Justice Lee said Lehrmann was identified by the Channel 10 interview In his judgment he confirmed both Lehrmann and Higgins had been heavily drinking on the night in question and both were intimate with one another (kissing), at a nightclub before going to Parliament House Everything they did until they opened the Minister’s door they did consensually, but at this point he says Lehrmann only has one thing on his mind. Given they had been intimate at the nightclub, wouldn’t it be fair to suggest at this point Higgins had the exact same thoughts? If not, why not? It would seem sexist if not totally unrealistic to presume Lehrmann had that motivation but Higgins didn’t, given they had both been kissing? Both were in relationships with other people at that time and by going back to the office, didn’t appear to want to go home, where Lehrmann’s partner would be waiting, and Higgins had flatmates who may ask questions about a new man appearing at 1am in their home with her They were both heavily intoxicated and this affects both men and women. It can impair judgement, impair memory, and even cause blackouts. It can affect the individual’s ability to perform sexual activity. In any case when the door closed to the office Justice Lee decided: - sex occurred - Lehrmann is a rapist But I’ll leave you to ponder this, Justice Lee did say both had lied in giving their testimony before the Court. Powerfully, he also said this: 'Only one man and one woman know the truth, with certitude, of what happened'
Justice Lee said Lehrmann was identified by the Channel 10 interview In his judgment he confirmed both Lehrmann and Higgins had been heavily drinking on the night in question and both were intimate with one another (kissing), at a nightclub before going to Parliament House Everything they did until they opened the Minister’s door they did consensually, but at this point he says Lehrmann only has one thing on his mind. Given they had been intimate at the nightclub, wouldn’t it be fair to suggest at this point Higgins had the exact same thoughts? If not, why not? It would seem sexist if not totally unrealistic to presume Lehrmann had that motivation but Higgins didn’t, given they had both been kissing? Both were in relationships with other people at that time and by going back to the office, didn’t appear to want to go home, where Lehrmann’s partner would be waiting, and Higgins had flatmates who may ask questions about a new man appearing at 1am in their home with her They were both heavily intoxicated and this affects both men and women. It can impair judgement, impair memory, and even cause blackouts. It can affect the individual’s ability to perform sexual activity. In any case when the door closed to the office Justice Lee decided: - sex occurred - Lehrmann is a rapist But I’ll leave you to ponder this, Justice Lee did say both had lied in giving their testimony before the Court. Powerfully, he also said this: 'Only one man and one woman know the truth, with certitude, of what happened'
@Lisa9Sophia 'Only one man and one woman know the truth, with certitude, of what happened' - that statement is TRUTH & FACT. What I don't get was Lee then concluded that BL r*ped BH, there's ejaculation. Why did he say that? 🤷 Being a judge doesn't warrant them to make assumptions right??
@PLA786409360035 @Lisa9Sophia There was absolutely no evidence that ejaculation occurred!
@WhosFibbing @PLA786409360035 It all got really weird at that point Like reading a fanciful story that becomes so unlikely you can’t even be bothered finishing it