What a huge waste of public money

[Trax]

JagLover said:

Oakey said:

bhstewie said:

I think what all of us here are struggling with is the simple obvious question of "What is not being reported that the CPS knew?".

You'd assume someone at the CPS watched the CCTV.

You'd assume they can count and keep basic track of time.

You'd also kind of assume they wouldn't go to trial with something they thought they couldn't win simply because nobody likes to look stupid or lose, so what is the missing link that hasn't been reported that made them think they had a case?

Stupidity?

I think people are looking for a missing link in the evidence when the missing link may be political/media pressure over whether to prosecute these cases in general.

Unfortunately if cases like this start cropping up more regularly the true victims will be both the men falsely accused and the those who have genuinely been assaulted.

From what I gather, the CPS said the prosecution met the threshold to proceed. What I/we dont know, is what is the threshold? We know there is an allegation, she was a bit shaky with it, he can be put on the scene with his Oysetr cards, admits being there, we also have CCTV which puts him at the scene, and he may have admitted its him in the CCTV (if he was shown it. Is that enough to reach a prosecution theshold? Does the FACT that the CCTV also shows the offence did not take place counter their decision to prosecute, or has someone just ignored it. If it was ignored, someone needs to go to jail.

[saaby93]

Moonhawk said:

Lying under oath, wasting police time, perverting the course of justice - they are all crimes are they not?

You're confusing lying with being mistaken

If you honestly believe something happened even though it didn't you're not lying

A few years back there as a thread in SP&L where a police officer believed something had happened, and it was shown in court that it couldn't have. The officer wasn't lying - just mistaken.
Thats one of the (many) purposes of taking matters before a court

[elanfan]

According to the you tube video I'd like to post it says the evidence given by her court was to the effect he managed to stop her get his hands inside her knickers and insert 3 fingers all whilst she was wearing trousers or leggings or tights. This is supposed to have occurred whilst he was holding his rucksack with his right hand and a paper in his left in the time it takes to pass/bump into someone. She also claims to have screamed out calling for help all of which is disproved by the video.

Hateful woman deserves jail time!

[TTwiggy]

Luckily we put people before courts rather than youtube videos made by American crackpots.

[Moonhawk]

saaby93 said:

Moonhawk said:

Lying under oath, wasting police time, perverting the course of justice - they are all crimes are they not?

You're confusing lying with being mistaken

If you honestly believe something happened even though it didn't you're not lying

A few years back there as a thread in SP&L where a police officer believed something had happened, and it was shown in court that it couldn't have. The officer wasn't lying - just mistaken.
Thats one of the (many) purposes of taking matters before a court

I agree there is a difference - and could understand if she had been sexually assaulted but mistakenly identified the wrong person.

But.......how can you mistakenly believe you have been the victim of a penetrative sexual assault.

[Halb]

TTwiggy said:

Luckily we put people before courts rather than youtube videos made by American crackpots.

Indeed!

Jesus, this place sometimes!

[Dr Murdoch]

elanfan said:

insert 3 fingers

It take he was also armed with a tub of KY?

[TTwiggy]

Moonhawk said:

I agree there is a difference - and could understand if she had been sexually assaulted but mistakenly identified the wrong person.

But.......how can you mistakenly believe you have been the victim of a penetrative sexual assault.

If you genuinly believe it happened (for avoidance of more pointless arguing, I have no idea if the woman in question did genuinly believe it happened).

[Einion Yrth]

Moonhawk said:

I agree there is a difference - and could understand if she had been sexually assaulted but mistakenly identified the wrong person.

But.......how can you mistakenly believe you have been the victim of a penetrative sexual assault.

"deception, suggestibility (fantasy-proneness, hypnotizability, false memory syndrome), personality, sleep paralysis, psychopathology, psychodynamics [and] environmental factors".

[andy_s]

And note, she didn't accuse HIM, not even pick him out of an id process; police joined the dots, came to a conclusion based on what she said & presented to CPS.
It appears obvious that someone severely goofed up, but she never directly accused...

[TTmonkey]

He probably stopped time, took her to an alternative reality, did these things, returned her to our timeline, restarted time, and then wiped his sticky fingers clean on her shoulder (this is what actually upset her) and proceeded on his time travelling way.

FFS, the crime described clearly did not take place, therefore she's either a mentally unstable fantasist or she's a malicious liar that has broken several laws.

[PurpleMoonlight]

saaby93 said:

You're confusing lying with being mistaken

If you honestly believe something happened even though it didn't you're not lying

If this woman honestly believes the incident occurred then she needs sectioning.

[andy_s]

PurpleMoonlight said:

saaby93 said:

You're confusing lying with being mistaken

If you honestly believe something happened even though it didn't you're not lying

If this woman honestly believes the incident occurred then she needs sectioning.

That's the point; the incident didn't occur as shown on the cctv, but was she mistaken as to where and when?

[saaby93]

andy_s said:

And note, she didn't accuse HIM, not even pick him out of an id process; police joined the dots, came to a conclusion based on what she said & presented to CPS.
It appears obvious that someone severely goofed up, but she never directly accused...

And there is the Oyster trail.

There'll be a gap between what she actually said and what actually happened in which a lot of inference has been drawn and now discounted.

[A10]

andy_s said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

saaby93 said:

You're confusing lying with being mistaken

If you honestly believe something happened even though it didn't you're not lying

If this woman honestly believes the incident occurred then she needs sectioning.

That's the point; the incident didn't occur as shown on the cctv, but was she mistaken as to where and when?

Do you really believe that? If a stranger shoves his hand in your pants and penetrates you while you are just going about your business, you remember where you are!

It's not an everyday occurrence...

[anonymous-user]

elanfan said:

2) Is there some way of starting a petition or similar to have this awful excuse for a woman prosecuted by the CPS or if not to start a fund for Mark Pearson to bring about a private prosecution?

The judge allowed it to go to the jury...

[TTmonkey]

Any one of us could have crossed paths with this woman. Next time you see a woman look at you, perhaps smile in your direction, just remember, carry something in both hands and always stay near CCTV.

[PurpleMoonlight]

La Liga said:

he judge allowed it to go to the jury...

Indeed. They have questions to answer too.

[Wills2]

Trax said:

From what I gather, the CPS said the prosecution met the threshold to proceed. What I/we dont know, is what is the threshold? We know there is an allegation, she was a bit shaky with it, he can be put on the scene with his Oysetr cards, admits being there, we also have CCTV which puts him at the scene, and he may have admitted its him in the CCTV (if he was shown it. Is that enough to reach a prosecution theshold? Does the FACT that the CCTV also shows the offence did not take place counter their decision to prosecute, or has someone just ignored it. If it was ignored, someone needs to go to jail.

It seems bizarre given the footage but is that the threshold? He/she said you did XYZ and we can put you at the scene = court.

[anonymous-user]

PurpleMoonlight said:

La Liga said:

The judge allowed it to go to the jury...

Indeed. They have questions to answer too.

One judge. What about the defence? His solicitor seems experienced and specialises in these matters. Why didn't he, presumably, apply for it to be discontinued? If people here are that bothered they could email him.