Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (8)
Brittany Higgins and her swain — or is that svengali? — David Sharaz made quite the spectacle when they headed to the airport and a flight to their new lives in a quaint French village. All in white like overgrown First Communicants, they appear to believe they were making some sort of pointed political statement, perhaps about suffrage or sexism or — who will ever know? — the value placed on clean underwear by those disinclined to shed the scanties for a night of schmoozing and boozing.
But that wasn’t the only curiosity about a departure that came as the Lehrmann v. Channel 10/Lisa Wilkinson hearings were coming to an end. Surely, as two of the prime characters in that strange and convoluted saga, they would wish to hang around and see justice done? But no, not at all.
As Linda Reynolds pursues her own defamation action against Ms Higgins and seeks to freeze whatever is left of her lightning-fast $2.4 million payout from the Albanese government, the blancmange impersonators jetted off to the wintry village of Lunas, where December daytime temperatures are typically around 11 degrees. Not peak tourist season, in other words, but not, perhaps, without a very specific appeal.
Under French law there can be no …. well, here, read this US State Department brief:
Extradition shall not be granted by France when the offense for which extradition is requested is considered by France as a political offense or as an offense connected with a political offense or as an offense inspired by political motives.
None but Justice Lee can possibly have an inkling how the Lehrmann trial will end, nor whether matters arising from the trial might prompt referrals to police. Some, though, might deem it a comfort to live under the same Gallic laws and attitude towards extradition that have served Roman Polanski so very well for so very long.
–roger franklin
Well put, Roger!
What intrigues me and doubtless many others about this tawdry business is simply (?) to know the truth. But there are too many political fingers in this multi-million dollar scandal for us ever to know.
There is one distinct attribute of ‘the facts’ – the rotten smell of lies and associated political corruption.
Peter Arnold OAM, Sydney
Spot on Peter Arnold. But if the case goes against Ms Wilkinson et al, then the government minister who signed off on the Higgins payout should be required to repay the taxpayer personally and they can seek to regain the money from Ms Higgins. I don’t like their chances, but being out of pocket a couple of million might make an impression on the likes of Senator Gallagher, Senator Wong and former Senator Keneally. Perhaps Kimberly Kitchings husband might sue them since “the mean girls” are alleged to have been a factor in her premature death? One thing is for sure. If the independent Commission against corruption does not look into this saga, they will have made clear early on that their only role is to have a go at any opposition to the ALP and not to actually investigate corruption. Higgins payout sure looks like a services rendered payment to me.
The $2.3 million ex gratia payment made by the Attorney-General Dreyfus stinks to high Heaven. One can only trust that it will be investigated by the new federal ICAC. And we don’t yet know on what written legal advice, nod or wink that vast payment was based. We all know no government ever parts with money easily, and, when it’s that much, never without considered legal advice. Can’t wait to read it. That is, if such advice exists. Interesting interrogatories coming up for the Attorney-General from the Commissioner Brereton and his team, you’d think. Who knows what evidence will be destroyed before the federal ICAC calls for it. Wonderful things, paper shredders! Methinks I can hear them working overtime in the nation’s capital now.
Has any media outlet commented on the effect of s44 Safety Rehabilitation & Compensation Act 1988 ? On its face that section ( and s45) would have prevented Brittany Higgins claiming more than $110,000 in any proceeding. Perhaps this issue has been explained and I’ve missed it??
One wonders what happened to the fur baby.
Did he stay?
Did he like Australia so much he wanted to stay so they let him stay?
Did he choose to go?
Will he join a French commune and later be found wandering in the Alps?
Will he be desexed and live a long and happy life?
Clear human interest story here.
The script, with some imagination and a dog whisperer could write itself.
Lets see what Channel 10 does with the next program to cap things off.
I thought the performances of Llewelyn and Wilkinson were entertaining.
Obviously, neither of them is stupid, but each gave some extremely unlikely answers under the blow torch of cross-examination. In respect to credibility, both were decapitated so cleanly that the head of each was still perilously balanced on top of their necks. I was relieved that neither of them rushed from the courtroom at the end of the grilling; any haste may have seen the heads fall off and viewers might have suffered the unseeable spectacle of Lisa chasing her noggin around the courtroom floor.
My prediction is that the court will find that they had sex but it will not make a rape finding.
I also think that neither defence will be upheld.
This would leave the judge an enviable task: to determine how much money should be awarded to a man whose evidence throughout both trials, that no sex at all occurred, is at odds with the main factual finding.
‘My prediction is that the court will find that they had sex but it will not make a rape finding.’
The problem with this conclusion is that the accuser could easily have nailed the accused simply by having a dna test done to the dress and other forensic examinations.
However she, a smart highly educated person,adviser to a cabinet minister, capable of writing competently and moving crowds, actually kept the dress and eventually washed it without simply having it examined to prove her case.
The only other forensic evidence was a bruise with timeline metadata removed and other data from her phone lost when it died, which would allow a time line,yet this bruise photo survived.
In evidence before the court, the accused denied any sexual contact without knowing if the dress or the accuser had been forensically examined.
If he had known anything about the dress, he would merely have said their intercourse was consensual,to cover all bases.
Surely he must know about rape kits and forensics.