Thanks mhaze for the link to this 'Morning Mail', claimed conservative-independent-patriotic-pathetic publication. Well I read it through, there is nothing in the piece that would be considered beneficial to the Porter defence. Nor is there any supporting evidence as your claim that the woman was unable to recollect the alleged rape until 2016, 28 years after the event. The woman had been in contact with a councillor in about 2013, her diary of 1989 contains notes about the alleged attack. There is nothing in the article that shows the councillor used any kind of "recovered memory therapy", the councillor emphatically denies any such therapy was used on the woman. The claim the 16 year old girl victim was paralytic drunk after a dinner evening. The girl supposedly was in the company of Porter at a Kings Cross nightspot, drinking heavily, how did these underage drinkers enter such premises, where was the chaperone, Mr Erskine, on this SUNDAY evening in 1988. I don't doubt alcohol was not involved, but I would be inclined to believe it was not purchased at a Kings Cross night spot, but supplied by someone older male to a child, for what purposes we can only speculate. As for Porter not recalling a conquest way back, 10th January 1988, I'm not surprised given Porter's reputation the 16 year old child may only be a distant memory in Porter's life of romance.

It makes interesting reading, but this is all assumption and speculation.
As far as I am aware, there is no clear-cut proof that a 'crime' was committed.
The woman withdrew her claim after making it to police?
No one is acting on her behalf to continue with her original claim?
So there is no crime to investigate.
At this point, nothing can be proven one way or the other.
The fair view, in such circumstances, is that no one should be considered guilty of any wrongdoing.
This includes the woman who alleged she was raped.
Idle speculation, if repeated often enough, can become a proven fact to some.
So it really needs to stop before it becomes harmful?
The animated and lengthy discussion, taking place in the community, rather reminds me of a dog with a bone.
Time to let the matter drop I think.

Struth Paul,

1. I did say there was lots on the www and invited you to go find it. I could have pointed you to a series of articles in the OZ but I knew that you'd just dismiss that as 'murdoch'. You have more ways to reject stuff you don't want to be true than you can shake a stick at.

2. I didn't say she had no recollection of the incident. I did say she didn't see it as rape until decades later.

3. I didn't say her therapist gave her memory recovery therapy but that she was referred for it. She, the dead girl, said she read the books on memory recovery and only then did she see it as rape.

4. It now seems, not only did she not see it as a rape but that she thought it was headed to marriage. It was only after meeting Porter years later with his wife did she realise that marriage was off the table even though she hadn't seen him for years. Jagged Edge anyone? Does that seem normal to you?

Ipso Facto writes: "The fair view, in such circumstances, is that no one should be considered guilty of any wrongdoing."

There used to be this 'thing' in a previous civilisation whereby one was considered innocent until proven guilty. We of course ditched that notion when the police/ABC decide to get Pell. Nonetheless in a better society with better people, Porter would be considered innocent.

As an aside, does anyone see the irony in having a therapist talking about the-rapist?

Let's she's not also and analyst.... http://arresteddevelopment.fandom.com/wiki/Analrapist

Distort what you said all you like mhaze, its in black and white for all to see.

What people like you fail to realise is, we are dealing with the thought processes of a 16 year old child, not a mature adult, thinking that is easily manipulated by a shrewd operator, even one who is only 17 himself. Sure, at 16 the girl may have seen Porter as her "knight in shining armour", who would sweep her off her feet, marry her, and take her to his castle where they would live happily ever after. Child like thinking that a nefarious Porter could easily exploit to satisfy his lust.

Well this seems to happen a lot to poor old Paul.

He starts off believing everything he's fed by the ABC or whatever source he's decided to abrogate his opinions to. Then when he's told that the facts are different to what he so fervently believed, he acts astonished and demands proof for these new facts. (If only he'd been so incredulous at the outset he wouldn't have been led down the garden path - but Paul enjoys that path).

Now we are at the point where he realises that the facts are very different to what he hoped. Does that mean that next time he'll take what the ABC says with a grain of salt - not a chance.

So how to reconcile all this for poor old Paul? Well he's now created a fantasy world where poor innocent 16 yr old is manipulated into believing rape was ok by a fiendish 17. In his fantasy world, Paul imagines Porter as Snidely Whiplash and the girl as Sweet Nell Fenwick. I wonder if he sees himself as Dudley Do-Right? All a fantasy but it helps Paul to reconcile the facts with what he wants to be true.

I always like bringing up the Shorten rape because its proof positive that people like Paul aren't interested in the girl, just the politics. If Porter's girl is Sweet Nell, I wonder if Paul sees Shorten's girl as Lili Von Shtupp?

I just put on another thread a TV report on last night that the Lady
in question told this male friend that she had recently (some years
after the debate) that met Porter and had dinner with him.
The ABC appears to had this information for some time.