• Stern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    15 days ago

    What an absolute child. I’d have left something electronic and spendy in the bag just to get them on criminal charges. FAFO

  • sqgl@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    She could have just denied it was her in the video. It is impossible to prove if someone denies it.

    In Australia my friend identified a woman appearing clearly in a TV news bulletin being arrested at an anti-lockdown rally and complaining loudly. In fact it was official supplementary extended footage from the TV station uploaded to youtube: about 20 seconds of just her.

    She is denying it was her though and is suing him for defamation. It has cost him over US$100 US$100k so far and the hearing day has not even arrived.

    • gila@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      We have pretty strong courts though and if she loses the judgement she’ll likely be ordered to pay your friends’ costs.

      • sqgl@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        I meant $100k (not $100). I doubt he will get costs even if he wins. She also got an AVO out against him based on this. Claims it has ruined her business (she wants $100k for lost revenue despite not showing tax returns) and that she fears for her life complete with waterworks in the hearing (despite him living interstate).

        The current political climate is biased in her favour. After the Higgins trial win Larissa Waters tweeted “I believe women”.

        He subpoenaed mug shots of the women arrested at the rally but none are of her. Seems the police are in on it, using her as a honeypot to attract the extremists. Courts protect police.

        • gila@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Dodgy tactics like that are why it matters that our courts are strong: it’s not going to matter that she got an AVO out because if they didn’t have a history of conflict prior to his genuine identification of her in the video, it’s not relevant to the defamation case and won’t hold up in court.

          Whether it’s technically possible to prove it’s her in the video isn’t materially relevant to a defamation case if it’s obvious to the average observer that it’s her. If she prove it wasn’t her, she’d need to prove his identification of her was intentionally malicious to win a defamation claim against him.

          The idea that the Lehrmann trial indicates the courts are generally biased toward women is a couple bridges too far. Larissa Waters believes women in regards to their allegations of sexual assault against them where alleged male perpetrator denies it and where there isn’t a sufficient body of contradictory evidence. She isn’t saying she generally believes women about any and every grievance they may have, especially not having awareness spread about a crime they genuinely committed.