"This is Ms. Higgins's truth, not the truth," Reynolds Lawyer, page-4

But Reynolds’ lawyer, Martin Bennett, began his closing submissions by dubbing the recording the strongest proof of a co-ordinated attack by Higgins alongside Sharaz – her “co-conspirator” – based on a “litany of lies”.

Heard in its entirety, Young, said the audio showed Higgins’ real desire was for cultural change and that had been evidenced by her continued advocacy for reform and to support victims of sexual assault.

“Ms Higgins wanted to call out the perpetrator and the way she was treated afterwards because she felt she had a moral obligation to do so … she wanted to generate reform, and that is evidenced by her continued advocacy on such issues,” Young said.

“Ms Higgins has talked about her motivation at length, which is corroborated by the evidence … at no point did Ms Higgins ever state to [journalist Samantha] Maiden that her motive was to injure Senator Reynolds.

“This bold, and surprising plan is said to have been devised by one of two people in their mid-20s, including a junior staffer with long-held associations with the Liberal Party.”

https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/underpinned-by-visceral-hatred-higgins-reynolds-lawyers-in-tug-of-war-over-conspiracy-claim-20240903-p5k7gs.html
Rather interesting, from a male prospective.
Both women, both belong to the same political party, yet polar opposite.
One was there, one didn't keep contemporaneous notes.
One had power, one didn't.
The only common thing they both want is vindication.
Is a draw acceptable?

Raider