So there we have what the SMH writer correctly describes as "a hugely damaging allegation" for which there are two completely different versions. One witness says something happened and the other says it didn't.
How should an allegation like this one be fairly reported? Should it be reported at all?
Perhaps when we have access to the full Quarterly Essay piece by David Marr there will at least be an attempt to find some corroborative evidence to support Barbara Ramjan's version.