Bruce Lehrmann Once Again in the Firing Line

In our culture that favors believing the victim, it appears that the truth holds little value. The Australian media went into a frenzy when the legal barriers protecting Bruce Lehrmann from being named as a high-profile man accused of rape in Toowoomba, Queensland, were finally broken. It was disappointing for the Brittany Higgins media supporters when inconsistencies emerged in her story during cross-examination and on Channel 7’s Spotlight program, which revealed her plan to use her rape allegations to bring down the government. Her downfall came when she received up to $3 million in compensation, all funded by taxpayers. Since discovering last year that a Toowoomba woman had raised complaints against Mr. Lehrmann for an alleged sexual assault in October 2021, the media has been hot on the chase. The situation in Toowoomba is astonishingly similar to the Higgins case, with reluctant police, defense lawyers denied key evidence, and pressure applied to key players. The Queensland Labor government, known for its anti-male stance, expedited a new law to name men accused of sexual assault as soon as police pursue charges. However, even before the law was enacted, a legal battle ensued, during which Mr. Lehrmann’s lawyers obtained a temporary order suppressing his identity in the Supreme Court. Every major media company in Australia, except for Channel 7, joined forces to have the order lifted. Interestingly, a Brisbane Magistrate recently ruled that the new law did not apply to a Channel 7 personality facing multiple child sexual offenses, citing the need to protect the woman’s mental health, which was the same reason used to cancel the Higgins trial. The timing of the Toowoomba case is noteworthy. After having an intimate encounter with a man she met at a local nightclub, the woman and Mr. Lehrmann appeared friendly the next morning as they went out for coffee before he drove her home. They exchanged messages for about a week on Snapchat. Six weeks later, the accuser discovered through a Google search that the man she had been with was Bruce Lehrmann, following which she met with a compensation lawyer before reporting the matter to the police. Her story suggests they had sexual intercourse once in the evening and twice the next morning. She claims the first time was consensual, but she awoke the next morning to find he was not using a condom, which is considered sexual assault under new laws unless there’s permission to do so. According to her statement, they had been intimate twice without her granting permission to forgo using a condom. Mr. Lehrmann plans to plead not guilty to these charges. This case has been on the police books since November 2021, with no initial interest from the police in pursuing it. It was only after over a year that the police informed Mr. Lehrmann’s lawyers that they would initiate criminal proceedings against him. Interestingly, this occurred on the same day the Queensland Government released a report criticizing the police’s handling of domestic violence. Various issues have surrounded the complainant’s phone, which the police initially refused to hand over to prosecutors, and later withheld from Mr. Lehrmann’s legal team for over two months while they made their own redactions. The heavily redacted phone records were only provided to Mr. Lehrmann’s lawyers the night before the appeal for the suppression order in the Supreme Court. Two months ago, Commissioner Walter Sofronoff heavily criticized Ms. Higgins’ trial prosecutor for withholding key evidence from the defense. However, it seems that Queensland operates by its own rules. This was evident when Supreme Court Justice Peter Applegarth decided to lift the suppression order, disregarding expert evidence from Mr. Lehrmann’s psychologist regarding potential serious adverse consequences to his mental health. The psychologist highlighted Mr. Lehrmann’s depressed state and suicidal thoughts brought on by the public exposure during the Higgins case, leading to his admission to a mental health facility. Despite this, Justice Applegarth dismissed the psychologist’s assessment based on Mr. Lehrmann’s confident demeanor during the Spotlight interview and made derogatory remarks towards Channel 7. For a judge to disregard the potential impact of another public shaming in the Toowoomba case is extraordinary. Once again, we are witnessing a disgraceful trial by media as details of the case are leaked, many of which contradict the complainant’s own statement to the police. In our culture that favors believing the victim, it seems that truth holds little value. Please note that the views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.



Source link