Parliament House sexual assault and harassment allegations

[David]

^ I think that's the one thing here that's close to 100% certain: sooner or later, one way or the other, the accused's name will come out, and he will have to confront this allegation publicly in some way.

[5 from the wing on debut]

There were 2 people who knew what happened, 1 of them is now dead.

There's no witnesses to interview, just some written submissions to read and ask the question of the accused, which has essentially been done. Just not transparently and publicly.

If you needed a living victim in all cases, no murder or manslaughter that doesn't occur in public would ever be prosecuted. But that's not the case, and it's not necessarily the case for crimes like this, either.

For instance, the minister denies the rape, but that doesn't mean questions can't be asked and some truth can't emerge. Did he know the woman in question? Did he have sex with her? Did people see them go off together? Where was he on the night in question? Does he have an alibi? etc. It may not be possible to prove 100% that he committed the rape in any circumstance, but if he gets caught out in a lie, that might well suggest that he's trying to hide something, and increase the likelihood of him being found guilty. So I wouldn't say an investigation is a fruitless endeavour.

David, where were you between 7:45pm and 8:03pm on 3 May 1988?
What were you wearing then?
What colour were your socks?
What did you have for lunch that day?
Can any one corroborate what you have said?

The Cold Case tv show doesn't work like that in real life.

[David]

Oh, I can tell you exactly: somewhere in Canberra, swimming in amniotic fluid.

I think there are plenty of reasons to think that someone would remember something that happened back then, particularly if it involved (or didn't involve) a sexual encounter. There may have been other things happening that night, like a party or a school trip (one presumes that the woman's police complaint contained such details). How many men do you know who don't have a clear memory of their teenage sexual experiences?

[Pies4shaw]

^ I think that's the one thing here that's close to 100% certain: sooner or later, one way or the other, the accused's name will come out, and he will have to confront this allegation publicly in some way.

Yes. It's a political issue, not a legal one.

Since the woman was apparently only 16 at the time, it may be (depending upon the then age of the alleged rapist) that no issue of consent would arise. As I said previously, it depends upon the detail of the particular story in this case and the extent to which it is verifiable.

I think criminal prosecution - although it can't be ruled out by any of us who don't know the content of the allegation - is unlikely but the problem for the Government is that until a name comes out, there are 15 (more or less) innocent Ministers under a cloud.

[stui magpie]

The age consent in The ACT is 16, so assuming the law was the same in 1988 the age of the alleged rapist at the time is irrelevant to consent being able to be given.

And yes, this is now completely a political issue.

[eddiesmith]

I’m pretty sure everyone knows who it is by now, he’s been outed and attacked by the leftie sooks in Twitter

Now Turnbull is claiming she didn’t commit suicide and was the victim of foul play.

[5 from the wing on debut]

Oh, I can tell you exactly: somewhere in Canberra, swimming in amniotic fluid.

I think there are plenty of reasons to think that someone would remember something that happened back then, particularly if it involved (or didn't involve) a sexual encounter. There may have been other things happening that night, like a party or a school trip (one presumes that the woman's police complaint contained such details). How many men do you know who don't have a clear memory of their teenage sexual experiences?

So you have no witnesses that saw you doing that?

[David]

[Pies4shaw]

The age consent in The ACT is 16, so assuming the law was the same in 1988 the age of the alleged rapist at the time is irrelevant to consent being able to be given.

And yes, this is now completely a political issue.

https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/ ... d41113.pdf

Go for it. It looks like they abolished the death penalty for rape in the ACT in 1968, so that's one thing off the table.

[eddiesmith]

<Please don't speculate about such details. There are only 16 people about whom the complaint could have been made. Thanks, Pies4shaw for BBMods>

[stui magpie]

The age consent in The ACT is 16, so assuming the law was the same in 1988 the age of the alleged rapist at the time is irrelevant to consent being able to be given.

And yes, this is now completely a political issue.

https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/ ... d41113.pdf

Go for it. It looks like they abolished the death penalty for rape in the ACT in 1968, so that's one thing off the table.

WTF are you on?

She was 16, the age of consent is 16, she was able to provide consent regardless of how much older the other party was.

[Pies4shaw]

That's a bit unnecessary, Stui. You posted on the basis that you were "assuming the law was the same in 1988". All I did was link a Commonwealth report that purports to goes through the history of some relevant offences in each Australian jurisdiction and might contain an answer to the issue you raised - because I wasn't that interested in it.

[David]

[eddiesmith]

Well there will not be any criminal proceedings, NSW Police have closed the case due to lack of evidence.

[stui magpie]

^

Yep. They have officially declared the case closed.

Samantha Maiden should give lessons on how to write good factual investigative pieces. Like this.

https://www.news.com.au/national/politi ... 7075284bbf

Apart from the detail on the case being closed it provides some more detail on the 2 people involved.

Taken from what is there, they moved in same/similar circles, had mutual friends and had socialised together previously. My reading is he was clearly older but not necessarily by much. 2-6 years would be my guess.

On the night in question they allegedly went out in Kings Cross for drinks and dancing. I know from experience that there wasn't much checking for age back in those days.
Again, allegedly, they ended up together where she consented to a sex act but declined oral or vaginal sex. He allegedly forced her to perform oral sex then anally raped her.

David, considering the escalation in these sexual cases, including now news that the SA parliament has roaming hands everywhere, any possibility of consolidating the related content into one thread and leave WPT to throw rocks at Scomo in this one?