What a huge waste of public money

[Trax]

Wills2 said:

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.

I dont know, so I was asking the question. Thats seems to be the evidence they have though, and part of the evidence shows no assault took place.

[andy_s]

A10 said:

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...

Where did I say what I believe? Read again, I ask the question.

[Moonhawk]

edit: sorry double post - sodding iphone!

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 9th February 15:34

[A10]

andy_s said:

A10 said:

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...

Where did I say what I believe? Read again, I ask the question.

You posed the question. I'm asking if you believe it possible?

Not sure what's wrong with that?

[andy_s]

A10 said:

andy_s said:

A10 said:

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...

Where did I say what I believe? Read again, I ask the question.

You posed the question. I'm asking if you believe it possible?

Not sure what's wrong with that?

Who's to say, was it reported contemporaneously, a day later, was she platform 1 or 2...I don't know; sometimes there's shock involved etc, I don't know - what I would do is irrelevant because I would have ttted him. It smells fishy for sure, but these are the details that aren't in the public domain...

[andymadmak]

My personal view is that this all got out of hand (so to speak) and she didn't know when to stop.

From everything I have read, her initial complaint seems to have been that he bashed her shoulder as he went past. The suggestions of the penetrative assault came a little later.
I have no idea how reliable some of the sources I have read are, and it could all be nonsense but maybe it went something like this:

Perhaps he clipped her with his rucksack or such like and she got mightily miffed by that, thinking that he must have done it on purpose. So she went to the Police to complain and they said, "seriously luv? it's a busy train station, get over it". So, rejected she then decided to egg it up a bit and the whole thing got out of control really quickly. She must have been bricking it when she found out there was CCTV of "the incident".
but then, factor in a CPS that wants more convictions for sexual assault, her own minor celebrity that possibly may give her an inflated sense of self worth, a vivid imagination and a Police Force + criminal justice system seemingly unwilling to challenge her ever more outrageous embellishments and all of a sudden we have a court date!

[Moonhawk]

Einion Yrth said:

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".

Fair enough - but with the pressure to up conviction rates - could we see more men up in court (and successfully prosecuted) based on such factors.

In cases where there is little physical evidence - or where there is, but the parties disagree about consent - conviction may come down to who the judge/jury believe more - yet those convictions may be based on mistruths.

[A10]

andy_s said:

A10 said:

andy_s said:

A10 said:

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...

Where did I say what I believe? Read again, I ask the question.

You posed the question. I'm asking if you believe it possible?

Not sure what's wrong with that?

Who's to say, was it reported contemporaneously, a day later, was she platform 1 or 2...I don't know; sometimes there's shock involved etc, I don't know - what I would do is irrelevant because I would have ttted him. It smells fishy for sure, but these are the details that aren't in the public domain...

It's a journey she's used to because she was on her way to rehearsals. She knew what platform she was on. And as I said, if someone violates you, in the manner alleged, you damn well remember where it happened. I'd imagine it would never leave you!

For argument's sake, let's say she really was sketchy about where and when it even took place, how reliable could the rest of her recollection of the 'incident' then be seen to be? Not very in my opinion.

No-one did a damn thing to her.

[A10]

andymadmak said:

My personal view is that this all got out of hand (so to speak) and she didn't know when to stop.

From everything I have read, her initial complaint seems to have been that he bashed her shoulder as he went past. The suggestions of the penetrative assault came a little later.
I have no idea how reliable some of the sources I have read are, and it could all be nonsense but maybe it went something like this:

Perhaps he clipped her with his rucksack or such like and she got mightily miffed by that, thinking that he must have done it on purpose. So she went to the Police to complain and they said, "seriously luv? it's a busy train station, get over it". So, rejected she then decided to egg it up a bit and the whole thing got out of control really quickly. She must have been bricking it when she found out there was CCTV of "the incident".
but then, factor in a CPS that wants more convictions for sexual assault, her own minor celebrity that possibly may give her an inflated sense of self worth, a vivid imagination and a Police Force + criminal justice system seemingly unwilling to challenge her ever more outrageous embellishments and all of a sudden we have a court date!

This broadly my opinion also.

[JagerT]

andy_s said:

Who's to say, was it reported contemporaneously, a day later, was she platform 1 or 2...I don't know; sometimes there's shock involved etc, I don't know - what I would do is irrelevant because I would have ttted him. It smells fishy for sure, but these are the details that aren't in the public domain...

What you mean his fingers ?







sorry

[Scuffers]

well, there no way she can remain anonymous, it's all over the net who she is.

[Pixel Pusher]

Dr Murdoch said:

elanfan said:

insert 3 fingers

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

saaby93 said:

And there is the Oyster trail.

I'm sure it's known as a Snail trail.

[bitchstewie]

La Liga said:

ne 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.

La Liga, whilst I can see the point you're making, could you help me out and suggest how you think this got to court?

I'd like to think I'm open minded enough to see both sides of these things but on this one I'm struggling based off what's been reported.

Now I get that there is going to be stuff that hasn't been reported, and newspapers like headlines, so I'm asking you to draw on your experience - what kind of thing might we be missing?

[Impasse]

Would there have been any way of arguing these somewhat pedantic points of law without dragging Pearson into the mix? He's the only one who has emerged from this shambles with any sense of credibility, yet his name has still been tarnished and will forever be linked with "that sex attack on that radio actress".

[Smiler.]

Has there been any reporting of this on the BBC (TV & radio)?

I've been incommunicado for the last 24 hrs.

[Jasandjules]

La Liga said:

ne 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.

Why did the police not review the evidence then discontinue/not refer to the CPS? Why did the CPS not review the evidence and discontinue? It should have been stopped LONG before getting to court.

ETA - Oh I do also think, upon reviewing the evidence, the judge could and should have directed the Jury to acquit.

Edited by Jasandjules on Tuesday 9th February 18:02

[Scuffers]

Jasandjules said:

Why did the police not review the evidence then discontinue/not refer to the CPS? Why did the CPS not review the evidence and discontinue? It should have been stopped LONG before getting to court.

Why did the CPS alter the video of the incident?

then when the defence took it apart and did their own step-by-step analysis, they decided not to even table the video as prosecution evidence?

[saaby93]

woowahwoo said:

May be, they were fake arms?

[motco]

elanfan said:

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!

She (allegedly) said he put his hand DOWN her pants, not up. How did she count the digits?

[anonymous-user]

bhstewie said:

La Liga said:

ne 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.

La Liga, whilst I can see the point you're making, could you help me out and suggest how you think this got to court?

I'd like to think I'm open minded enough to see both sides of these things but on this one I'm struggling based off what's been reported.

Now I get that there is going to be stuff that hasn't been reported, and newspapers like headlines, so I'm asking you to draw on your experience - what kind of thing might we be missing?

To be fair, I'm struggling to think of obvious evidence that could work with the CCTV to result in a charge given the apparent lack of forensics and other witnesses. I'd be very keen to read the form that go from the police to the prosecutors and back again.

I can imagine the police charging something doesn't have a realistic prospect of conviction (and then the CPS review and discontinue the matter). I can see the CPS, on occasion, charging something that doesn't have a realistic prospect of conviction. However to go past the further CPS reviews and prosecutors, and the defence and judge seems quite extreme.

The initial CPS prosecutor (who makes the charging decision) is going to be used to discontinuing cases. It could even be a near daily occurrence. That person won't be the same person who reviews, and that reviewing person may not be the person who prosecutes. For them all to make mistakes seems far fetched. We then have to move on to motives. Are they all, fundamentally, corrupt? How would they deal with the judge? Just hope?


I certainly think the accused deserves a full explanation from the CPS as to why the concluded there'd be a realistic prospect of conviction.