Another rape/sexual harassment case collapses

If I was prime minister she would be shot at dawn!

I understand that a "not guilty" verdict in such a case does not mean that the accuser was deliberately lying.

But surely the CCTV footage in this case actually could provide support to the assertion that she deliberately falsely accused the individual?

I am not saying it is the case here, but I often find that people assume because the complainant did not act as they would it must mean the complainant was lying. I find this reasoning offensive.

I repeat I am not saying this is what this post is about. But I think we must all be careful of jumping to assumptions or indeed presumptions, when you personally weren't there.

Of course. The mere fact she was laughing and chatting away is not evidence it did not occur.

But it is completely contrary to the evidence she gave under oath. Now I know people will say, "Memory is completely unreliable. Maybe she convinced herself she was hysterical and crying". Perhaps.

But I believe the evidence we do have is enough to trigger an investigation as to whether perjury has occurred.

Interesting that the jury reached a majority verdict, so at least one member of the jury still believed that he was guilty.

The police must have thought they had enough evidence for a reasonable chance of conviction, then found the CCTV and the CPS tried to suppress it. Yes the accuser was probably making things up, but what is for certain is the CPS tried to convict someone they probably thought was innocent because they'd seen the CCTV, and also tried to suppress it for long enough that the defence couldn't use but but also release it 'just in time' so the defence couldn't say they didn't get to see it.

Put the accuser on trial for perjury as it looks very likely she did so. But also investigate the CPS with a view to disbarring anyone involved in trying to frame the accused.

I would give them the benefit of the doubt insofar as the alleging they knew he was innocent and deliberately chose to prosecute him. I simply do not believe they would do that.

But I believe they believed he was guilty and had an extremely casual and "relaxed" attitude when it came to ensuring that he was given proper consideration in terms of his possible innocence and exculpatory evidence. They thought that the ends justified the means.

The thing is, the CPS are prosecutors but, unlike every other party in every other type of legal proceedings, they have to take into account the interests of both parties. The CPS are not supposed to have a prosecution mindset, they are supposed to look at things objectively and in the round, and be just as concerned with protecting innocent defendants as they are prosecuting guilty criminals.