“When the officer picked up the box to replace it on the chair from which it fell, he noticed part of the title page of an academic research paper, the source of which suggested that the topic of the paper might be sexual assault,” she said on the day.
Loading
“Specifically, it is a discussion of the unhelpfulness of attempting to quantify the prevalence of false complaints, and a deeper analysis of the reason for both false complaints and scepticism in the face of true complaints.”
Earlier, in the private hearing, the juror said they “wanted to clarify a point for myself”.
“I brought it in to show where the clarification came from and we agreed that it shouldn’t be – because it was research, that it shouldn’t be discussed. We have not discussed it,” the juror said.
“Can I just say I give you my sincere apologies. I wasn’t aware that … doing this was … in any sense a wrongdoing. I was just purely doing – finding out what it meant, certain words, and in case I mentioned it to the jury, I want to make sure that I wasn’t inventing anything.
Loading
“No one has read it, no one knows anything about it.”
Last week, ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold, who ran the trial, told the inquiry he believed he had convinced all but one of the 12 jurors that Lehrmann was guilty, and that he believed the rogue juror to be the hold-out.
Lehrmann’s defence barrister during the trial, Steven Whybrow SC, told the inquiry on Monday the defence team believed “there were 10 people on the jury in favour of an acquittal” before adding that appraising jurors’ views was a “pointless exercise”.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.
For more latest Politics News Click Here