I wonder if Scomo has discussed the current parliament rape allegations with

[colic2bullsgirlore]

 the Attorney General???

.......... I guess.... yes.........

it's a wonder Scomo has not got him  to hold a press conference and explain the situation given he is the  cabinets senoir legal advisor.

[domino-710]

---

@colic2bullsgirlore wrote:

---

@domino-710 wrote:

Once again - who else was in the room.

Did she go to get treatment - if not - why not.

Come on - what exactly - with these allegations - could possbly stand up in Court.

The grisly details are ' her's' - any proof. ??????

---

You keep on coming back to  "where's the proof". The fact is that because the woman is now dead and because no official statement was

taken from her the investigation could not proceed. No statement was taken from the AG or others because a statement was not

taken from the complainant.

That fact certainly does not mean that nothing occurred

The AG is Australia's top law maker and the integrity of the position should be beyond reproach.

Laura Tingle phrased it best when she said that the perception of the integrity of the office of the AG is just as important as the fact.

The AG could commission an independant inquiry into the matter with wide parameters and stand down until an outcome was

reached.

The AG can personally defend himself the complainant however cannot prosecute her claims.

Keeping Christian Porter as the AG or even as a member of the cabinet is now untenable and politically debilitating to the

government.

The PM knows it......... and I bet Jenny agrees

The AG had the chance to stop the trial by media  by coming out when the accusations first surfaced, standing aside and ordering an

inquiry. 

IMO he thought it would just all blow over storm in a teacup style. ( I think he still does)

Whether he did it or not he is now forever tarred with the boys club brush of obstinate male entitlement.

I have answered your questions you just riddle me two Cleaver Greene

Is he innocent or guilty? - in this country - innocent until proven guilty.

Does the alleged and now dead woman deserve to have her story publically heard? - indeed she does and she has.

---

All are entitled to a defense - there is no room for political opinion.

As AG - I would think he would have a fair idea of the Law.

We all know about ' public opinion ' - yes - mud sticks - it would prove difficult to stand against the word of a couple of ' friends ' - and the media - even here - some have already ' hung ' him.

BUT - Just What If - ' it never happened '.

And LOL at Cleaver Greene

[icyfroth]

It's a media witch-hunt IMO.

[katistrophik]

@colic

The thing is, how much money gets p!ssed away on this ?

AG or not, whether it happenend or not, PROOF is required for indictment and conviction, so knowing there is none available, not even 'the accuser' is available -  what possible outcome do you expect there will be ?

If this happenned he deserves to be punished - if it didn't he deserves to be exhonerated - but I ask again HOW?

and don't bang on about me banging on about proof - it is required, so let's call it evidence instead

[davidc4430]

the way i see it is like a 'cold case' where at the time there was little or no evidence

but the case is still 'open' if new evidence comes to light

so here we are 30 years on and 'new evidence' has come to light

surely this evidence needs to be explored?

the mans been named, so allow him to be intervied by the relevant police body and give his version of what happened way back.

THEN if nothing comes of it end the scruitiny (unless anything else turns up of course)

what im seeing is 'shes dead, we cant investigate'

that being said, IF he did do it hes going to know it and its now going to haunt him regardless

not unlike the actors who were called out as sexual predators, mr mcloughlin and mr rush

they too now have careers blackened by acusations even though they were found not guilty

[domino-710]

---

@davidc4430 wrote:

the way i see it is like a 'cold case' where at the time there was little or no evidence

but the case is still 'open' if new evidence comes to light

so here we are 30 years on and 'new evidence' has come to light

surely this evidence needs to be explored?

the mans been named, so allow him to be intervied by the relevant police body and give his version of what happened way back.

THEN if nothing comes of it end the scruitiny (unless anything else turns up of course)

what im seeing is 'shes dead, we cant investigate'

that being said, IF he did do it hes going to know it and its now going to haunt him regardless

not unlike the actors who were called out as sexual predators, mr mcloughlin and mr rush

they too now have careers blackened by acusations even though they were found not guilty

........................................................................................................................................................................................

What ' new evidence ' - I don't think there was any ' old evidence '.

[katistrophik]

Agreed - but what is this

'new evidence'? Is it tangible, testable, provable, refutable ?

I was under the impression it was 'She said.......

as dom just stated, there was no old evidence, so I find it difficult to believe 30 year old evidence will be of any substance at all

and sadly  what im seeing is 'shes dead, we cant investigate'  this is accurate

[domino-710]

It goes without saying women should come forward & have - Me Too - began in 2006.

Look how many are enjoying ' orange '- those actually found guilty.

So why - so many years down the track - did the woman come forward - then retract her statement.

And that is all it was - a statement - an allegation.

This whole thing still remains an ' allegation '.

[domino-710]

---

@katistrophik wrote:

as dom just stated, there was no old evidence, so I find it difficult to believe 30 year old evidence will be of any substance at all

---

Had she retained evidence such as Monica did with her little blue dress................................

And not difficult to believe 30 year old evidence - DNA.

Ancient bones discovered under a parking lot have been confirmed as those of the medieval king Richard III, through a DNA test that also raises questions about the legitimacy of Henry VIII and other famous English royals.

The team of genetics detectives reported Tuesday that DNA from the skeleton shows that the bones were Richard III's, with a probability of 99.9994 percent.

This is the first genetic identification of a particular individual so long after death—527 years.

[hannahmallory]

Wouldn't the woman's diaries be considered old evidence from around the time?

[domino-710]

Don't think so Hannah - firstly a diary can be ' manufactured ' - secondly still her word - only.