This is bizarre

captbarnacles

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3435317/Tried-sex-crime-brushed-past-film-star-rush-hour.html#comments

CCTV showed him walking through London commuters and past a film star
It cannot be said with certainty the pair made even fleeting physical contact
But woman, in her 60s, claimed that he sexually assaulted her penetratively

She should be named and he should sue her immediately.

The CPS said: ‘There was sufficient evidence for this case to proceed to court and progress to trial. We respect the decision of the jury.’

So what other persuasive evidence could there be? the video is damning

Eugene Norman

Can he sue? Or does he not even get to know her name.

How bizarre how bizzare.

Doo doo doo.

Wibbs

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Can he sue? Or does he not even get to know her name.

Well apparently a video of her was played in court, so he knows who she is I'd imagine? Either way this is beyond daft. If I read it in the Onion I'd think they'd gone too crazy.

He should most certainly sue and IMH the crown prosecution should charge her with wasting police and court time, but since they were the utter muppets who charged the chap on near zero evidence I can't see that happening anytime soon. Unreal.

Then again how far might he get with a civil suit? She could go full on actress and emote and claim temporary mental illness or whatever and maybe even her fame would win over a jury(though IM non professional H she is nuttier than squirrel poo). Her very job is based on the ability to pretend to be someone else convincingly, so lying convincingly would be a doddle.

fatherted1969

****er should be named and shamed then sued by himself. CPS should also be sued.

failinis

Wibbs wrote: »

Well apparently a video of her was played in court, so he knows who she is I'd imagine? Either way this is beyond daft. If I read it in the Onion I'd think they'd gone too crazy.

He should most certainly sue and IMH the crown prosecution should charge her with wasting police and court time, but since they were the utter muppets who charged the chap on near zero evidence I can't see that happening anytime soon. Unreal.

Then again how far might he get with a civil suit? She could go full on actress and emote and claim temporary mental illness or whatever and maybe even her fame would win over a jury(though IM non professional H she is nuttier than squirrel poo). Her very job is based on the ability to pretend to be someone else convincingly, so lying convincingly would be a doddle.

Looking at the stills from the video in the link I can barely make out faces so unlikely he knows unless she was there for the hearing.

He clearly is innocent, and he made a good point in saying:

At the same time, it has sought to deal with concerns that many women are put off reporting rape and sexual assault because they lack faith in the justice system.
Mr Pearson wonders whether he is ‘a victim of the way the CPS is rigorously trying to redress the balance’. One of his supporters, author Erin Pizzey, the family care activist who founded the world’s first shelter for victims of domestic violence, certainly believes so.

But they were clearly wrong in his case, and the fact it was a "star" who accused made the police service go into this very heavy handedly.

Senna

Thank God there was cameras there, it got to trial without evidence, he would have certainly been convicted if there was no video.
Frightening how an innocent persons life can be ruined by a lie.

biko

Events

Their paths crossed for precisely half a second during the evening rush hour at Waterloo Station.
Mark Pearson, a 51-year-old artist, was on his way home from work, weaving through a thick tide of London commuters.
Walking towards him across the concourse came an award-winning star of film, TV, theatre and radio. She had just been to a yoga class and was heading to a rehearsal. Neither knew the other.

It cannot be said with certainty that the artist and the actress made even fleeting physical contact. CCTV images showed only that they walked past each other.

Yet the woman, who is in her 60s, claimed Mr Pearson sexually assaulted her – penetratively – for ‘two or three seconds’.

Bongalongherb

The CPS said: ‘There was sufficient evidence for this case to proceed to court and progress to trial. We respect the decision of the jury.’

That crowd needs to be shut-down immediately and reassessed. That is just nasty in the extreme. Frightening as well as that could happen any of us.

The_Valeyard

This is nuts. Name and shame this actress who has blatantly made up a story about this guy. She could have ruined his life!!

He needs to make this a much bigger story than it is and gain more headline attention to hold the CPS accountable for their decisions.

I hate to say this, but just because someone claims sexual assault or rape, does not automatically make it true.

warpdrive

Senna wrote: »

Thank God there was cameras there, it got to trial without evidence, he would have certainly been convicted if there was no video.
Frightening how an innocent persons life can be ruined by a lie.

This. That's the worst part to think about. Absolutely stupid system.

karma_

This from the same system that fumbled and bungled a case against Janer until it was too late?

captbarnacles

It's hard to fathom her thinking. It looks like he may have bumped into her and she thought "I'm going to ruin his life for that".

She needs to be named if she's that crazy, if even just for everyone elses protection.

captbarnacles

It's hard to fathom her thinking. It looks like he may have bumped into her and she thought "I'm going to ruin his life for that".

She needs to be named if she's that crazy, if even just for everyone elses protection.

osarusan

Baffling that the CPS decided there was enough evidence to go to trial.

Wibbs wrote: »

He should most certainly sue and IMH the crown prosecution should charge her with wasting police and court time, but since they were the utter muppets who charged the chap on near zero evidence I can't see that happening anytime soon. Unreal.

He could sue the CPS for malicious prosecution, but I've no idea what the standard for that is.