When the trial of the man Ms Higgins' pointed the finger at proceeds to trial next year, the usual suspects here are likely to end up with egg on their faces again - you know, the same ones who adopt the McCarthyist approach toward justice. The same ones who had George Pell convicted before trial [and are so impressed with their own intellectual prowess they believe the Full High Court got it wrong, whilst they picked the witch in one! ]
The fellow in question has pleaded not guilty, skipped a committal hearing and elected to go to trial. From all published accounts there are no witnesses - it is a classic "he said, she said" scenario with no corroborating evidence. What do know is that she was seen by security staff entering parliament house with him voluntarily, apparently wasted. He was seen to leave, she was found wasted in Reynolds' office. The likelihood of the prosecution proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt - particularly as she is unlikely to have any coherent recollection of events - is very small indeed. Uncorroborated rape allegations are invariably tossed out, and with good reason. If that transpires, the accused has been subjected to endless allegations by many media sources, as well as Higgins herself, and would have his own legal remedies.
]
