I've seen the footage of Britanny Higgins and Bruce Lehrmann entering Parliament House and the state she was in.
She's clearly had a few drinks, but she's not stumbling all over the place blotto.
See if for yourselves
http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/crucial-cctv-in-bruce-lehrmann-defamation-case-disclosed-to-court/news-story/a86aa8a4e2d96c2c022325e506ffd2f6

Look at her skipping down the hall, she's not that drunk.
They arrived and signed in at 1:48 am and Bruce Lehrmann left at 2:31, - 46 minutes later.
She would've had to have been so drunk she more or less passed out within 30 mins of that CCTV footage for it to have realistically happened at all.

I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it's seriously questionable.
I think a significant amount of doubt relates to her accusations given that timeline.

I think that if he had've initiated a rape against her during that 46 minute period, she would've still been coherent enough to say 'No', fight him off or raise an alarm.

If Brittany didn't set out to create a rape scandal as some say she voiced prior to the event, and if the pair did get it on as she claimed, the only 'rape' defense she could argue (and the footage doesn't entirely support this) is that she was not coherent enough to give consent.

On balance, I think it's more of a 'I regretted it the next day', (when she had to face the boyfriend) or 'I planned a scandal' scenario.

I agree with Hasbeen, making false rape claims should face the same penalty as the accused, but it's a minefield, if it's not clear cut (which often it isn't, one persons word over anothers) a penalty like this may make genuine rape victims scared to report them, if there's any chance it can't be proven and their claims may then be seen as resulting from malicious intent.

Dear Armchair Critic,

I have been following the trial where I can and managed to see some, and hear most, of Ms Higgins testimony.

I found her to have been an impressive and courageous witness often correcting numerous factual errors from Bruce Lehmann's legal team.

Indeed she came across as trying he best to be as factual as possible even on things that were obviously going to leave the door open for Lehmann's team to attack her.

As to the footage you have sorely disappointed me. Here I was thinking you had a nose for a conspiracy. You obviously don't on this matter. Why do you think that is?

The Channel 7 footage is edited. Ms Higgins tries to put her shoes back on then the tape jumps to her zig zagging down the hallway with them in her arms. Why was it cut? One suspects if she stumbles at that point it would not have suited Ch 7s narrative. And why is it that Parliament House will not produce the complete footage for the trial claiming it has not been kept?

Anyone with half a nose for these things would consider just those factors stink alone to high heaven.

Lift your game mate.

Hi Steelie,
"I have been following the trial where I can and managed to see some, and hear most, of Ms Higgins testimony."

- Well you'd certainly be better informed and have a feel for things than I.
You may be right about missing footage if so I wasn't aware of it.

I can only say that I'm not convinced either way that this rape occurred at all, or if they did have sex under what circumstances that occurred. I mean if the guy forced himself upon her against her will, where are the marks on her body (grabbing her, holding her down etc. Am I supposed to believe she was suddenly so drunk within 46 minutes that she did not resist)

I think there are only two people who actually know what happened that night, and neither you or I are one of those 2 people.

You've most certainly spent more time going through the facts than I have though.
- That's really all I've got.

Dear Armchair Critic,

The trial can be see via livestream here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN5i8fKnnOM

I have had it playing while I work.

Go to the link you provided and see the part cut from the video. Why do you think that happened?

As to marks on her body there was a significant bruise to her leg which she had thought was from the rape but has conceded it might have been from the several times she had fallen down that night due to inebriation.

It is not contested by either side that Ms Higgins consumed between 11 and 12 drinks, most of them spirits, over the course of the night.

That would have me staggering.

Lehrmann had said through the criminal trial that he didn't think he had purchased a single drink for Ms Higgins on the night. Good work by the Channel 10 lawyers has shown that was not true and he can be clearly seen buying her drinks, moving at least 3 in front of her, and encouraging her to scull at least one of them.

If I have had a skin-full I can usually get myself home but once I flake it it hits me pretty hard. I don't have a problem believing that would have happened to her.

As this is a defamation trial the bar is different to a criminal trial:

"To successfully meet the burden of proof, the plaintiff must present evidence that convinces the judge. They must base this on the balance of probabilities, that their version of events is more likely true than not."

Nothing in her testimony or demeanour has caused me to think judge would outright dismiss her evidence. In the end his judgement will be delivered by a forensic look at the evidence and the believability of the witnesses and he is far more qualified than either of us to do so.

Hi Steelie,
The link you provided goes to a livestream starting in 37 hours.
The original video I saw was on youtube, but it seems hard to find any of the Parliament house CCTV videos on youtube now, which in itself is curious, and why I added the link to the news.com.au article containing the video instead.

If you can point me in the direction of 2 separate CCTV Parliament house videos to compare and some of the video testimony I'm happy to give it a look.

12 drinks, thats 12 nips right? - 360ml spirits, that would be more than enough for me nowadays, but when I was younger, I could do it fairly easily.
I agree with you that you can keep going for a time, but when you finally lay down it doesn't take much to pass out.

I haven't heard any court testimony from either of the two.
Where you have, and I'll admit you'd likely have a better feel for it, - But one of them obviously isn't telling the truth, and I still just don't know.

I can only go by what I see, that CCTV footage, and 46 minutes.
What do you think happened during that 46 minutes?
Lehrmann seemed coherent enough as he walked out.

Did Lehrmann claim the trip to Parliament house was a 'Whiskey stop'?
Why would she go there for drinks at 1:48am with a bloke other than her partner, if she had a man waiting at home?
What reason did she give for going to her bosses office at that time of the night/morning?

I'm not assuming anything by these questions, but they are valid questions.