Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 25
th, 2022 at 11:10pm:
**SNIP***
As I made clear from Day One - under ACT law which governs legal issued inside PH that are not directly covered by Federal law - if any of you bothered to check - an inebriated woman cannot give consent......
**Snip***
The argument from the defence is that no sexual activity took place at all.
That's right!
The other argument is this: Brittany was too drunk to know wtf was going on and thus too drunk to give consent BUT she wasn't too drunk to remember everything that happened!
That there is the big problem for Brittany. And Brittany waited for weeks before she acted on what she 'remembered'. For all we know it was the security guard who may well have done something to her. Even then he may have simply covered her and/or closed the door.
This is why YOU need to take responsibility for YOUR safety! Don't expect others to do that for you because they won't!
Anyway .. no decision. I keep saying on the admissible evidence presented in court ... the guy is innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof is BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Right now ALL we have is DOUBT! Doubt is HERE on OzPol and doubt is THERE with the jury.
From the outset I stated that on the basis of the information we've been allowed to see via the MSM...I cannot see a conviction. That view has not changed.