Vanessa Scammell

Craig's evidence was that C2 was never invited to the apartment.

Continuing, now let's look at the contrasting key evidence C2 and her husband gave in court.

Yet later, in court, Sheila swore that no such conversation had ever occurred, nor did she have any knowledge of this alleged hug.

It became clear in court that C2 had never told her husband that she had said yes to an invited hug, that Craig had asked her permission for a hug in front of the entire cast and that she had said yes.

Her husband also claimed that in the initial stages of her telling him, he doubted the offensiveness of the hug.

She had, after all, described it as a cuddle.

During these conversations with her husband there was never a mention of her feeling his penis, that he rubbed against her or that he had a partial erection.

In material made public to the press the following is presented.

Furthermore, the detective on the case neglected to hand in C2's first two draft statements to the court.

Two statements that demonstrated clearly the ambiguities and inconsistencies in her statements.

It was only because our lawyer, Thea, brought this to the court's attention that the draft statements were then admitted into evidence.

Neither draft mentioning any of the more graphic details that eventually became part of her story.

So what happened in court when C2 was cross-examined by Craig's barrister?

She was asked if she believed Craig's penis was partially erect.

Her reply?

To surmise, C2 failed to make these incremental allegations to her husband or anyone else whilst the incident was fresh in her memory.

There was no admissible evidence of any allegation of indecency ever been raised by C2 before she spoke to the police in December or January of 2017-18, after she had committed to being interviewed by the ABC and Fairfax.

Let's go to the magistrate's rulings.

Number 203 of the final rulings.

C2's husband's evidence was rather vague.