What Bruce Lehrmann's failed defamation case means | The Daily Aus
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 เม.ย. 2024
- Bruce Lehrmann has lost his defamation case. What does that mean?
Yesterday, Justice Michael Lee handed down his judgement in the defamation case Bruce Lehrmann brought against journalist Lisa Wilkinson and Network Ten, finding that it was more likely than not Lehrmann raped fellow Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins in 2019 and therefore wasn’t defamed. In today's deep dive, we'll explain the outcome and what Bruce Lehrmann's failed defamation case means.
Remember you can always call 1800 RESPECT on 1800 737 732.
Subscribe ► bit.ly/3l6IFpt
Website ► thedailyaus.com.au
Facebook ► thedailyaus
Instagram ► / thedailyaus
Twitter ► / thedailyaus
TikTok ► / thedailyaus
#thedailyaus #news #breakingnews #lehrmann
He lost the defamation case and is has now been defamed himself
Burden of proof means who has the onus to lead evidence in a trial. Standard of proof means the threshold in which the evidence would need to meet to convince a judge or jury to decide in favour of one position to the exclusion of the other. The civil standard of balance of probabilities is not very well understood and your description of it as 51% is trivialising this legal concept.
Shadow of a Doubt. ??
The allegations were not sustainable..
Btw she seemed 2b able 2walk properly 2her boss's office,fine without assistance?!!lnfact she looks like ahe was skipping with enthusiasm?!!Just sayin,infact in her own words(not wearing any nickers)
I don’t really get the difference between burdens of proof in this case whether it was civil or criminal. I’m sure the judge believes without a doubt in his findings, and the case had witnesses and evidence, what more could be presented in a criminal trial? The only difference for me is that Lerhmann was cross examined which wouldn’t happen in a criminal trial so to me it’s more evidence.
He might just want 2clear his name,rightfully so(if he's innocent)Besides according 2Ms Reynolds,she saw:Higgins wearing the same dress the foll.week?!!One would think after a"truamatic"event(u would want 2say(burn it)or save it 4evidence of proof(like a famous)intern did 2prove wht happened 2her?!!Consent or no
Lisa Wilkinson was sacked by channel 10. She will never ever host a show on Australian Tv ever again.
She was never sacked. Still on multi million dollar contract with Channel 10 who also paid her legal costs.
@@multioptioned She was under contract so Ten continue to pay her in full. They took her off TV though. She lied and said it was her choice LOL because of the Toxicity from other Media outlets. Every media outlet criticized her speech at the Logies including the ABC'S Media watch I urge you to watch that masterpiece. She was taken off TV against her will. Because 10 are very aware that she is disliked by the vast majority of Australians. You will never ever see this extreme feminist on TV ever again.
LOL. How does that work? Without a single shred of corroborating evidence and based on the words of a proven liar, on the balance of probability, I find Lehrmann guilty of rape. LOL. Since when does dismissing a defamation case convert to guilt? LOL. Defamation cases and criminal cases are very different. In a defamation case, the focus is on the harm caused by the publication of the allegation, not whether the alleged crime itself ultimately occurred. Lehrmann was never found guilty of rape in a criminal court. So, how can this judge get away with slandering Lehrmann of a crime, when he hasn't even been convicted of that crime?
higher powers at play here. like the un
Considering he is now unofficially a rapist Lehrmann got a pretty good deal so far don't you think ? No jail-time, Free housing and probably hundreds of thousands of dollars in financial compensation over many years. There was no harm caused to Lehrmann and his cries about his public image are shameful throughout this trial while he lives in his ivory tower rent-free. Lehrmann got the better end of the deal considering he is the main suspected perpetrator of the crime. Its not slander otherwise he would have won and be seen as innocent. So don't forget Lehrmann was not found to be innocent he still remains and is officially a suspected rapist.
Already talk of changing the defamation laws in Australia after this farcical case. Judge basically said Brittany lied but Channel 10 wins on "truth" defence because he believes Bruce told more lies....😮
App some1 said,why would some1do wouldn't that b like doing something 2a log?!!Btw it would quite diff.2remove her dress?!!Could it be,she thought he was coming back n fell asleep instead?!!lf she was drunk then why did she follow him back 2office???Also the security,she didn't see her in distress!!!But was embarrassed that she woke up that way;)Still innocent till proven guilty!Yeah*
Also in her own words,she found chocolates in her boss's pantry;)Then helped herself 2her boss's jacket,til this day😅
She also wore the white dress 2her boss's birthday
lmagine being allegedly raped in that dress,then wore it again???Did she hav fond memories of that dress???Yeah
Said in court her dress was only pushed up. That means she removed it herself afterwards.
@chrislim7615 imagine going for coffee and exchanging emails with your attacker the next work day? Maybe get some medical attention instead?
Judge was bias in my opinion
He was never going to award Bruce Lehrmann any money from day 1, regardless of the "evidence". Admitted if Bruce Lehrmann won he would have awarded only a token $20,000. Brittany Higgins lied and made millions.
This is a very foolish finding. It is clear that Higgins went with him to Parliament House of her own volition.
They did not go their to practice yoga
Thus she gave consent and there could be no rape. Lee is a fool