Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case has crumbled after he was forced to confess in the witness box to lying to the Australian Federal Police and confessing that he instructed his barrister Steve Whybrow to lie to the jury and judge during his rape trial.
Of course, Lehrmann says he didn’t do it knowingly but that doesn’t stack up against the evidence.
What is also dynamite is based on evidence tendered in court on Friday (24/11/23), it now looks like the Australian Federal Police withheld photographic evidence at last year’s rape trial to protect Bruce Lehrmann. One of those pictures is below.
If you don’t know the background to the Brittany Higgins – Bruce Lehrmann alleged parliament house rape you can read the background on Wikipedia by clicking here.
Bruce Lehrmann’s alibi is coming unstuck and why he made up 2 different alibis
Bruce Lehrmann’s alibi that he is sticking to is the one he gave to the Australian Federal Police at an interview in Sydney on the 19th of April 2021.
Lehrmann claims that he did not rape Brittany Higgins in the early hours of the morning of the 24th of March 2019 at Parliament House because he went back to parliament house to collect his keys and then worked on a question time brief for about 40 minutes. He says he then left the office via the back entrance and did not see Brittany Higgins again after they had entered the office about 40 minutes earlier.
But a big problem for the alibi Lehrmann gave the AFP is that a few days after the alleged rape in March 2019 Lehrmann told Senator Linda Reynolds’s chief of staff Fiona Brown that he went back to the Parliament House office to drink his whisky. And the AFP asked Lehrmann about the 2 different alibis when they interviewed him in April 2021, so Lehrmann told the AFP he didn’t have any alcohol at the office and he didn’t drink at the office which were proven to be lies in court on Friday.
On Friday 2 pictures from Bruce Lehrmann’s mobile phone were tendered as evidence which showed alcohol such as whisky on his desk which forced Lehrmann to admit he was lying about not having alcohol in the office. The first picture with bottles of whisky (exhibit 29) was from his old office and hasn’t been published on the court’s website yet. Lehrmann was also forced to admit he had whisky in a box under his desk in the new office where the alleged rape took place.
The first picture below is exhibit 30 that has been published on the courts website and was tendered in court of Friday. It was taken on the 12th of March 2019 as per the date on the computer screen on the left. Picture 2 is a crop of the top left of the first picture which shows alcohol on the shelf.
One bottle seems to be TAGAI wine as per below. Lehrmann admitted in the stand on Friday that it was alcohol of some sort.
On Friday giving evidence Lehrmann went from having no alcohol in the office to then only having alcohol in the old office to then also having alcohol in the new office. Lehrmann’s answers in the witness box on the same issue were like a ball in a pinball machine, his answers just kept on bouncing around everywhere chopping and changing until he was boxed in and it was game over.
The “I went back to the Parliament House office to drink whisky” lie
In March 2019 Bruce Lehrmann was interviewed by Linda Reynolds’s chief of staff Fiona Brown about why he breached security and went back to the office early in the morning of Saturday the 24th of March 2019. Lehrmann had no excuse and he told Fiona Brown he went back to the office to “drink his whisky”.
If Lehrmann had gone to the office to pick up his keys and then did some work on a question time brief, like he told the AFP in 2021, that is what he would have told Fiona Brown, but Lehrmann couldn’t tell Ms Brown that lie because she could have checked on the spot what work he had done. But the lie of “drinking whisky” was good enough at the time for what Lehrmann wanted to achieve and that was covering up what really happened.
But the problem for Lehrmann was that 2 years later when he is being interviewed by the federal police about the alleged rape the lie of going back to the office to “drink whisky” was not a good alibi for an alleged rape. In fact. it was a shockingly bad alibi and almost a confession if it had gone before a jury.
So, Lehrmann made up his new alibi for the AFP of needing to pick up his house keys and then doing work at the office for 40 minutes which is still a bad alibi but better than the “drinking whisky” alibi.
And when police raised the 2 different alibis Lehrmann just told a bald-faced lie that he didn’t have alcohol in the office, and he didn’t drink in the office. Lehrmann knew if he didn’t tell that lie then the police, and later a jury, would wonder why Lehrmann gave 2 different alibis and suspect both were lies to cover-up the truth.
Misleading the jury and judge at the 2022 rape trial
At Bruce Lehrmann’s rape trial in 2022 the court and jury were shown the video of Bruce Lehrmann’s interview with the AFP in April 2021 where Lehrmann lied to the police about not having alcohol in the office. Lehrmann never gave evidence at the rape trial so the police interview was important.
But at the rape trial in 2022 Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister told the judge and jury that everything that Bruce Lehrmann said in the interview with the AFP was true.
The barrister representing Channel 10 Dr Matthew Collins AM KC, after getting Bruce Lehrmann to admit that he did have alcohol in the office in 2019 when the alleged rape took place, asked Bruce Lehrmann if he instructed his barrister at the rape trial to inform the court and jury via his submissions that everything he told the AFP in his interview was true. Lehrmann admitted that he did instruct his barrister to say that at the trial.
If the jury had known that Lehrmann lied to the AFP about having alcohol in the office it would have damaged his credibility with the jury and it might have led to a guilty verdict.
Did the AFP hide the pictures of alcohol from prosecutor Shane Drumgold at the 2022 rape trial?
I will repeat and summarise some of what I said above here as it reinforces the gravity of what was revealed in court on Friday.
At Bruce Lehrmann’s rape trial last year, the jury and judge heard from Fiona Brown that Bruce Lehrmann told her that he went back to the office to drink whisky the night of the alleged rape.
The jury and judge also watched video of Bruce Lehrmann’s interview with police where he said he did not have alcohol in the office and never drank in the office. Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister in submissions to the jury and judge told them everything Lehrmann told the police was true.
At the end of the trial ACT Chief Justice Lucy McCallum who was the judge for the rape trial then summoned up all the evidence for the jurors to consider. This would have left the jury confused who to believe regarding what Bruce Lehrmann told Fiona Brown and the 2 different alibis.
But we now know after Bruce Lehrmann’s forced admissions in court on Friday that the jury didn’t know Lehrmann had lied to the AFP about having alcohol in the office. And if you think that is bad, well it gets a whole lot worse.
The jury and judge were never shown the photographs of the alcohol on Bruce Lehrmann’s desk that came from Bruce Lehrmann’s mobile phone which proved he was lying about not having alcohol in the office and which forced him to admit his lies on Friday.
If the jury had been shown the photographs, they would have known Bruce Lehrmann was lying and that Fiona Brown was telling the truth regarding Lehrmann telling her he went back to parliament house to drink whisky.
If the jury had been shown the photos it is possible that Bruce Lehrmann could be in jail right now for the rape of Brittany Higgins. Instead, we have a frivolous and vexatious defamation case in court wasting taxpayers money.
So why did ACT Police, who are also Australian Federal Police, not give the photographs to ACT prosecutor Shane Drumgold to show the judge and jury? Shane Drumgold accused the police of helping Bruce Lehrmann avoid conviction and this looks like another example of where they have helped Lehrmann.
Channel 10’s lawyers would have subpoenaed Bruce Lehrmann’s mobile phone data for the defamation trial to get the photographs so you would expect the ACT police would have subpoenaed Bruce Lehrmann’s mobile phone data as well. So where are the same photographs the police had?
Senator Linda Reynolds perjury during the rape trial
The big undoing of Bruce Lehrmann and his supporter Senator Linda Reynolds is their big mouths and the fact they won’t shut up.
Linda Reynolds accidently outed herself for perjury during the rape trial in an interview with Channel 7’s Spotlight show about Bruce Lehrmann. And Lehrmann’s interview with Channel 7’s Spotlight show was raised in court on Friday to show his public lies.
If both Bruce Lehrmann and Linda Reynolds hadn’t lied and deceived the court during the rape trial, would it have changed the result? I think the ACT need another Inquiry.
There were more issues raised during the last few days at the defamation trial but above are the most powerful ones of misleading and lying to the jury and judge at the rape trial, lying to the AFP and why weren’t the photographs tendered as evidence at last year’s rape trial. All the old media either didn’t report what I have written above, or they skimmed over it.
Bruce Lehrmann is back in the witness box on Monday (27/11/23).
One article by True Crime News Weekly and 3 articles by this website were tendered as evidence by Bruce Lehrmann in his defamation case. Click here to read Bruce Lehrmann’s affidavit and he mentions this website’s 3 articles, I published in February 2021 about him, at paragraph 23. I haven’t been requested to give evidence regarding the 3 articles yet, so I don’t think I will be.
Update 26/11/23: I have just published a video on YouTube with further information titled “Bruce Lehrmann’s fatal admission in the witness box that destroys his credibility”. (Click here to watch on YouTube)
Please use Twitter, Facebook, email and the other buttons below and help promote this article.
Kangaroo Court of Australia is an independent website and is reliant on donations to keep publishing so please click on the Patreon button below and support independent journalism.
If you would like to support via PayPal use the button below or for other donation options click here to go to the Donations page.
Thank you for your support.
For the KCA t-shirt shop click here.
Categories: Australian Federal Police
Oh watching Lehrmann squirm on the witness stand has been the highlight of my week.
Lehrmann couldn’t lie straight in bed!!
I mean he claims he lied to Fiona Brown about the real reason he went back to Parliament house because of “her denemour & tone he knew it was a serious matter” so he told her he’d gone back to drink his whiskey rather than tell her what he claims is the truth -that he’d gone back to collect his keys & work on a question time brief -at 1.45am on a Saturday morning.
Dr Collins: “so you thought it would be a better lie to say you’d gone back to drink alcohol?” PMSL.
The fact is, his girlfriend was at home, but he claims it was “a process to access his apartment without his keys” but somehow ringing the intercom at parliament house, providing ID, signing in & going through the metal detectors to get to his office to get his keys was less of a process than ringing his girlfriend to let him in??
The questioning about the sign in log at parliament house was hilarious -why would he deny signing Brittany in? He must’ve known they’d have copies of the sign in log, which according to Dr Collins the handwriting appears identical, and he knew they had the security footage which shows Brittany didn’t sign herself in… I mean why?? WHY would he deny it??
And when asked why he pushed 3 drinks infront of Brittany he replied “to get them away from the edge of the table”
Yet in the footage it appears he pushed them closer to the edge by pushing them infront of Brittany.
Omfg this is just too good -but sadly it’s not a criminal trial.
It has been said by Bruce Lehrmann in court t hat the rreason he also went back to Parliament House was to get his keys was so he did not awaken his girlfriend ,what sort of apartment complex is this? how far did she have to go to open the door,?do you think he would have awoken her when he got into his bed,etc etc etc
Why is it so hard to bring the guilty to justice
Thanks for your work KCA.
The plot thickens as Lehrmann sinks up to his lying neck in it.
And, we would all like to know how he is paying for the barristers if he is unemployed. Or who is paying them!
Where is Lehrmann getting the money to pay for the case? Mark O’Brien lawyers would not be cheap.
All this highlights what is going on behind the scenes
At who s bequest was the alleged rape covered up ?
Seems to have gone to highest law enforcement in the Country as well
Breathtakingly disgusting
I love the piece you have written here
It’s great, isn’t it?
Lehrman never had any qualifications to be a Political Adviser.
Money talks, so I’d expect him to waltz his way out of this Courtroom too.
You’d have to wonder who told the ABC to settle with Lehrmann at the Courtroom door, and what their witnesses thought about that decision?
Yes, last time I looked it was called ‘perjury’ but we all know this self entitled piece of human garbage will get away with it, I bet his parents are real proud, just the mere sight of the grub makes me sick!
Unfortunately perjury is not a problem within the Australian judiciary system, judges get to see the court reporting transcripts before they’re released to make any necessary amendments to suit their cause, confidence in the judiciary system is very low…KCA regularly shows the level of confidence we can have in our legal system…
Of course. He is guilty! He is trying to convince us all he is victim?. I wonder how Brittany has maintained her sanity with all of this grubs denials & aid Of Linda Reynolds is simply appalling! Hope he somehow will be convicted as by all we read he is habitual man of this evil trait towards women!
Thank you so much. I don’t even worry about mainstream lies and distortions anymore…(only to keep an eye on their lies and how they gel with pollies, bureaucrats and the police).
did the afp even bother to check Bruce’s bank accounts? he tendered evidence of only paying $16 in one transaction, yet he somehow forget he brought Brittany to two vodkas and himself three beers over two transactions.
So far, it certainly is not looking good for Lehrmann. If he lies about things like this, the question to ask is what else did he lie about? No doubt those involved in his future Toowoomba rape case will be watching the current defamation case with great interest.
The whole rape cover-up will eventually come undone. There is much more to come. Politicians and police know that a botched attempted cover-up often carries worse consequences than the original offence, so they will scramble to cover their connections. The prompt office cleaning, possibly destroying forensic, should be followed up, who arranged it why and when?
Oh dear … so many confusing questions … to what seems a number of different stories! I can see how it would be difficult to hold the line … indeed any line.
Need to take one step back. Much of these current court proceedings are borne of the initial investigation. How to assist in the initial IMHO, questionable investigation and methodology of this alleged rape?
Thought the AFP might need a refresher and revision course. This might assist. Found in THEIR own resources.
https://www.afp.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-09/AFP_Activity_Book_Colour_Cover_A4.pdf
In the meantime, looking forward to Monday’s continuance.
Good article KCA. Thank You.
Who is paying Bruce Lerhmann’s legal fees?
I think his lawyers are pro bono.
I was astounded that Sofronoff believed Reynolds and Cash over Brittany. Did he come down in the last shower?
Why is Lehrmann allowed in court today (30/11)to watch Higgins get cross examined?
Looks like some pretty unsubtle witness intimidation to me
Yeah, I’ve been horrified at the lack of court protections for Higgins as an alleged victim of crime. Where is the option of testifying via videolink, and why on earth is her testimony being livestreamed on the net? I know she volunteered to testify at this trial, and that she’s the one who chose to be named, but still. It doesn’t send a great message to other rape victims to be seeing her treated like this.
Sure, but she hasn’t really been question about the alleged rape.
The Xexamination has focused on discrepancies in Higgins Evidence and interviews.
Presumably, the plan is to submit that she’s lied about so much other detail that her Rape allegation can’t be believed.
A hint to where it’s all leading is Higgins answer that she doesn’t consider [Reynolds acting Chief Of Staff] Fiona Brown to be ‘a villain’, just someone doing what they’re told.
Would you be able to explain why Lehrmanns lawyer has been allowed to get up in Court and “put to” Higgins she was not actually kissed, was not actually drunk etc when witnesses have turned up to testify that yes, she was kissed by Lehrmann and was shitfaced drunk. These “put to you” type questions appear to be little more than vile bullying. Now that witnesses have confirmed Higgin claims, they also have wasted court time.