UnSubRocky wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 1:54 pm
The more I read of this case, the more I find Higgins to lack credibility. When you get raped, even if you are blackout drunk, the first thing you do when you can is report it to police so that they can do a sexual assault test. None of this "umming" and "ahhing" for a long time after the fact and then secretly record a member of Parliament in a bid to blackmail an investigation into this alleged rape.
If the accused sticks to his story that he did not have sex with Higgins, he should win this case, quite easily.
You are ignoring all the other circumstances including that the accused had power over her career, and that she was in a political whirlwind as well.
Even in ordinary 'rapes' (if there is such a thing,) a complainant does not immediately head to the Cop Shop. There is normally always a period in between the alleged rape and a reporting of the event to either family or friends etc and
then a visit to the cop shop.
But......the circumstances of this matter take it way out of what might be considered normal, and I am loathe to even use that word as each victim of these sort of events is an individual and can react to it in ways which is tolerable or bearable or manageable to them, and not 'you.' There is no one size fits all.
Higgins wakes up naked and in Parliament House....in a Minister's Suite. All sorts of emotions must then have been experienced, and all sorts of "what do I do now" would have been in her head....including....what the fuq just happened to me and how the fuq do I handle this now, given who he is and who I am.
It is a mistake to impose your Monday quarterback 20/20 vision and expectations on her. Walk in her shoes....if you can.
Why do a great deal of women who are raped not even report the rape? All sorts of reasons, so....why was there a delay.....equally.....all sorts of reasons, and none compel a conclusion that the rape never happened.
Having said all that, there is still much water yet to pass under the judicial bridge, and I am keenly interested to hear all about the documents he was supposed to collect, and to see whether he gives evidence....ie....is willing to have himself cross-examined by a hostile skilled interrogator in open Court, on oath.
