Again - the original statement said that she woke up with him on top of her.  She did not mention penetration.  The statement tendered to the court said she woke up with him raping her.

This is a simple observation... I am not taking sides here, turkeys.... that's your emotional problems.....

What it comes down to is she says he was on top of her on the couch and she was partially undressed (the security staff say different things at different times - that she was partially clothed and then later totally unclothed) - he is likely to say he did not undress her and he did not penetrate her (for which all evidence was long gone before she entered the police station) - which leaves us with one issue.

Did he sexually assault her by attempting rape while she was near-comatose on the couch... or alternatively - is her recollection wrong in her then state, and did she undress herself and then settle down for a sleep.

The way the evidence was ruined, it is near impossible to say, and I will repeat - partly that is because of the failings of the security staff, whose idea of checking someone comatose was a peek through the door..... and then because of the instant clean-up squad on a Saturday morning steaming the place out to remove any traces.

Higgins herself assisted in this by delaying any report that would have required tests etc.

Now - I'll say again for the narrow-minded and unthinking dorks - if he did the deed he should go down.... but it has to be proven to the proper standard in a proper hearing - not by your stupid and unthinking prejudices and emotional displays of incompetence.

I expect one of the security guards (who, BTW, should not be in the job now) to say he looked slinky as he left alone - and yet they, the SS, did NOT bother to check on the girl he came in with for over two hours, and then via a peek in the door.  So this is bullsh1t to cover their arses.  Clearly they did not think anything was amiss with two people coming into the building on a Friday night/Saturday morning, and only one coming out..... nothing unusual in Canberra  PH!

What if he'd strangled her or something?  What if she died of natural causes and he bolted?  What if she was in a bad way medically and they sat on their arses?  Even drunk she could have choked on her own vomit!!

Clear statement - Far Ken sheilas way over their heads in a job they should not have been in. And their boss?  When called didn't give a rat's for the girl and any possible condition she may have been in.  Just business as normal in the Canberra Bubble.

Anyway - this needs to be properly proven - and not via 'minor' alterations to the original statement.

He reckons he never put it in:

"Mr Lehrmann, who was also a Liberal staffer at the time of the alleged offence,
has pleaded not guilty, and has said he did not have sex with his then colleague Ms Higgins."

Bobby. wrote on Oct 4^th, 2022 at 10:49pm:


There was no substantial evidence.... only verbal..... my thoughts are that the baying of the pack outside will cause the 'judge' or jury to find guilt, which will be overturned on appeal due to lack of substantial corroborating evidence.  That way they will seek to keep all sides happy, but will succeed in keeping none happy.

No matter the outcome of a trial, there will always be doubt...... and if there is doubt a jury cannot find guilt.

Doesn't say they won't.......... but the idea is that the judicial system should remain impartial and above the baying of the pack outside the walls.

Let Right Be Done, Though the Heavens Fall!

Originally Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum - Let JUSTICE Be Done Though The Heavens Fall!  .... but Justice and (doing) Right are defined slightly differently in the West these days, and courts are sworn to Do Right!

Their history in that arena is appalling in this country - but that does not bring into disrepute the basic principle to which they must be restored.....  Let Right Be Done!

There appears to be no viable evidence supporting Higgins's claim
of rape.  After the alleged rape, she failed to report it to the police,
for 5 days, and also failed to get a rape kit performed.  She admitted
she was unconscious during the incident, and couldn't even remember
it until two days afterwards.  Nor could she remember being taken
to parliament house, or to minister Reynolds' office.

Three weeks later, Higgins told the police she wouldn't be continuing
with her claim of rape.  But 11 months on, she told her story publicly
to news.com.au and The Project, and said she had plans to take up
the matter with police again.  Obviously with dollar signs in her eyes.

So it comes down to a case of "she said, he said".  Which I reckon
will see a verdict of no case to answer for Bruce Lehrmann.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 4^th, 2022 at 10:49pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 5^th, 2022 at 9:12pm:


A jury may accept that he did on her recollection.... well - if he did he was a dork ... a true dworkin .... but that is not what she said in her original statement made ages after the event.  That's all I'm saying.

It IS possible that when she said 'she woke up and he was on top of her'  itwas colloquial meaning 'he was having sex with her'... but remember this is a police interview - and that needed to be clarified at the time.... for the tape.

Without our actually hearing it ourselves, we the public cannot judge.

Jury selection - ten women and six men...... well - that's 2022 equity in play.....