AusGeoff wrote on Oct 5
th, 2022 at 8:44pm:
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.
Think I have already said....that position has passed. If there was no case to answer, the Judge would have taken it in her own hands and directed the Jury to bring in a verdict of not guilty.
Even before that happens, Defence makes a formal submission of no case to answer......if Judge agrees, first thing they do is make a very strong indication to the Prosecutor to enter a
nolle prosequi. If Prosecutor agrees, he asks for the "return of the Indictment, and personally writes on it, 'The Crown will proceed no further with this Indictment." If Prosecutor declines to do that, and Judge is adamant, he then will direct the Jury to bring in a verdict of 'not guilty.'
None of that happens in this Higgins/Lehrmann matter. There clearly
is a 'case to answer' as that is defined technically.