philperth2010 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2021 at 4:40pm:



All the signs are there that sexual intercourse took place. Was it consensual? Could Higgins give informed consent given she was drunk?  The waters have been well and truly muddied, in no small part due to the incompetence of the security personnel, as evidenced by the statement this woman made to the press.

Belgarion wrote on Aug 9^th, 2021 at 4:51pm:


The bloke denies any sexual activity took place....He is going to have a hard time explaining why Ms Higgins was naked when he left after an hour???

Quote:


https://www.9news.com.au/national/man-accused-of-sexual-assault-at-parliament-ho...

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2021 at 4:40pm:


How do you know HE left her naked?  She wasn't seen naked until much later, and then the stories contradict... one said partially, another said fully.

Belgarion got it right... the waters are way too muddied now, starting with the incompetent security staff, who may very well have jumped in to standard operating procedure in muddying the waters from Moment One, or been ordered to.

I still say this dopey sheila was put up to this interview, which is out of bounds itself, in order to do just that.

Parliamentary rank hath its privileges... one of which is to be protected by those who are on the periphery and whose very jobs depend on their doing this religiously.  This whole joint needs a thorough cleansing, not just the Minister's couch...

'If A discovers evidence at the scene and D, a police expert, wishes to attest to its significance at trial, he may do so only if A, B and C all give evidence that establishes an unbroken chain of possession.  Should they fail to do so, the evidence may be excluded.  This rule may seem inflexible, but it owes it existence to the realistic fear that police may in some instances deliberately fabricate or unwittingly fail to safeguard evidence to the detriment of the defendant's rights'.  -  Mark Lane, 'Rush to Judgement'.

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2021 at 7:18pm:


As usual, you get it totally wrong - you have no way of knowing he undressed her or how it happened, and one report said partly undressed, another naked.

I'm defending nobody, just the rule that requires factual evidence and not just assertions.

What if she took off her gear to have a doze?  Do YOU actually know? No - You Don't!  Same as you have no way of knowing if any sex took place at all.  The evidence physical is just not there, got that?

Put up or shut up ...

Nothing I say is bullshit, sonny... you, on the other hand, rave on...

That 'guard' should never have spoken at an interview, and could not do so without permission and certainly not in uniform while speaking as a private citizen, which is all she could be without official permission to speak about a matter that most likely would be under investigation .... that in itself raises questions to anyone who knows anything, which clearly is not the forte of those over West.

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 10^th, 2021 at 6:05pm:


You don't understand the simple difference between stating facts and defending someone.

The moment you say 'alleged' everyone has the absolute right to state facts about the matter.  Got that?  Even a conviction does not necessarily mean the person is guilty.

You'd make a great Nazi.  Try discussing the issues here and not attacking the poster.... and get off that sh1t.

Police and prosecutors always want to make a case, assuming, as has been the case for decades now, that the accusation itself will prejudice the outcome in their favour.  One clear reason for a massive overhaul of our courts.

They will try to make a case, and it is the right of the defence to put another scenario, in any 'popular' cause allegation - look at Rod Batterham - two years on remand and then found not guilty.

How would you like to spend two years of your life in fear and uncertainty because some dickweed wants to put on a show to please an audience over some trendy issue, such as a Black criminal or a woman with drunken claims?

How about you put up and SHOW the proof absolute that he had sex with her.  You can't - so shut up and wait for the trial, and in the meantime let the adults do the talking.

Ye grappler has the right of it.  Pointing out the way the law works is not defending rapists.

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/b7f99a3a-7a3c-44a6-a1a9-6662b38fe2e7

.. and you called me a defender of alleged rapists for stating the facts  - I said you would make a great Nazi given your propensity to condemn anyone on accusation and to throw away the rule of law to get what you think is right...

You ain't nuthin' but a smart mouthed, stupid-ass, swamp-runnin' Niqqer...

You have no idea of the very vast difference between a charge and a conviction to the proper standard.  Haven't you ever heard of Inspector Bias?  Sets out to make a case and ensure all the 'evidence' points one way, and doesn't look at anything else?

That's you....

I ask you again - where is the Proof Positive that he even had sex with her?  Did she immediately report it?  Did she go to a medical facility for a swab?  Was there ever any physical evidence of sexual intercourse that was recorded?  Did the security staff even smell raunch?  did they even say there was a distinctive smell in the room?

Or did she wait for days and weeks to make any complaint?

Sounds like Jarryd Hayne - days/weeks later the 'victim' saw a a doctor who said the scratch on her vagina might have been a bite mark.

Who in the name of god bites pussy??

Get with it, boy Nazi in waiting....... talk about slow and way behind....

Sometimes, like John Smith and a few others, you make a valid point... stick to what you actually know instead of spouting off, you smart mouthed, stupid-ass, swamp-runnin' Niqqer...