Mr O, the story and events as presented so far, paint a picture of a very disturbed person, (female).
If one is not fully cognisant and in complete control of their faculties, it is safe to treat them with reservations about anything they say or contend as their views and interactions of past events cannot be taken with complete assurance and confidence, thereby leaving great chasms of doubt and questions, but over-all, doubt.
And if in doubt, one cannot/must not, take anything from these people as the gospel, and un-adulterated, truth.
Even if she hadn't died, under the current circumstances and disclosed information, I would have to believe Porter.

Mr uneducated,

I think that it is clear that CP didn't shag the woman, and perhaps you should ask whether Bill Shorten is willing to take a polygraph.

ALTRAV and shifty & shady minister,

Looks like both of you believe that the claimant fits the 'lying cow' category coined by Linda Reynolds.

ALTRAV, you base your premise on your belief that people with mental health issues do not tell the truth. What if her mental health problem was caused by her rape?

shifty & shady minister, you just do not want to accept that someone of your class and political persuasion would commit rape (or should even be held accountable for it.) You believe that people like yourself are incapable of such an act. Remember, you are an injunear - a profession in which women only account for 10% of its members. Your position is chauvinistic bordering on misogynistic.

I think there will be a cloud hanging over Porter's head unless it can be proven that the claimant lied about being raped.

And I ask again: Why would she have lied about being raped?

To me, there is something that just doesn't make sense. This story fits a historical puzzle with lots of pieces still to be found for us to understand what happened or what didn't happen.

Brushing the matter aside on the grounds that mental health sufferers are incapable of telling the truth or that patriarchal dogma should be accepted whereby women are to be seen as Reynoldian 'lying cows' just does not cut the mustard for me.

Mr O, well all I know about mustard is that like ALL things in life, there are good and bad mustard.
People are no different.
If you want to put your mind at ease, simply go back over the info that has been disclosed so far.
From the accounts of the female in question through to her parents, who claim she was prone to making things up, or words and actions to that effect.
Then we also come back to the time line.
I don't buy this memory trauma jargon.
If you have been raped, there will be some visible signs, irrespective of whether you are embarrassed about your behaviour or not, which will be noticed by others.
This too did not arise.
So given that Reynolds knew her well enough to make a judgement call about her accusation, that too is another odd thing to add to the mix.
All in all, when you piece it all together, it becomes clear that there was NOT what "I" call rape anyway.
If people want to throw the virtuous line around and try on the virtue signaling angle, that's their business, but that's ALL it is, THEIR business or more precisely, their opinion.
And as we all know, opinions are worthless as they are mainly speculations, driven by pre-conceived bias and agenda or beliefs or judgements that fall short of absolute conviction.
No it's simply another case of trial by media, and there-in lies the biggest hint of Porters innocence.
If the media had just kept out of it or at least treated it with the irrelevance it is, I would have leaned against his innocence, but the media have put the last straw in his being innocent, by pushing this so hard, and that in doing so, and knowing the media is very much left leaning, there is nothing they would relish more than boasting about them bringing the govt down.
They would do this by persecuting yet another Liberal so as to coerce them into resigning, thereby weakening the Libs and forcing an election.

ALTRAV,

Did you see this:

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/julie-bishop-surprised-neither-scott-morrison-nor-christian-porter-read-anonymous-letter-detailing-historical-rape-allegation-denied-by-porter/ar-BB1emmK5

You said above that "opinions are worthless as they are mainly speculations, driven by pre-conceived bias and agenda or beliefs or judgements that fall short of absolute conviction."

I totally disagree because an opinion is based on what a person knows and who a person is and consequently some opinions are worth more than others because there is a hierarchy of knowledge. There are some at the top and some at the bottom and everybody else is in between.

Where do you place yourself? At the top or at the bottom or somewhere in between?

Mr O, can't sleep also, HUH?
In response to your comments, the definition of the word "opinion" is not mine but that of the dictionary.
As for Bishop or ANY politician for that matter, you must know by now that EVERYTHING they say is agenda driven.
I care absolutely NOT what Bishop or Scomo have to say about anything.
They have all lied to me over the years and deserve nothing but scorn and rejection, so I urge everyone to take whatever they say, about EVERYTHING and look into it, and you will find the truth about what is really behind the announcement.
It NEVER has anything to do with the truth or benefitting the Australian public.