Dear Steele,

Thanks for that.

I got the trials mixed up.

I feel like a dill.

And within the first 3 questions the Counsel for Lehrmann has got a date wrong and corrected immediately by Higgins.

This really has been a trend through the trial. Really sloppy from a legal person who must be on a hell of a lot of money.

Hi Steelie,

"Anyway, I thought it was a pretty large red flag, especially for someone like you, and was disappointed you let it all sail through to the keeper."

I do agree with you on this, I think all of the footage (taken from a government building, effectively belonging to the people) should've been made public immediately, regardless of the seriousness of allegations of wrongdoing.
I also agree with you that if some footage was removed then what were they trying to hide, otherwise why edit it out in the first place.

One argument that makes me question just how drunk she was, is the part where just after she does not put her shoes back on, is the way she skips down the hall, and then seems to be walking normally in the following shot to her bosses office.

"As to what happened in the 46 minutes I think it is perfectly reasonable to accept Ms Higgin's account of passing out on the sofa and awakening to find Lehrmann on top of her and her telling him repeatedly to get off."

I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm just saying that I don't know and that I'm not convinced;
- What was the report that sometime prior to the event she was purported to say that she was going to create a sex scandal, I don't know the facts surrounding it, but this is something which makes me question everything.

"CCTV footage at one of the nightclubs later in the evening shows Lehrmann putting drinks in front of Higgins pushing her to drink them"

- Is there any truth to the claim they were seen playing around at these nightclubs, like 2 people about to hook up, kissing and flirting?
- And what the hell was she doing there if she had a boyfriend?

Does having a boyfriend at home give a motive to claim that conceptual sex was instead rape?

[Cont.]
"It is reasonable to imagine drinking those in quick succession would have hit her significantly at some point."

Agreed, but was that point during those 46 minutes, or half an hour prior to arriving at Parliament house, I don't know the exact timeline.

Reading the article...
Kissing may imply an unwanted event, but pashing seems more like something mutual.

I see now that Lehrmann was the one who initiated the trip to Parliament house, and after reading the article you shared, agree that some of his answers also seem suspicious:

'after he went to his desk and did some work on question time briefs'.

I'm maybe more open to the possibility that it happened as you suggest after reading that article, but I still just don't know what actually happened.

I might add though that ultimately I think that if there's a reasonably large question of doubt,
- that I think it's better that a guilty person go free, than an innocent person be wrongly convicted.

He may very well have slept with her though.
- I just don't know.

Dear Armchair Critic,

Are you watching Ms Higgin's evidence being given right now? What do you think?