As I have said on other threads, this trial hinges upon what happened in a closed office with no witnesses.

There is no physical evidence, no corroborating evidence and no uninvolved witnesses.

Other than Higgins' testimony there is nothing to suggest that any form of sexual intercourse occurred at all.

In essence, this trial is Higgins' word against the word of BL.

As it is reasonable to assume that BH is lying (especially considering the numerous inconsistencies in her testimony) it is not possible to prove BL's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This should never have got to trial.

I beg to differ.

Enough witnesses have testified and the inconsistencies
of Mr Lehrmann's testimonies don't match up with those
of the witnesses. Whereas Ms Higgins gave a "inherently
vivid and compelling" description of the alleged rape.
She did not embellish her account and was considered a
credible witness.

Five questions have been listed to be asked:

1) Was the accused attracted to the complainant?
Witnesses have confirmed that he was.

2) Why did Mr Lehrmann go to Parliament House on a
Saturday morning? Nothing urgent needed to be done
workwise according to his own staffers.

3) Did he have sex with Ms Higgins?

4) Dis she consent?

5) Was the accused reckless as far as to whether Ms Higgins
consented?

This case definitely needs to be heard in court - and
not be further delayed by any jurors conveniently dropping their
unallowed "research" onto court floors.

If this was regular people on a friday night up at the local, no-one would give a crap.
(and even now I don't)

A few of those questions could equally be asked of Higgins Foxy, or is it only ever the woman's point of view considered.

'Was the accused reckless as far as to whether BL consented.'

What if he never wanted to sleep with her and never would've unless blind rotten drunk, and if she was all over him like a rash?

What about women taking advantage of drunk men?
How do the ugly girls get laid on Friday night exactly?

I don't support rape if it did indeed occur, but when two people are blind drunk and seen to be affectionate towards each other, and in the midst of that drunkenness, one thing leads to another and both might be guilty of bad judgement then who's fault is it exactly, and how can any of us actually know what actually happened?

Since it's impossible for anyone to know what happened, it's not even an actual case, all one can do is speculate.
Great for the media, and completely pointless for anything else.

Hi AC,

That's true, don't know why a Liberal raping a Liberal would be news, Liberals have been "raping" Australia since the days of 'Pig Iron' Bob.

Hi AC,

Why did Lehrmann go to Parliament House on a
Saturday morning?

His testimonies were full of conflict. His own
staffers contradicted his statements. Whereas Higgins
gave a "inherently vivid and compelling" description of
the alleged rape. She did not embellish her account and
was a credible witness.

In any case - I dare say that it will be interesting to
see what the end result of this case will be.

Foxy,

Firstly Lehrmann didn't testify so he didn't have any testimonies.

The inconsistencies in his police interview were trivial in that they were unrelated to the time that he was in the office.

Higgins's testimony was riddled with huge discrepancies.

1 she claimed that the bruise photographed on her one leg was caused by BL, but testified that he put his knee on the other leg.

2 told the media that BL removed her underwear, but admitted that she wasn't wearing any,

3 told the police that she made a doctor's appointment but was too distraught to attend it when she was lunching with friends.

If that is your definition of a credible testimony many people including myself disagree with you.

If the requirement to convict BL is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, then he cannot be convicted.