Frank wrote on Oct 18^th, 2022 at 8:45pm:


Never spoken to the man face to face either.  Forget the slinky eyed newspaper photos.... they take dozens and pick the one most likely to support their already chosen viewpoint.

It's all in introduction to journalism...

Aussie wrote on Oct 18^th, 2022 at 9:09pm:


None of which necessarily follows, whatever his justification for going there.  You need evidence to pursue that line..... and the evidence that he had his evil way is thin at best.

So it looks like even if convicted he will win on appeal.  The ball-less court will find guilt to satisfy the baying of the heathen at the door and to make it look as if they are 'defending' the 'poor victim', he will get instant bail, appeal, and win.

Aussie wrote on Oct 18^th, 2022 at 8:17pm:


The doubt I have is that Lehrmann claims to not even have had sex with Higgins. I find this unlikely. Though, I would find that Higgins has a tough time convincing me and a lot of others that she was nonconsensual to the act.

Lehrmann claims that he went to Parliament House and was there at some time of night to do a few things. Lehrmann had Higgins going with him into Parliament. He left without Higgins sometime later. Lehrmann allegedly claims that he never saw Higgins again that night.

If Lehrmann claims that Higgins was very drunk that night, it would be reasonable to assume that he could have checked in on Higgins. I doubt Lehrmann never did a welfare check on Higgins. A drunk Brittany Higgins might well have been easy for Lehrmann to rape. But, I figure that some kind of sexual activity between Lehrmann and Higgins would have taken place.

It is just the way Higgins tells her story. She claimed to have said "no" half a dozen times at least. If she was that lucid in her recollections, she could have been able to stop Lehrmann from committing rape. Anything forceful would have resulted in bruising or other types of tell-tale injuries during a rape.

It seems as if this is a case of a casual fling getting turned into a rape allegation over a change of mind after the fact. But, I cannot prove anything on any account. And I figure that, unless Lehrmann goes on the stand and makes an arse of himself, he will be acquitted.

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 18^th, 2022 at 11:37pm:


   This is a very likely scenario. A drunken "Wouldn't it be fun to f-k in the Ministers office!" lark that seemed like a good idea at the time.  After the deed is done she flakes and he leaves her.... She wakes up, thinks back on what has occurred and is mortified.   Of course its equally possible he did rape her. Leaving her alone, naked and drunk in the Ministers office is the mark of someone with little regard for anothers welfare or feelings, so rape is entirely within character.    Given the abysmal way the situation has been handled the accused will be found not guilty.

Belgarion wrote on Oct 19^th, 2022 at 7:19am:


Well - I agree he was a pig.... maybe too much of the bottle himself... maybe had brewer's droop...

"Given the abysmal way the situation has been handled the accused will be found not guilty."  Exactly... or he'll win an appeal...

Johnnie wrote on Oct 19^th, 2022 at 1:26am:


I also found that rather odd when she admitted that!

Do women often not wear underwear because it shows lines wear the nickers are under the dress?

bump

Redmond Neck wrote on Oct 19^th, 2022 at 8:48am:


Perhaps one of the lady members might comment on the no underwear.

Is this a common practice?

It has no bearing on whether he raped her or not I realise that, however I reckon he will get off!

She is a weirdo!