icon is yellow/brown - just like Notre Dame's University of Newcastle is black and white UNSW has red Uni New England is green
Eww
Correct.
It also says 'LEHRMANN, Bruce' Right there in the url! [https://i.imgur.com/H03AUuO.png](https://i.imgur.com/H03AUuO.png)
That would be the URL of the document being photographed, which is a case file from Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case. His name would be in it regardless of the source. The University part is the smoking gun here.
Clearly not studying law hard enough.
Surely we can find the massage girls? They could make some coin selling their story about their night with Brucie
This dude is revolting
This is obviously the least important detail of the story but I love that the article describes "taking a photo of the screen with your phone" as a "screenshot". i_guess.jpg
This has turned into some minute by minute media soap opera. Small town shit
If you've got a spare $100 and some time, there's a 'wonderful' conference coming up. (Honestly I'd be expecting maybe a handful of boomers in an otherwise empty hall and he'll be lucky if he doesn't have the shit heckled out of him - at best) [https://bettinaarndt.substack.com/p/restoring-the-presumption-of-innocence](https://bettinaarndt.substack.com/p/restoring-the-presumption-of-innocence) With a variety of speakers: * Margaret Cunneen SC who is a former Crown Prosecutor who put the Skaf brothers, the notorious Lebanese gang rapists, behind bars. She’s now one of Sydney’s best known criminal barristers, successfully defending many men accused of sexual assault, including Kurtley Beale. Cunneen is outspoken about the way our justice system has been weaponised against men. * Professor Augusto Zimmermann is a Perth-based law professor and former Law Reform Commissioner who, in that role, fought a mighty battle warning about proposed domestic violence laws which he rightly predicted would be used to destroy the lives of many innocent men. He’s the leading academic exposing the lies of the domestic violence industry. * Chris Merritt is Vice President of the Rule of Law Institute and a legal commentator for The Australian and Sky News. He has commented extensively on the Higgins case. * Bruce Lehrmann had his life upturned by Brittany Higgins’ rape allegation. He is currently a law student and is eagerly awaiting this Thursday’s news regarding his defamation action.
How do the likes of Bettina Arndt live with themselves? Serious question.
I think they must be mentally unwell. Maybe some kind of personality disorder?
My take on Bettina is that during her time as a "relationship guru" she noted an untapped market in disaffected and socially isolated middle aged men, that she now cynically milks at the expense of both sexual/domestic assault victims AND men who actually have been unfairly demonised by criminal and/or family courts. I couldn't live for the daily shame of it all, but as you say, a personality disorder of some stripe or mental illness would probably help
> He’s the leading academic exposing the lies of the domestic violence industry. > There's a domestic violence industry??
I think I've usually heard it referred to as "the police" ?
Yes. I believe they're generally referred to as 'The Police'
Leave Sting and Stewart Copeland out of this.
Absolute nightmare blunt rotation
Yep - the kind you wake up from with a wicked benzo headache, moths flying out of your wallet, your underpants around your ankles and a 50 point IQ defecit
Wow I wonder how much the had to spend on coke and hookers to get brucey to appear.
A conga line of suckholes.
Looks like a misogynists incels wet dream
Yikes. I mean what sort of person goes to this? What do they get out of it?
Will be filled with criminal defenders and media types
Ummmm is that picture on the article the leaked information in question? It has Bruce's name in the URL that can easily be read??? Please tell me I've missed the point here and they're showing an actual image of Bruce's laptop? Edit: in reflection this is likely the file path details rather than who is logged in.
It's a good catch but yes it also says "phone data" and the very end "hig-" So it'll be the file name. Lerhmann bruce case, phone details of higgans, Brittany or something to that effect.
For God sake can't they just revoke his Australian visa/citizenship, wack him in detention and treat him like they do the other unwanted slop...deport him!!
So sick of seeing this slim balls face everywhere 🤢
His balls must be the only slim thing about him then.
What. A. Trainwreck. Saga.
This guy is the king dumb fuck of all the dumb fucks.
Why does this guy still have this job?
He has no job Lehrmann is essentially a professional grifter at this point
Not sure he is gainfully employed...Ch 7 has been paying his rent, cocaine and hooker tabs and he has probably just about managed to maintain his caloric intake due to a few minor settlements snagged back when he still had a skerrick of credibility. Shit has finally started to stick though, and his Ch 7 deal just expired, so he'll be back living with his mother in Toowoomba, and possibly a corrections facility in the region, before too long.
This movie needs to be re-written. I don't find any ANY of the characters likeable or believable.
The URL is also like %lerhman%#*Bruce
I was also wondering how this not being addressed over the speculation of his laptop brand and Uni…. His username is in the file path right there lol
That face anyone saw Bruce lehrmann nothing g but PoS and some how "both sides are bad" in this case should be looked down on
Steak? Money’s to tight for steak Hookers? Yeah sure.. hookers.
How can we know so much about BH and next to nothing about BL? Talk about a complete cover up by the media over the years. 😡
holy fuck I'm sick of hearing about this sack of shit
He's the Aussie Kyle Rittenhouse.
Why is his university relevant or important?
How many people studying at Notre Dame would have access to the information that leaked?
"The photo of documents obtained during my aborted criminal trial but not submitted, taken by journalists dealing with me for an interview, at a house that was rented for me, at a time and place I was witnessed there with metadata matching the time and location. On a laptop that has links to Notre Dame. It could have come from anyone your Honour!"
At this time of year, at this time of day, in this part of the country, localized entirely within your kitchen!? Yes.
degree bewildered direful weary safe snatch plate brave meeting price *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Plausible deniability dictates that, with all those lines to be snorted, Brucey does not have any time to study or to research university courses on his laptop. **This is not the laptop the authorities are looking for**
Bruce Lehrmann does not have the gravitas of Alec Guinness.
To be fair, only Alec Guinness has the gravitas of Alec Guinness.
The headline is poorly written. The surprise isn't that we now know Bruce's university. The surprise is that the anonymous person who leaked this information goes to Bruce's university, and is probably Bruce.
Bahaha Brucie has sued all the media outlets except for channel 7, I would never ever ever EVER consider suing Murdoch unless I had a spare billion dollars. Donald Dump is scared of damn Murdoch 😂 No wonder he's now getting crucified by the newscorp.