I mean, this just supports my previous point that the interview should not have won.
Anybody knows if there’s a pending trial, particularly if you will be involved in that trial, that you answer to any questions should be ‘no comment’. The interview should never have been nominated, it should have never won, and Lisa should never have given that speech.
She has a lot to answer for, and frankly, should know better.
I hope someone really gets to the bottom of the ramifications of the speech… and gets nominated for the Outstanding News Coverage Logie for next year.
It would seem Lisa was trying to make it all about herself and have her moment of glory.
You could forgive her if she gave an impromptu speech and slipped up, but she was reading a pre-written speech that she had checked and was told not to deliver.
We don’t know that it was the same speech. Also, I’d be very surprised if a legal eye didn’t run their eye over that speech. Hence, the script.
The accused will always contest on the grounds of publicity and media scrutiny.
To play the devils advocate here I feel like Lisa might have been off the cuff a bit and wanted to say something profound instead of just saying thanks but she didn’t really mention any more than what’s already been mentioned but this was more on a public scale cause the courts think all of Australia watch the Logies? 
The news report I saw said she sought legal advice on her speech and was told not to deliver it, but she did anyway.
Wow. Who is this person? I absolutely loved her on Today and thought her and Karl would be the Today team for another 15/20 years but since leaving she’s just changed so much. I’ve never known her to be so outspoken and outraged. She’s way too close to the Brittany Higgins case. It’s night and day clear that she needs to step back.
Let’s not forget that the person who suffers here is Brittany Higgins. She now has an indefinite wait for her trial to begin.
Lisa would now regret her speech - and therefore should not have made it.
I think Lisa’s credibility is definitely in question here, regardless of the outcome of the trial. Any journalist of Lisa’s seniority should have known what she was doing was going to end badly.
In a meeting with the DPP, about her status as a witness, Wilkinson queried about her upcoming speech. They never listened or read it, only warned Lisa anything she says could be used in a bid for stay by the accused.
The judge’s concerns around Wilkinson was her status as a witness and how Higgins’s credibility was portrayed in the Logies speech. The criticism for the lack of use of “allegedly” was directed at Amanda Keller and Brendan Jones in discussing the matter on radio the following morning.
That’s not necessarily Jonesy & Amanda’s fault either. All of this comes back to The Project and Lisa Wilkinson. As a guest on their radio program, and as an advocate pioneering Brittany’s cause, and as a witness in the trial, Lisa should have made it clear what was off limits. It appears as though Lisa was more concerned with doing the publicity rounds rather than the impact she was having.
She was either oblivious to it or didn’t care. Or both.
What I heard was that they did read it; just saying what I heard reported.
Does anyone else get the feeling there was a lot of animosity towards Lisa because she was hired on a fat contract to work at an operation that has a history of regular cutbacks and staff redundancies?
Yes and Tim was made redundant and is bitter and angry and it’s sad.
Tim isn’t the only vocal critic. There’s a lot of people commenting on it, apparently this includes Sandra Sully liking a tweet critical of Lisa.
The Logies, Lisa and Channel 10 should all be held accountable.
I listened to Lisa’s speech and forgot that this man is yet to be found guilty. It wasn’t until afterwards that I remembered that this hasn’t gone to court yet. Tipping many people may have also thought the same way.
ACT Chief Justice Lucy McCallum told the court she had “robbed Peter to pay Paul” to ensure the trial would go ahead this year, listing October 4 as the new court date.
Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold revealed he had received a letter from Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson offering to take an undertaking to the ACT Supreme Court not to engage in any further commentary on Ms Higgins or the accused.
“That letter is useful,” he told the court.
Similar undertakings had also been sought from Australian Radio Network, which broadcasts Amanda and Jonsey on WSFM.
…Mr Drumgold said there were no grounds for him to seek an injunction against Ms Wilkinson, Amanda Kelleher and Brendan Jones.
The chief justice said injunctions could be sought through the court if the media outlets were not forthcoming.
Mr Drumgold said he had undertaken to request a number of authors including news.com.au‘s Samantha Maiden, The Sydney Morning Herald’s Niki Savva and Channel 10’s Peter van Onselen not to publish books that may touch on the matters before the trial before it has concluded.
It was Sandra’s carpark that Tim Bailey’s hashtag was referring to so not surprising if Sandra isn’t Wilkinson’s biggest fan.
The TVBlackbox article has more information on this incident. Apparently Wilkinson was parking in Sully’s car spot and even after being informed by management that it was Sully’s spot Lisa continued to park there.
This incident is when people at 10 started seeing Lisa in different light.
How extremely rude, disrespectful and arrogant of Lisa.
This story could be complete bullshit, and probably is.
