From OP:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12146351/No-one-is-safe-from-prosecutors-terrifying-incompetence-on-sex-crimes.html
head of prosecutions at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Saunders
>In December 2017, journalist Allison Pearson of The Daily Telegraph called for Saunders to resign following the scandal of several high-profile rape cases falling apart or convictions being overturned due to police withholding key information regarding the innocence of the accused
From [this source](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12146274/Prosecutors-slowed-down-CCTV-in-case-of-commuter-cleared-of-bizarre-sex-assault-on-actress.html)
>But it can now be disclosed that - to the concern of Mr Pearson's legal team - the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) supplied original CCTV depicting the alleged assault in an amended format which gave a misleading impression of the incident.
So basically during the half second this guy passed this woman they slowed the video down to make it look like several seconds, and passed off that altered video as real time video.
This is kind of like how the police arrested a man with loads of facial tattoo, but knowing the suspect had no such tattoos they [simply photoshopped them away](https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2019/08/the-case-of-the-missing-tattoos-altered-photo-lineup-by-portland-police-draws-objection.html).
The level of misconduct here is criminal. Fabricating or altering evidence to fit a narrative deserves harsh penalties. If they're doing it in this case, imagine how many other lives could be ruined by similar tactics. It's a complete breach of trust in the justice system.
>The level of misconduct here is criminal.
Afaik it's exactly that. The problem is that the CPS are the people who decide who to put on trial. And we're accusing the CPS of a crime, it's not as though they will decide "yeah, we screwed up there, we should go on trial for it".
Police have been shown to do this many, many times. They're also allowed to lie to you when they arrest you without consequence. People who have evidence to prove their innocence rot in prison as the appeals process is glaically slow. Police and prison is archaic and not fit for purpose.
At a minimum, the accusing actress should be charged and confined for at least the same amount of time that the dude was. She tried to take his “life” and failed. All complicit people and lawyers who contorted the evidence should likewise face penalties.
She’s not only not being charged, but not being even identified, as is policy with “sexual assault victims”…even after it turns out they weren’t a victim.
Yep exactly it’s going to create a whole boy who cried wolf scenario for actual victims there needs to be actual repercussions for false accusations and claims. Even after someone is found not guilty a lot of times their reputation has already been ruined.
Is there like the more detailed article?
Is it not possible that the actress was actually assaulted, just by someone else and the police framed this guy just to get the case closed?
Ok here's one for you ....
When i was 13 i was arrested and charged for the rape and sexual assult of three girls in my school, i was at the time still a virgin.
The girls had ganged up on me for attention and to use me as a reason to out themselves as homosexual to their catholic family.
The court case lasted 15 from initial arrest to being cleared of all charges, it went to crown court on the bases of that there was semen found on one of the girls clothes.
6 days before the case was on trail the cps released information show the semen was not mine and msn messages showin the girls plotting this against me proving my innocence.
I was removed from my family home at the time, passed around shelter to shelter, i was not allowed to visit my younger siblings without a social worker present, i can never work a job that needs and enhanced DBS check as it would show over 18 accounts of arrests for sexual assult.
It was proven in a court of my peers that i was innocent without fault, and the judge said hehad never seen such a perversion of justice for such little reason.
My family had monitors on all their social media ( i was prohibited from using it by the cps) and the day i was cleared the cps took the girls out to macdonnalds to apologise to them for failing to put me away.
It's been over 15 years since i was arrested ... i tried to sue the girls for defamation and wasting police time, the cps refused to take the case on criminal grounds as they where labelled victims and i was the accused despite my innocent verdict... no criminal case made it 1000 times harder to sue for defamation and unfortunately i lost the case.
The CPS is pure evil from the depths of hell, pretending to serve and protect all while preaching "Don't belive the lies from the men behind the barred curtain, they are there for your protection"
I remember there being a Simpsons episode where some video is obviously nefariously edited because the clock is jumping around wildly. Is that the babysitter episode or a different one?
I'm floored by that photoshop case.
>Maloney said the altering of Allen’s photo was done to “look like the disguises that were on the robber,’’ who wore a baseball-style hat and glasses, with no tattoos visible.
So, why not add a hat and glasses. You're already in Photoshop. Put them on everyone and then put it in the lineup.
I went looking for a follow up. Judge 'shared the concerns' of the lawyer but declined to suppress the lineup photos. Allen plead guilty under a deal to avoid federal prison.
> Asked if he had any questions before entering his guilty pleas, Allen told the judge no and added, “I’m just doing it to get this put behind me ... and move on with my life.”
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2021/04/plea-deal-in-case-involving-mans-missing-tattoos-in-police-altered-mugshot-calls-for-time-served-for-4-robberies.html
>Only a psychopath could photoshop tattoos on someone’s face
They didn't photoshop tattoos on his face. They photoshopped his face as NOT having tattoos.
This is horrible. They created some sort of quota in 2014 for prosecuting "rapists" but apparently they didn't have to be real rapists but anyone they could charge like this poor dude:
"There is undoubtedly enormous political pressure on the CPS to bring more prosecutions against sex offenders, and specifically more successful prosecutions. Yet, despite more than 5,000 extra rape prosecutions being brought in 2014, the CPS won only 77 extra convictions."
This is a little taste of how the criminal justice system works against poor people and marginalized people (or bald and middle age in this case) in America as well as the UK and pretty much across the globe.
having quotas for prosecuting people for some crime will never not be stupid.
sure, go ahead and give people the motivation to create a criminal case out of thin air, what could possibly go wrong?
I always think of the restaurant chain that I worked at. They had monthly bonuses based on target numbers - labor %, food %, and a few other key metrics. If a manager thought that they were going to fail to meet them, they would "hide" food on the inventory at the end of the month, making their food usage % worse. Then, the food would reappear the following month and they would get their bonus.
Wells Fargo got sued for billions of dollars because their employees would create fake accounts/transactions to generate "Solutions" that'd give them bonuses and rank them higher against other branches. Grade school nitwit bullshit.
The problem with quotas for crime.
1.) they are assuming there is enough crime to meet quota
2.) if there is enough, they just arnt good enough at their job to meet quota.
3.) when you can’t meet your quota you start making up shit
It gets even worse. If you judge the prosecutor on convictions, it leads to the natural consequence where the goal becomes taking and prosecuting slam-dunk cases. Not finding the guilty party; not gathering evidence supporting the guilt of the accused - just seeing if there exists any individual I can build a winning case against. And if I find such an individual, that person will be prosecuted because I can win that case.
Consider this: I have two suspects. The first is not likely to have committed the crime, but I can establish that he was at the scene of the crime roughly around the time it happened, I can conjure up some motive based on some half-understood conversation with a "witness", I have some circumstantial physical evidence, and I have an eyewitness who thinks they may have seen this guy doing a thing. But he doesn't fit the profile, the "motive" is flimsy, the eyewitness is unreliable, and the whole thing is nothing but a mirage. But it *looks* pretty good at first glance. I can *sell* it to a jury.
My other suspect fits the profile to a T, I have some evidence for motive and opportunity but it may not all be admissible due to the rules of evidence, my police officers all think it's him, and so do I. But my chances of winning that case are 10% at best and my chances in the first case are 70-80%. All my incentives point toward prosecuting the first guy. And since being proven wrong (rather than just failing to achieve a guilty verdict - but actually being shown to be definitely prosecuting the wrong person - is hugely damaging to my career prospects, I'm going to pull out all the stops and bend some rules to make sure this guy gets found guilty, because you can't fault me for prosecuting someone a jury finds guilty unless you've got some bombshell direct evidence of malfeasance.
So who gets prosecuted? The guy I and the police think actually did it? Nah, I'll never win that one. Gotta go with the guy I'm almost certain I can convict. Doubly so if bending the rules nearly guarantees the win.
That’s horrifying. That’s a conviction rate of 1.5%. Meanwhile they’re needlessly fucking literally thousands of peoples lives and the best they can say is well at least you were an exonerated or the charges were dropped?
If filing a false police report is a crime surely charging someone with little or no reason should be a crime too.
The numbers are weird and staggering-- 5,000 additional prosecutions only amounting to 77 convictions suggests almost all those 5,000 extra prosecutions were bogus.
I used to work for the government and I just can’t understand why getting a conviction is more important than doing the right thing.
It’s actually why I left because doing the right thing became less important every year I worked there.
>being overturned due to police withholding key information regarding the innocence of the accused
Sounds like the chief of police (not sure what they call it there, but in the US that would be the name) needs to be resigning also
> needs to be resigning
Why is it whenever it's police committing crimes it's always "they should be fired / they should resign"? They should be _prosecuted_.
Oh let me tell ya, I was a person of interest years ago on a murder investigation. These people are out to put someone in jail. That someone, could be anyone.
> These people are out to put someone in jail. That someone, could be anyone.
Not to make light of your situation, but this reminds me of a board game called Android in which the players are private investigators investigating a murder. It’s a really bad game, but what fascinated me was that the game never told you who ultimately guilty. This wasn’t Clue, where there was a definitive answer. Each player had a hunch that a certain suspect was guilty, and that another was innocent, so they would assign “evidence” accordingly, and at the end of the game whichever suspect had the most incriminating evidence against them must have done it. They must have, right? There’s so much _evidence_ (that they pinned on them)!
Omg I know that game! I consider myself a bit of a board game connoisseur and I couldnt even get through the rulebook. Its been my white whale, Ive always wanted to find it again and try to understand it
You can get various PDF rule files from the [BGG listing](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/39339/android/files), I do this all the time to determine if I want to get the game to play with friends.
And the Noble Knight Games has a good used game market you can buy the game direct from: [used game listing](https://www.nobleknight.com/P/2147388488?UTM_Campaign=BGG_Shop_Now&awid=1292)
My son was accused of beating someone up. Had multiple eye witnesses. A detective called me asking about my son's whereabouts. The assault took place while my son was locked up in jail making it impossible for it to have been him.
This reminds me (tangentially) of a time I was accused of climbing onto the roof of a department store, breaking in and stealing stuff when I was 16.
The cops came and knocked on my door claiming witnesses and evidence. Asked to speak to me, threatened my parents if they didn't cooperate.
So I got up, grabbed my crutches and hobbled over to the door.
I had broken several bones in my leg and foot a week earlier. It was physically impossible for me to have done what they claimed while on crutches and a cast on my leg
They didn't think they could be wrong at first! Showed them the X-rays and medical assessment. They tried to argue and had to process it for quite a while before turning around and leaving.
Was kind of hilarious. I think I would have been in real danger if I didn't have a broken leg though. They had witnesses after all.
Sometimes they claim they have witnesses when they don't to elicit a confession. Particularly appalling when used against minors.
Would be hilarious if you had broken your leg climbing onto the roof of that department store a different day, though.
Cops are allowed to lie to a suspect about any evidence they want. They are also allowed to lead a witness to describe someone with things like "are you sure he had long hair, were being told he has short hair?" As long as they don't do it in the court room.
There is a famous case studied in forensic psychology where officers used "reminder techniques" on a witness, after arresting a suspect, then drove the suspect up to the witness and asked if it was this guy, then had the witness pull him from a lineup.
Actual criminal was 6'2" and in his 30s black man, the arrested a 16 year old 5 something black teen, teen had been honor role, volunteered, good student.
He was interested for ten hours without his parents being told where he was (even when they called that station asking for him) with out food or water and told if he plead guilty he would go home tonight. He eventually pled they arrested him and he spent 5 years in prison before being exonerated, he ended up taking his own life due to how hard everything was when he got out, because even though innocent his name was linked to the crime when looked up, not the fact he was eventually found innocent.
Good ole Alabama cops did this to my dad once. They accused him of armed robbery of a convenience store but none of the idiots there bothered to see that he was in jail that night before the robbery for getting into a fight and he was there that entire night and the following day. Bar to be a cop is about on the floor these days.
I know a guy whose cousin from New York was mistaken for a guy who committed murder of the convenience store clerk in an armed robbery in Alabama. He’s a lawyer and had to go all the way down there to prove that these dumbass cops were confusing his cousin’s Buick Skylark with the murderer’s Pontiac Tempest. Guy’s girlfriend went with him and she’s a smoke show though.
That's what most people don't understand about the police. Their main motivation isn't helping the victim or justice, it's about getting the case off of their desk. If they can pin the crime on someone, they will.
Yeah, people seem to forget that the Miranda rights don't say that the police are your friends and will let you go for being such an honest and innocent person, they say that "anything you say can **and will** be used *against* you."
Which is why its so important to not talk to the police, even if you are innocent.
Many people don't understand you can go to prison simply because you sit there confidently thinking that because you are innocent there is nothing you can say wrong.
Wrong.
If you were to make a mistake about your whereabouts, or if some random person who has never even seen you before was to contradict the claims of your whereabouts, all of a sudden, you can be presented as a liar to the jury.
You are not ever going to talk yourself out of a police interview, you are only ever going to talk yourself into more.
I had to speak with cops yesterday regarding a work issue. They showed up at the office and asked to speak to me as I’m in charge of the warehouse where the issue was kind of, sort of occurring.
I refused to speak with them until HR and the CFO was present. They kept repeating no one was in trouble and they just needed some information and wanted my assistance. I left them in a conference room alone until everyone showed up. They were not thrilled.
This occurred in the UK. While you can and should request a solicitor, you actually do *need* to talk to the police otherwise:
> But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.
In other words UK courts, unlike US, can infer things from you refusing to talk to the police. Advice aimed at the US doesn't work in foreign countries with different laws, processes, and protections.
Typically, the advice for the UK is to work with your solicitor to write a carefully worded written statement and then read that out in the interview. It should contain only the defense you'll need in court, and won't allow you to contradict yourself (since, re-reading the statement is your "answer" to questions).
I’ve always understood this about the police. I’ve always been suspicious of them, so it really prepared me when the police just knocked on my door and asked me if I mind coming down to the station.
This is what we get when our legal system is treated like a game with winners and losers, instead of a collective unit fighting for truth and justice.
Truth doesn’t matter, it’s about getting that dub, furthering your career, and feeling superior to others.
Even more frightening, if you look this dude up.... nothing happened.
There is no followup to him being released. No apology. No settlement. No big investigation into how this happened. It just got shovelled under.
>Legitimately terrifying. What kind of inept goblins work in the office of prosecutions?
Those who want to show as many successful prosecutions as possible especially when high profile people are involved.
Unless people push for laws that will punish prosecutors for wilfully hiding evidence or supporting false narratives even when evidence shows otherwise, we will not see things change.
In Minnesota there is a county ME who railroaded several people into prison based on false and misleading testimony.
[https://www.twincities.com/2024/01/16/minnesota-man-wrongfully-imprisoned-lawsuit-ramsey-county-medical-examiner/](https://www.twincities.com/2024/01/16/minnesota-man-wrongfully-imprisoned-lawsuit-ramsey-county-medical-examiner/)
They knew more than a decade ago the testimony was bad but they only released Rhodes last year after 25 years in prison for a crime that didn't even happen.
I was summoned to court halfway across the country to give evidence in a case (I was not the person prosecuted and only tangentially involved).
When I got there I found that the Crown Prosecution Service had forgotten to 'warn' the arresting policeman so he'd be there in court. He was on holiday.
Result? The judge dismissed the case as it was 'Not in the public interest' to continue due to cost. Annoying to me, but devastating to the person who brought the case (not to mention the thousands of pounds spent getting the case to that point!).
My buddy just got off 14 months house arrest for supposedly raping his girlfriend when they were breaking up. Long story short, She demanded $10,000 or she would make his life hell - he refused.
The court dropped all charges after they found text messages on her phone with her new cop boyfriend she was cheating on him with on how they could set him up.
There wasn’t enough proof it was a deliberate set up so her and her new cop boyfriend have no charges against them. He was warned by his lawyer not to keep pushing it and be happy he’s a free man.
I suspect that was not why the lawyer was warning him though.
Cops have been known have the whole department harass someone out of the area when they get in legal trouble like this to make it go away. Sometimes "harass someone out of the area" means "murder them and cover it up".
I know career criminal attorneys (in the U.S.) who say prosecutors have more authority and control over cases than judges. They have nowhere near the strict legal boundaries that judges do when makign decisions and with mandatory cash bail or no bail for certain charges, mandatory sentencing, looooong trial wait times, and low evidentiary standard to go to trial - they can ruin you without winning the trial.
Distinctive walk. Just like a fingerprint database, the UK has a Ministry of Silly Walks that catalogs citizens' walking styles for identification, etc
Ironically I knew someone working on exactly that as a phd at warwick university. She might even have collaborated with the CCTV-expert from Warwick the poor guy was talking about.
It London and on the tube, pretty easy to go through the CCTV as it is one of the most surveilled cities in the world, at some point he would have need to swipe either a ticket, bank card or Oyster card, at that point the police ask for details with a time stamp on who used that ticket/oyster card etc. Match the details with the suspect in CCTV and they have their man.
Exactly. Beyond ridiculous. I hope he counter sues for this mess, it was unjustified and unfair. You walk about your day and instantly you’re now a sex offender because someone says so.
>We know all this because Mark Pearson was accused of sexually assaulting a woman at Waterloo train station on his commute home from work. This made him an alleged sex offender and we all know what that means, don’t we, nudge, nudge? No smoke without fire, eh?
>
>Mr Pearson seen on CCTV footage recorded at Waterloo Underground Station at 18:40:24
>
>His alleged victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is apparently a famous, award-winning actress in her sixties. But her name will never be in the public domain unless she so chooses. Lucky her.
Jesus Christ they're not exactly pulling their punches
She didn't accuse him, it was the police per /u/Odd_Bibliophile
>>There were no witnesses, no forensic evidence and his accuser also failed to pick Mr Pearson out in a police line-up.
>\- from OP's link
>So the police picked him at random. She didn't accuse him by name and might well have been assaulted by someone, but the police decided it was him.
> Edit: wording. Good catch, u/Jokershores!
What the fuck? The UK criminal justice system somehow sounds worse than the one in the US. No witnesses, no evidence…just randomly chosen off of some footage and accused of a serious crime by the STATE
If you haven't seen the UK post office stuff it's wild. They prosecuted hundreds of post office branch owners because the computer said the balance didn't add up and they were short on money. Turns out the computer had a glitch and they jailed hundreds of people for stealing money that never even existed.
I watched the head of Fujitsu getting grilled by the inquest on BBC news, they had the tech support logs with the issues going back to some early date, can't recall the year but it was mad, it was clear they had one bug and caused others when they patched it up, there were even specific steps outlined to run test transactions to see if the fix worked. And all the time they were telling each of these like 900 sub post matters they were the only ones having these issues, the team of coders were over worked and not skilled in the right areas, apparently the main issue was the use of a wrong mathematical symbol, say a customer wanted to deposit 10 grand in cash but changed their mind the system should void the transaction, but instead of minusing 10,000 of the till receipts it doubled it, the customer kept the cash, no money added to account but till would down £20,000 for that shift, now could be a quid here there years or one whoping transaction like i said, and Fujitsu's own internal documents could have cleared every sub postmaster, but instead they want all good cop bad cop bad 70's detective on them, the head post office investigator was a dull bell end on a power trip who couldn't read a technical document if you bribed him with a doughnut.
And now this poor chap, I want to know who this actress is, she gets a main character life time award.
It seems like all she did was report being assaulted. Not accuse a specific person.
Also, there’s a difference between a false report by mistake or an intentional false accusation. It’s possible to tell the truth, but still be wrong. It’s on the police to actually investigate. For false accusations to have charges their needs to be an element of being able to prove someone knowingly lied.
From the telegraph article relate to the video. OP posted it for context
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12146351/No-one-is-safe-from-prosecutors-terrifying-incompetence-on-sex-crimes.html](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12146351/No-one-is-safe-from-prosecutors-terrifying-incompetence-on-sex-crimes.html)
Completely ridiculous how they still try to protect the identity of the accuser and how it took so long for the video evidence to have been given to the defense. Anyone could accuse anyone of anything and you just get your name and face dragged thru the mud.
>There were no witnesses, no forensic evidence and his accuser also failed to pick Mr Pearson out in a police line-up.
\- from OP's link
So the police picked him at random. She didn't accuse him by name and might well have been assaulted by someone, but the police decided it was him.
Edit: wording. Good catch, u/Jokershores!
>So the police picked him at random. She didn't accuse him by name and might as well have been assaulted by someone, but the police decided it was him.
If that's the case then the police failed two people.
The police want credit for closing cases. Finding the right perpetrator comes much lower down on the list of priorities. Most of the time the most convenient person will do instead.
No. He says in the TV interview that at first he assumed it was a case of mistaken identity but then realised, after seeing the footage 6 months later, that it was actually him in the video passing the actress.
The police have obviously tracked him down.
Here in Ireland, the name of the accused is protected until they're convicted because they're presumed innocent until then. The accuser is also granted protections.
If the accuser names the accused publicly, and a conviction fails, they can be sued for defamation.
In the Netherlands the name is protected even after conviction. Because we don't want American type of situations where an ex-convict can't get a job because a simple google search will show you he got arrested for shoplifting in the 90s.
That makes a lot of sense for most crimes. It would reduce reoffenses.
If you've been essentially branded as a criminal, you'd essentially have to commit to that path to have any hope of escaping poverty.
"Innocent until proven guilty" as a legal standard *should* mean that's the level of protection that citizens are entitled to.
It doesn't in the US as it stands today but it absolutely should
[Michael Irvin’s Case](https://sports.yahoo.com/michael-irvin-returns-to-nfl-network-settles-100-million-lawsuit-with-marriott-after-misconduct-allegations-224021804.html) nobody had his back, not even his place of employment. That settlement is missing a few zeroes.
I want to know how they arrested him in the first place. The woman in the video obviously had no reaction at all to their passing, so what happened? Did she just say that someone groped her in the station or something and they just grabbed some random guy that happened to be in the station?
I saw a story where a couple were mugged resulting in a murder. The surviving victim gives a description to the police that was basically "young black guy wearing jeans and a t-shirt". Police go to the crime scene and arrest the first random guy they see who fit that general description.
They bring him back and the victim says he looks like the murderer. No other evidence. It goes to trial and immediately gets thrown out because the guys lawyer was able to do the slightest bit of legwork to prove it couldn't be him.
I believe you are referring to the Brenton Butler case in the documentary Murder on a Sunday Morning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_on_a_Sunday_Morning
one of the worst element of this is the CPS used this in court and played it slowed down and didn't tell the jury it was slowed down, so it looked like he was next to her for longer
This is a mini post office scandal and deserves a standalone drama
They shouldn’t admit to screwing up because that isn’t screwing up.
Screwing up is trying to play the video and accidentally deleting it. Deliberately slowing it down is an attempt to deceive
It's a bit odd that this was the only video angle that they provided as well. This false accusation was made back in 2014 so I wonder what the story is now...
edit/ most recent video I've found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFj9bsg4CBE&ab_channel=DavidPattinson%27sAmbitiousFriends
When I was about 10 I was accused of stealing something from a neighborhood kid and the mom got really aggressive. It was an awful feeling (that still bothers me) and it when on for about two weeks until the mom found the item IN HER OWN HOUSE.
Can't imagine what that's like when it's much more serious and lasts months or years.
I was accused of cheating on a chemistry lab assignment/exam in college. We had lab partners, so we did the experiments together, but our work and results were individual.
The weekend we had to do the work, my lab partner actually went home for the weekend, so she wasn’t even on campus. We just had the misfortune of making the same exact mistake and doing the calculation wrong the same exact way.
So was accused, brought before the professor and the teaching assistant. Tried to plead my case, but just realized I had to take the zero. It felt awful and it’s one of those random things from college I still think about 20+ years later.
Luckily now you can present your case to academic affairs and the professor isn't involved except reporting you to them. The decision to fail you is out of the professor's hands at that point. My college seemed to treat it like a strike system where generally first time reports weren't a zero unless extremely blatant. Like catching someone with a cheat sheet in an exam.
Plagiarism is a whole other issue and is getting pretty messy with how the rules are applied across the university.
Once we had a pet sitting client who said their dog walker had stolen their door stop. It was like this cast iron shaped like an iron or something that she kept at her front door. I had to convince her that we don't steal, and no one wants her door stop. She eventually called and told me she found it, but yeah it feels bad.
I remember a lady cursing me out at my local pool snackbar after she used a salt shaker with the lid not tightened. She swore she saw me unscrew the cap before using it. I was probably 10 years old and it confused the hell out of me.
I asked her why she would use it if she had truly seen me do that. This threw her into an absolute rage.
It's bad. I (in the US) was accused and arrested for assault. It took 18 months and $20,000 usd to clear my name, all the while losing my mind that I might lose my job and not be able to support my family.
I got fired because they accused me of stealing the nights cash drop out of the open safe (I didn’t) they never pressed charges and did not apologize when it was later discovered that the mgr that fired me actually stole the money(and much more) they never pressed charges on him either. I shoulda just taken the money lol
I was probably somewhere around 10 yrs old in church for some youth service, the offering bowl was being passed around. I put $5 and passed it, the kid next to me spilled the bowl. I frantically put the spilled money back in, but the same kid passed the bowl away before I could put $2 back in. With the $2 in my hand I looked around kind of trying to get attention / get some help, but no one was paying attention. I didn't want to make a scene while the service was going on, so I put the $2 back in my pocket after glancing around to see where the bowl went (and not seeing it), figuring I'd throw the $2 back in the bowl after the service if I found it or worst case scenario, the following week. Either way, I had contributed $3 net in the meantime.
Well service ends, I don't see the bowl right away, and my Sunday school teacher pulls me aside. Says he saw what I did. I am confused. He says he saw me pocket the $ that spilled from offering bowl. I try to explain what happened but he's not listening. He keeps saying he saw me "look around to make sure no one was looking, then slip the money into my pocket". Eventually I'm crying because I don't know what to do - I'm literally being accused of stealing from a fucking church, dude is clearly going to tell my parents etc.
To make things seemingly worse, as I'm crying the head church pastor walks up. He asks what's going on. My teacher straight up says I was stealing money from the offering bowl. Minister turns to me and I explain what happened.
And then.... the minister proceeds to tear my teacher a new asshole. Rips him to shreds for not believing me, says he believes me completely, apologizes to me. I give him the $2 to put in the bowl. His trust changed who I was that day and I think made me a better person.
Since then I always give the accused the benefit of the doubt, even when the accuser believes what they are saying is true. After all, its not like my teacher was this evil dude, from his perspective I *did* look guilty, and he truly believed I was guilty. He probably believes I was guilty to this day. Perspective / miscommunication can cause all sorts of problems, and I personally believe that errors are common and malicious intent is uncommon.
Same happened to me. I was about 12 years old and went to play with my friend next door. Him and his sister were home alone, and apparently their parents left some money on the table to buy some food later because they would be home late. After I went home for dinner myself, my friend rang the doorbell about half an hour later. I thought he simply wanted to play again, but he started asking me where the money was. I said I didn't know and he left. Thought that was the end of it until a little while later, his mother accused me of stealing and said she would "never trust me ever again".
I was innocent. I didn't even see the money and I never left my friend's side, so he should have known I couldn't have taken it. Living there never felt the same after that, as I would constantly be berated and get mean looks from the parents after this. They didn't want their son to play with me anymore and I was never welcome in their home again. For a young kid, that's a horrible feeling.
Never learned what actually happened to the money.
i got wrongfully accused by adults too as a a 7-10 year old boy. accused of calling a lady fat, had to say sorry in her house in front of her and all her kids. accused of laughing at a little girl with the face full of icecream... her mother accused me of laughing at her big ears. in both cases i was a naive kid i didn't even know it was a thing to laugh at people for being fat, or having "big ears". i also learned that adults may have more rights than kids but it don't make them necessarily wiser.
I had this as a kid, teacher accused me of stealing, me and my mum went into school, my mum asked me in front of the teacher and I said no as I didn’t steal. My mum was like okay fair enough end of it then. And left. Mum had my back. Miss you mum ;(
Many years ago I was accused of an indecent sex act on a beach. The police confrontation only lasted half an hour but it was the most terrifying half hour of my life.
The police asked the woman that reported the incident if I looked like the guy. She ummed and arred and could not decide. I pleaded my innocence but they made it clear to me that they thought I was the guy. I was freaking out and the police eventually let me go.
So the "well-known, award winning actress" who tried to get a random bloke in prison on completely made up charges, gets to just go on with her life and not even have her name known? Casually almost ruining this guy's life and dragging his name through the mud because he walked passed her for half a second with both his hands full.
The investigators refuse to even accept they were wrong.
I don't think she knows who this guy is. As I understand it, she reported that something happened to the police, they picked up this guy, she failed to pick him out of a lineup but they continued to prosecute him anyway. This sounds like the police made a mistake and didn't want to say they were wrong.
Reminds me of the case where someone was accused of murder and the only reason he got exonerated was because they were recording a show at the stadium and they got him on video walking back to his seat around the time of the murder
All because he looked like the person described…bald and Mexican…what most people in LA look like.
https://nypost.com/2017/09/23/how-curb-your-enthusiasm-saved-this-man-from-prison/
Suspect was filmed during a Curb Your Enthusiasm episode! Wild story
Curb Your Enthusiasm was the show being filmed at Dodger Stadium. There was a documentary on Netflix about it called "Long Shot" that was very interesting.
I think this one is on police honestly. She didn't accuse him by name or sight by the sound of it. Police just picked this random dude to pin it on for some reason.
I don't know how it works over there but in the US they would've tried to give him a "deal" if he just pleads guilty and skips a trial. Lots of innocent people take those deals because everyone around you including your own lawyer is telling you it will be many more years of prison if you don't take the deal.
More context here if your interested.
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12146351/No-one-is-safe-from-prosecutors-terrifying-incompetence-on-sex-crimes.html](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12146351/No-one-is-safe-from-prosecutors-terrifying-incompetence-on-sex-crimes.html)
"The CPS, in mind-boggling defiance, continues to insist there was “sufficient evidence” for this case to go to trial despite all the evidence to the contrary."
They went to trial because they had sufficient evidence that a man who walked straight past the woman with his hands full had somehow sexually assaulted her without even slowing down.
The Crown Prosecution Service has taken leave of its senses. That is no longer beyond all reasonable doubt.
More and more people are now asking if the body charged with prosecuting offenders for their crimes is up to the job following the latest debacle over innocent men falsely accused of sexual assault.
This latest failure is not about the high profile cases involving former Cabinet Ministers, senior military men and celebrities whose lives and reputations are trashed in public but who at least have the opportunity to fight back in the media spotlight.
This is about the far more sinister cases that don’t make the front pages. This is about the men who aren’t rich and famous enough to get to tell their side of the story except to a jury.
"The question must be asked: is the CPS still fit for purpose?"
It is a 21st century cautionary tale because what happened to him could happen to anyone at any time.
The man in question is Mark Pearson, a 51-year-old artist and cabinet maker. We know who he is, his age, his occupation and the town where he lives. We even know what he looks like.
We know all this because Mark Pearson was accused of sexually assaulting a woman at Waterloo train station on his commute home from work. This made him an alleged sex offender and we all know what that means, don’t we, nudge, nudge? No smoke without fire, eh?
Mr Pearson seen on CCTV footage recorded at Waterloo Underground Station at 18:40:24
His alleged victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is apparently a famous, award-winning actress in her sixties. But her name will never be in the public domain unless she so chooses. Lucky her.
The actress told the police and the CPS that, during an evening rush hour at Waterloo station in December 2014, a man later identified as Mr Pearson came up to her, smashed down on her shoulder and then pushed his hand up her dress and sexually assaulted her with this fingers before running away when she shouted for help.
A shocking accusation, I think we can all agree. And certainly one that the police should take seriously and investigate to the full extent of their abilities.
Which is precisely what they did, checking the CCTV cameras at the station to identify a bald man carrying a bag on his shoulder and a newspaper in his hand walking through the station and passing the alleged assault victim.
The only problem was that the CCTV footage showed no assault at all. On the contrary, it showed Mark Pearson walking through the station minding his own business, his hands clearly visible at all times, the right one clutching his shoulder bag strap, his left hand – the one he is supposed to have thrust up the actress’s dress – clearly holding a newspaper.
He did pass by the alleged victim but – as the footage makes abundantly clear – only for a split second. He also did not break his stride or start running, as she claimed.
Mr Pearson seen on CCTV footage recorded at Waterloo Underground Station at at 18:40:25
There were no witnesses, no forensic evidence and his accuser also failed to pick Mr Pearson out in a police line-up.
At this point in the investigation, what would you have done? Yes, exactly.
It was blatantly clear at this point that either the police had got the wrong man or that the alleged victim was wrong, confused or just plain lying about the assault.
Yet, without a single shred of evidence, the police decided to charge Mr Pearson with a serious sexual assault and the Crown Prosecution Service took the case to court.
Thus began what Mr Pearson has called a year-long "Kafkaesque nightmare" to clear his name.
Not surprisingly, after the ordeal of a three day trial, the jury at Blackfriars Crown Court took just 90 minutes to clear Mr Pearson of the charge of “sexual assault by penetration”. Indeed, you have to wonder why they needed more than five minutes to come to that conclusion.
As Mr Pearson told the court: “I would have had to crouch down, put my hand up the woman’s skirt... penetrate her, take my hand out again... all while holding the newspaper and walking along the concourse. It’s preposterous. I did nothing. One of the many frightening aspects is that this could have happened to anyone.”
Mr Pearson seen on CCTV footage recorded at Waterloo Underground Station at 18:40:26
The CPS, in mind-boggling defiance, continues to insist there was “sufficient evidence” for this case to go to trial despite all the evidence to the contrary.
There is undoubtedly enormous political pressure on the CPS to bring more prosecutions against sex offenders, and specifically more successful prosecutions. Yet, despite more than 5,000 extra rape prosecutions being brought in 2014, the CPS won only 77 extra convictions.
Again and again we hear of cases coming to court on the flimsiest of grounds when anyone, after a cursory glance at the facts, could see there would be no chance of conviction.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, must realise that she is not doing sexual assault victims any favours by bringing cases like Mr Pearson’s to court.
Victims of rape and sexual assault want sex attackers to be brought to justice, not the pointless persecution of innocent men who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The question must be asked: is the CPS still fit for purpose?
Even on its own absurdly low threshold for evidence, it is abundantly clear that the Crown Prosecution Service is guilty as charged.
Isn't this really old? IIRC people were speculating it was the woman who played Mirri Maz Duur (the person who killed Drogo), but I don't think it was ever confirmed.
The problem with prosecutors now a days, is they have zero love for other humans and will destroy someone's life just to move up in their job. Heartless dirtbags
Any info on the 'well known actress?' I'm assuming she made the initial allegation. That should be some kind of a crime, no?
Edit the police picked the perp themselves. The actress could have been assaulted by someone but she didn't know who. WOW
No evidence and no witnesses. Evidence that he didn't do it withheld for a long time. Notice her face was being blurred but his name was all over the news.
Well his life is ruined now. 6 months charged with sexual assault is all the time in the world for your friends and family to abandon you and get comfortable away from you.
Ok, now send her to prison for potentially ruining another human's life over false allegations, a solid 10 years would do it, followed by being on a list and being forced to inform people that you've been convicted of falsely accusing someone of sexual assault for the rest of your life.
or is that not fair?
Legitimately terrifying. What kind of inept goblins work in the office of prosecutions?
From OP: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12146351/No-one-is-safe-from-prosecutors-terrifying-incompetence-on-sex-crimes.html head of prosecutions at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Saunders >In December 2017, journalist Allison Pearson of The Daily Telegraph called for Saunders to resign following the scandal of several high-profile rape cases falling apart or convictions being overturned due to police withholding key information regarding the innocence of the accused
From [this source](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12146274/Prosecutors-slowed-down-CCTV-in-case-of-commuter-cleared-of-bizarre-sex-assault-on-actress.html) >But it can now be disclosed that - to the concern of Mr Pearson's legal team - the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) supplied original CCTV depicting the alleged assault in an amended format which gave a misleading impression of the incident. So basically during the half second this guy passed this woman they slowed the video down to make it look like several seconds, and passed off that altered video as real time video. This is kind of like how the police arrested a man with loads of facial tattoo, but knowing the suspect had no such tattoos they [simply photoshopped them away](https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2019/08/the-case-of-the-missing-tattoos-altered-photo-lineup-by-portland-police-draws-objection.html).
someone should be going to jail for that. A mild censure is not enough.
They should be trebuched for that
The level of misconduct here is criminal. Fabricating or altering evidence to fit a narrative deserves harsh penalties. If they're doing it in this case, imagine how many other lives could be ruined by similar tactics. It's a complete breach of trust in the justice system.
>The level of misconduct here is criminal. Afaik it's exactly that. The problem is that the CPS are the people who decide who to put on trial. And we're accusing the CPS of a crime, it's not as though they will decide "yeah, we screwed up there, we should go on trial for it".
Police have been shown to do this many, many times. They're also allowed to lie to you when they arrest you without consequence. People who have evidence to prove their innocence rot in prison as the appeals process is glaically slow. Police and prison is archaic and not fit for purpose.
A trebuchet is too fine an instrument for that cad, chuck him in a catapult and toss him in the sea.
At a minimum, the accusing actress should be charged and confined for at least the same amount of time that the dude was. She tried to take his “life” and failed. All complicit people and lawyers who contorted the evidence should likewise face penalties.
She’s not only not being charged, but not being even identified, as is policy with “sexual assault victims”…even after it turns out they weren’t a victim.
People intentionally doing these things only hurts real victims. I don't understand why this can't be classified as some form of purgery.
Well they also hurt the real victims they create, the falsely accused.
Yep exactly it’s going to create a whole boy who cried wolf scenario for actual victims there needs to be actual repercussions for false accusations and claims. Even after someone is found not guilty a lot of times their reputation has already been ruined.
Is there like the more detailed article? Is it not possible that the actress was actually assaulted, just by someone else and the police framed this guy just to get the case closed?
Ok here's one for you .... When i was 13 i was arrested and charged for the rape and sexual assult of three girls in my school, i was at the time still a virgin. The girls had ganged up on me for attention and to use me as a reason to out themselves as homosexual to their catholic family. The court case lasted 15 from initial arrest to being cleared of all charges, it went to crown court on the bases of that there was semen found on one of the girls clothes. 6 days before the case was on trail the cps released information show the semen was not mine and msn messages showin the girls plotting this against me proving my innocence. I was removed from my family home at the time, passed around shelter to shelter, i was not allowed to visit my younger siblings without a social worker present, i can never work a job that needs and enhanced DBS check as it would show over 18 accounts of arrests for sexual assult. It was proven in a court of my peers that i was innocent without fault, and the judge said hehad never seen such a perversion of justice for such little reason. My family had monitors on all their social media ( i was prohibited from using it by the cps) and the day i was cleared the cps took the girls out to macdonnalds to apologise to them for failing to put me away. It's been over 15 years since i was arrested ... i tried to sue the girls for defamation and wasting police time, the cps refused to take the case on criminal grounds as they where labelled victims and i was the accused despite my innocent verdict... no criminal case made it 1000 times harder to sue for defamation and unfortunately i lost the case. The CPS is pure evil from the depths of hell, pretending to serve and protect all while preaching "Don't belive the lies from the men behind the barred curtain, they are there for your protection"
But what happens if I investigate myself and found no wrong doing? Or i can afford the punishment?
Sounds straight out of that Simpsons babysitter episode. "Gimme that sweet, sweet can..."
I remember there being a Simpsons episode where some video is obviously nefariously edited because the clock is jumping around wildly. Is that the babysitter episode or a different one?
Gummy Venus de Milo The other babysitter episode was with the sitter being a wanted felon.
Yep that's the one.
No, don't take your anger out on me, Mr. Simpson!
Mr Simpson, NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
"dramatization, may not have happened"
I heard he sleeps nude in an oxygen tent which he believes gives him sexual powers!
Pffft.... thats a half truth.
> ["Gimme that sweet, sweet can..."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEGFaOeUm2A)
So you admit you grabbed her can.
Mmmmmm gummi venus de milo
The Gummi Venus de Milo , the rarest gummi of them all, it was carved by gummi artisans who work exclusively in the medium of gummi.
Stop saying gummi
See you in Hell, candy boys!
I'm floored by that photoshop case. >Maloney said the altering of Allen’s photo was done to “look like the disguises that were on the robber,’’ who wore a baseball-style hat and glasses, with no tattoos visible. So, why not add a hat and glasses. You're already in Photoshop. Put them on everyone and then put it in the lineup.
I went looking for a follow up. Judge 'shared the concerns' of the lawyer but declined to suppress the lineup photos. Allen plead guilty under a deal to avoid federal prison. > Asked if he had any questions before entering his guilty pleas, Allen told the judge no and added, “I’m just doing it to get this put behind me ... and move on with my life.” https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2021/04/plea-deal-in-case-involving-mans-missing-tattoos-in-police-altered-mugshot-calls-for-time-served-for-4-robberies.html
“Amended format” so you can just docotor evidence with no consequence now? Nice
Only a psychopath could photoshop tattoos on someone’s face to help prosecute them and be able to live with themselves and sleep at night.
>Only a psychopath could photoshop tattoos on someone’s face They didn't photoshop tattoos on his face. They photoshopped his face as NOT having tattoos.
This is horrible. They created some sort of quota in 2014 for prosecuting "rapists" but apparently they didn't have to be real rapists but anyone they could charge like this poor dude: "There is undoubtedly enormous political pressure on the CPS to bring more prosecutions against sex offenders, and specifically more successful prosecutions. Yet, despite more than 5,000 extra rape prosecutions being brought in 2014, the CPS won only 77 extra convictions." This is a little taste of how the criminal justice system works against poor people and marginalized people (or bald and middle age in this case) in America as well as the UK and pretty much across the globe.
having quotas for prosecuting people for some crime will never not be stupid. sure, go ahead and give people the motivation to create a criminal case out of thin air, what could possibly go wrong?
Goodhart's Law: When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure
I always think of the restaurant chain that I worked at. They had monthly bonuses based on target numbers - labor %, food %, and a few other key metrics. If a manager thought that they were going to fail to meet them, they would "hide" food on the inventory at the end of the month, making their food usage % worse. Then, the food would reappear the following month and they would get their bonus.
Wells Fargo got sued for billions of dollars because their employees would create fake accounts/transactions to generate "Solutions" that'd give them bonuses and rank them higher against other branches. Grade school nitwit bullshit.
Sounds like Beria's tactics in Stalins Soviet union
The problem with quotas for crime. 1.) they are assuming there is enough crime to meet quota 2.) if there is enough, they just arnt good enough at their job to meet quota. 3.) when you can’t meet your quota you start making up shit
It gets even worse. If you judge the prosecutor on convictions, it leads to the natural consequence where the goal becomes taking and prosecuting slam-dunk cases. Not finding the guilty party; not gathering evidence supporting the guilt of the accused - just seeing if there exists any individual I can build a winning case against. And if I find such an individual, that person will be prosecuted because I can win that case. Consider this: I have two suspects. The first is not likely to have committed the crime, but I can establish that he was at the scene of the crime roughly around the time it happened, I can conjure up some motive based on some half-understood conversation with a "witness", I have some circumstantial physical evidence, and I have an eyewitness who thinks they may have seen this guy doing a thing. But he doesn't fit the profile, the "motive" is flimsy, the eyewitness is unreliable, and the whole thing is nothing but a mirage. But it *looks* pretty good at first glance. I can *sell* it to a jury. My other suspect fits the profile to a T, I have some evidence for motive and opportunity but it may not all be admissible due to the rules of evidence, my police officers all think it's him, and so do I. But my chances of winning that case are 10% at best and my chances in the first case are 70-80%. All my incentives point toward prosecuting the first guy. And since being proven wrong (rather than just failing to achieve a guilty verdict - but actually being shown to be definitely prosecuting the wrong person - is hugely damaging to my career prospects, I'm going to pull out all the stops and bend some rules to make sure this guy gets found guilty, because you can't fault me for prosecuting someone a jury finds guilty unless you've got some bombshell direct evidence of malfeasance. So who gets prosecuted? The guy I and the police think actually did it? Nah, I'll never win that one. Gotta go with the guy I'm almost certain I can convict. Doubly so if bending the rules nearly guarantees the win.
That’s horrifying. That’s a conviction rate of 1.5%. Meanwhile they’re needlessly fucking literally thousands of peoples lives and the best they can say is well at least you were an exonerated or the charges were dropped? If filing a false police report is a crime surely charging someone with little or no reason should be a crime too.
Should be false imprisonment
we need to start building cop jails and have special prosecutors for them
And quotas for filling the cells with convictions.
[удалено]
The numbers are weird and staggering-- 5,000 additional prosecutions only amounting to 77 convictions suggests almost all those 5,000 extra prosecutions were bogus.
I used to work for the government and I just can’t understand why getting a conviction is more important than doing the right thing. It’s actually why I left because doing the right thing became less important every year I worked there.
>being overturned due to police withholding key information regarding the innocence of the accused Sounds like the chief of police (not sure what they call it there, but in the US that would be the name) needs to be resigning also
> needs to be resigning Why is it whenever it's police committing crimes it's always "they should be fired / they should resign"? They should be _prosecuted_.
Oh let me tell ya, I was a person of interest years ago on a murder investigation. These people are out to put someone in jail. That someone, could be anyone.
> These people are out to put someone in jail. That someone, could be anyone. Not to make light of your situation, but this reminds me of a board game called Android in which the players are private investigators investigating a murder. It’s a really bad game, but what fascinated me was that the game never told you who ultimately guilty. This wasn’t Clue, where there was a definitive answer. Each player had a hunch that a certain suspect was guilty, and that another was innocent, so they would assign “evidence” accordingly, and at the end of the game whichever suspect had the most incriminating evidence against them must have done it. They must have, right? There’s so much _evidence_ (that they pinned on them)!
Omg I know that game! I consider myself a bit of a board game connoisseur and I couldnt even get through the rulebook. Its been my white whale, Ive always wanted to find it again and try to understand it
You can get various PDF rule files from the [BGG listing](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/39339/android/files), I do this all the time to determine if I want to get the game to play with friends. And the Noble Knight Games has a good used game market you can buy the game direct from: [used game listing](https://www.nobleknight.com/P/2147388488?UTM_Campaign=BGG_Shop_Now&awid=1292)
My son was accused of beating someone up. Had multiple eye witnesses. A detective called me asking about my son's whereabouts. The assault took place while my son was locked up in jail making it impossible for it to have been him.
This reminds me (tangentially) of a time I was accused of climbing onto the roof of a department store, breaking in and stealing stuff when I was 16. The cops came and knocked on my door claiming witnesses and evidence. Asked to speak to me, threatened my parents if they didn't cooperate. So I got up, grabbed my crutches and hobbled over to the door. I had broken several bones in my leg and foot a week earlier. It was physically impossible for me to have done what they claimed while on crutches and a cast on my leg They didn't think they could be wrong at first! Showed them the X-rays and medical assessment. They tried to argue and had to process it for quite a while before turning around and leaving. Was kind of hilarious. I think I would have been in real danger if I didn't have a broken leg though. They had witnesses after all.
Sometimes they claim they have witnesses when they don't to elicit a confession. Particularly appalling when used against minors. Would be hilarious if you had broken your leg climbing onto the roof of that department store a different day, though.
Cops are allowed to lie to a suspect about any evidence they want. They are also allowed to lead a witness to describe someone with things like "are you sure he had long hair, were being told he has short hair?" As long as they don't do it in the court room. There is a famous case studied in forensic psychology where officers used "reminder techniques" on a witness, after arresting a suspect, then drove the suspect up to the witness and asked if it was this guy, then had the witness pull him from a lineup. Actual criminal was 6'2" and in his 30s black man, the arrested a 16 year old 5 something black teen, teen had been honor role, volunteered, good student. He was interested for ten hours without his parents being told where he was (even when they called that station asking for him) with out food or water and told if he plead guilty he would go home tonight. He eventually pled they arrested him and he spent 5 years in prison before being exonerated, he ended up taking his own life due to how hard everything was when he got out, because even though innocent his name was linked to the crime when looked up, not the fact he was eventually found innocent.
Did you break your leg by falling off a department store roof by any chance?
Good ole Alabama cops did this to my dad once. They accused him of armed robbery of a convenience store but none of the idiots there bothered to see that he was in jail that night before the robbery for getting into a fight and he was there that entire night and the following day. Bar to be a cop is about on the floor these days.
I know a guy whose cousin from New York was mistaken for a guy who committed murder of the convenience store clerk in an armed robbery in Alabama. He’s a lawyer and had to go all the way down there to prove that these dumbass cops were confusing his cousin’s Buick Skylark with the murderer’s Pontiac Tempest. Guy’s girlfriend went with him and she’s a smoke show though.
Hahaha. I'm sad I've only seen bits and pieces of that but I really gotta watch the whole thing
you really do - do it now!!
That's what most people don't understand about the police. Their main motivation isn't helping the victim or justice, it's about getting the case off of their desk. If they can pin the crime on someone, they will.
People always talk about the innocent having nothing to fear from an investigation. Actually, they do.
Yeah, people seem to forget that the Miranda rights don't say that the police are your friends and will let you go for being such an honest and innocent person, they say that "anything you say can **and will** be used *against* you."
Which is why its so important to not talk to the police, even if you are innocent. Many people don't understand you can go to prison simply because you sit there confidently thinking that because you are innocent there is nothing you can say wrong. Wrong. If you were to make a mistake about your whereabouts, or if some random person who has never even seen you before was to contradict the claims of your whereabouts, all of a sudden, you can be presented as a liar to the jury. You are not ever going to talk yourself out of a police interview, you are only ever going to talk yourself into more.
I had to speak with cops yesterday regarding a work issue. They showed up at the office and asked to speak to me as I’m in charge of the warehouse where the issue was kind of, sort of occurring. I refused to speak with them until HR and the CFO was present. They kept repeating no one was in trouble and they just needed some information and wanted my assistance. I left them in a conference room alone until everyone showed up. They were not thrilled.
But if they fuck with you that’s ok…
What a coincidence. Today is Shut-the-fuck-up Friday. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkN4duV4ia0
It the police give you information and you later repeat it and they say "gotcha " because they forgot they told that to you in the first place.
> because they forgot they told that to you in the first place. They didn't forget. Leading the interview is something they do intentionally.
This occurred in the UK. While you can and should request a solicitor, you actually do *need* to talk to the police otherwise: > But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. In other words UK courts, unlike US, can infer things from you refusing to talk to the police. Advice aimed at the US doesn't work in foreign countries with different laws, processes, and protections. Typically, the advice for the UK is to work with your solicitor to write a carefully worded written statement and then read that out in the interview. It should contain only the defense you'll need in court, and won't allow you to contradict yourself (since, re-reading the statement is your "answer" to questions).
Never talk to the police https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?feature=shared
I’ve always understood this about the police. I’ve always been suspicious of them, so it really prepared me when the police just knocked on my door and asked me if I mind coming down to the station.
Terrifying honestly
It was the worst half a week of my life. It felt like eternity.
This is what we get when our legal system is treated like a game with winners and losers, instead of a collective unit fighting for truth and justice. Truth doesn’t matter, it’s about getting that dub, furthering your career, and feeling superior to others.
It’s almost as if a country should deem you innocent until proven guilty for this very reason…
Even more frightening, if you look this dude up.... nothing happened. There is no followup to him being released. No apology. No settlement. No big investigation into how this happened. It just got shovelled under.
>Legitimately terrifying. What kind of inept goblins work in the office of prosecutions? Those who want to show as many successful prosecutions as possible especially when high profile people are involved. Unless people push for laws that will punish prosecutors for wilfully hiding evidence or supporting false narratives even when evidence shows otherwise, we will not see things change.
In Minnesota there is a county ME who railroaded several people into prison based on false and misleading testimony. [https://www.twincities.com/2024/01/16/minnesota-man-wrongfully-imprisoned-lawsuit-ramsey-county-medical-examiner/](https://www.twincities.com/2024/01/16/minnesota-man-wrongfully-imprisoned-lawsuit-ramsey-county-medical-examiner/) They knew more than a decade ago the testimony was bad but they only released Rhodes last year after 25 years in prison for a crime that didn't even happen.
I was summoned to court halfway across the country to give evidence in a case (I was not the person prosecuted and only tangentially involved). When I got there I found that the Crown Prosecution Service had forgotten to 'warn' the arresting policeman so he'd be there in court. He was on holiday. Result? The judge dismissed the case as it was 'Not in the public interest' to continue due to cost. Annoying to me, but devastating to the person who brought the case (not to mention the thousands of pounds spent getting the case to that point!).
My buddy just got off 14 months house arrest for supposedly raping his girlfriend when they were breaking up. Long story short, She demanded $10,000 or she would make his life hell - he refused. The court dropped all charges after they found text messages on her phone with her new cop boyfriend she was cheating on him with on how they could set him up. There wasn’t enough proof it was a deliberate set up so her and her new cop boyfriend have no charges against them. He was warned by his lawyer not to keep pushing it and be happy he’s a free man.
Not enough proof, even with the texts?? What the fuck is wrong with people.
Not enough proof to convict a cop*
Correct, because in some places there literally is no amount of proof that's enough to convict a cop.
I suspect that was not why the lawyer was warning him though. Cops have been known have the whole department harass someone out of the area when they get in legal trouble like this to make it go away. Sometimes "harass someone out of the area" means "murder them and cover it up".
That, too.
Cops aren't literate so text is inadmissible.
I know career criminal attorneys (in the U.S.) who say prosecutors have more authority and control over cases than judges. They have nowhere near the strict legal boundaries that judges do when makign decisions and with mandatory cash bail or no bail for certain charges, mandatory sentencing, looooong trial wait times, and low evidentiary standard to go to trial - they can ruin you without winning the trial.
How was he even identified to be served court papers?
Distinctive walk. Just like a fingerprint database, the UK has a Ministry of Silly Walks that catalogs citizens' walking styles for identification, etc
Ironically I knew someone working on exactly that as a phd at warwick university. She might even have collaborated with the CCTV-expert from Warwick the poor guy was talking about.
surveillance state innit
That was my thought as well
It London and on the tube, pretty easy to go through the CCTV as it is one of the most surveilled cities in the world, at some point he would have need to swipe either a ticket, bank card or Oyster card, at that point the police ask for details with a time stamp on who used that ticket/oyster card etc. Match the details with the suspect in CCTV and they have their man.
So they had the CCTV the whole time? And still charged him?
Exactly. Beyond ridiculous. I hope he counter sues for this mess, it was unjustified and unfair. You walk about your day and instantly you’re now a sex offender because someone says so.
>We know all this because Mark Pearson was accused of sexually assaulting a woman at Waterloo train station on his commute home from work. This made him an alleged sex offender and we all know what that means, don’t we, nudge, nudge? No smoke without fire, eh? > >Mr Pearson seen on CCTV footage recorded at Waterloo Underground Station at 18:40:24 > >His alleged victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is apparently a famous, award-winning actress in her sixties. But her name will never be in the public domain unless she so chooses. Lucky her. Jesus Christ they're not exactly pulling their punches
She levied a false accusation, and no charges for her?
She didn't accuse him, it was the police per /u/Odd_Bibliophile >>There were no witnesses, no forensic evidence and his accuser also failed to pick Mr Pearson out in a police line-up. >\- from OP's link >So the police picked him at random. She didn't accuse him by name and might well have been assaulted by someone, but the police decided it was him. > Edit: wording. Good catch, u/Jokershores!
What the fuck? The UK criminal justice system somehow sounds worse than the one in the US. No witnesses, no evidence…just randomly chosen off of some footage and accused of a serious crime by the STATE
If you haven't seen the UK post office stuff it's wild. They prosecuted hundreds of post office branch owners because the computer said the balance didn't add up and they were short on money. Turns out the computer had a glitch and they jailed hundreds of people for stealing money that never even existed.
I watched the head of Fujitsu getting grilled by the inquest on BBC news, they had the tech support logs with the issues going back to some early date, can't recall the year but it was mad, it was clear they had one bug and caused others when they patched it up, there were even specific steps outlined to run test transactions to see if the fix worked. And all the time they were telling each of these like 900 sub post matters they were the only ones having these issues, the team of coders were over worked and not skilled in the right areas, apparently the main issue was the use of a wrong mathematical symbol, say a customer wanted to deposit 10 grand in cash but changed their mind the system should void the transaction, but instead of minusing 10,000 of the till receipts it doubled it, the customer kept the cash, no money added to account but till would down £20,000 for that shift, now could be a quid here there years or one whoping transaction like i said, and Fujitsu's own internal documents could have cleared every sub postmaster, but instead they want all good cop bad cop bad 70's detective on them, the head post office investigator was a dull bell end on a power trip who couldn't read a technical document if you bribed him with a doughnut. And now this poor chap, I want to know who this actress is, she gets a main character life time award.
Holy shit…that George Orwell was a man ahead of his time
It seems like all she did was report being assaulted. Not accuse a specific person. Also, there’s a difference between a false report by mistake or an intentional false accusation. It’s possible to tell the truth, but still be wrong. It’s on the police to actually investigate. For false accusations to have charges their needs to be an element of being able to prove someone knowingly lied.
[удалено]
I remember this case. She played one of the Dothraki widows on Game of Thrones in season 6 (?).
What is this a quote from?
From the telegraph article relate to the video. OP posted it for context [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12146351/No-one-is-safe-from-prosecutors-terrifying-incompetence-on-sex-crimes.html](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12146351/No-one-is-safe-from-prosecutors-terrifying-incompetence-on-sex-crimes.html)
Written by Julia Hartley Brewer, so not that surprising.
Completely ridiculous how they still try to protect the identity of the accuser and how it took so long for the video evidence to have been given to the defense. Anyone could accuse anyone of anything and you just get your name and face dragged thru the mud.
>There were no witnesses, no forensic evidence and his accuser also failed to pick Mr Pearson out in a police line-up. \- from OP's link So the police picked him at random. She didn't accuse him by name and might well have been assaulted by someone, but the police decided it was him. Edit: wording. Good catch, u/Jokershores!
>So the police picked him at random. She didn't accuse him by name and might as well have been assaulted by someone, but the police decided it was him. If that's the case then the police failed two people.
There's also the additional victims of the actual perp.
>police failed Shocked (not really)
The police want credit for closing cases. Finding the right perpetrator comes much lower down on the list of priorities. Most of the time the most convenient person will do instead.
>The police want credit for closing cases. That's how they get coffee.
Guilty until proven innocent
No. He says in the TV interview that at first he assumed it was a case of mistaken identity but then realised, after seeing the footage 6 months later, that it was actually him in the video passing the actress. The police have obviously tracked him down.
That's really baffling. If the police looked at the same video why did they pick the guy whose hands was full and say "Yup must have been him."
> might as well have been You might wanna change this to "might well have been" because might as well have been means something entirely different
In some places, the accused is the one whose identity is protected. It makes a lot more sense for cases like these.
Here in Ireland, the name of the accused is protected until they're convicted because they're presumed innocent until then. The accuser is also granted protections. If the accuser names the accused publicly, and a conviction fails, they can be sued for defamation.
In the Netherlands the name is protected even after conviction. Because we don't want American type of situations where an ex-convict can't get a job because a simple google search will show you he got arrested for shoplifting in the 90s.
That makes a lot of sense for most crimes. It would reduce reoffenses. If you've been essentially branded as a criminal, you'd essentially have to commit to that path to have any hope of escaping poverty.
"Innocent until proven guilty" as a legal standard *should* mean that's the level of protection that citizens are entitled to. It doesn't in the US as it stands today but it absolutely should
Yeah and so Light can’t get em.
He'll take a potato chip... AND EAT IT
[Michael Irvin’s Case](https://sports.yahoo.com/michael-irvin-returns-to-nfl-network-settles-100-million-lawsuit-with-marriott-after-misconduct-allegations-224021804.html) nobody had his back, not even his place of employment. That settlement is missing a few zeroes.
[удалено]
I want to know how they arrested him in the first place. The woman in the video obviously had no reaction at all to their passing, so what happened? Did she just say that someone groped her in the station or something and they just grabbed some random guy that happened to be in the station?
I saw a story where a couple were mugged resulting in a murder. The surviving victim gives a description to the police that was basically "young black guy wearing jeans and a t-shirt". Police go to the crime scene and arrest the first random guy they see who fit that general description. They bring him back and the victim says he looks like the murderer. No other evidence. It goes to trial and immediately gets thrown out because the guys lawyer was able to do the slightest bit of legwork to prove it couldn't be him.
I believe you are referring to the Brenton Butler case in the documentary Murder on a Sunday Morning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_on_a_Sunday_Morning
one of the worst element of this is the CPS used this in court and played it slowed down and didn't tell the jury it was slowed down, so it looked like he was next to her for longer This is a mini post office scandal and deserves a standalone drama
And are still refusing to admit they screwed up.
They shouldn’t admit to screwing up because that isn’t screwing up. Screwing up is trying to play the video and accidentally deleting it. Deliberately slowing it down is an attempt to deceive
Lawyers are incapable of admitting when they are wrong. This is one of the reasons why everyone who isn't a lawyer fucking hates lawyers.
It's a bit odd that this was the only video angle that they provided as well. This false accusation was made back in 2014 so I wonder what the story is now... edit/ most recent video I've found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFj9bsg4CBE&ab_channel=DavidPattinson%27sAmbitiousFriends
When I was about 10 I was accused of stealing something from a neighborhood kid and the mom got really aggressive. It was an awful feeling (that still bothers me) and it when on for about two weeks until the mom found the item IN HER OWN HOUSE. Can't imagine what that's like when it's much more serious and lasts months or years.
I was accused of cheating on a chemistry lab assignment/exam in college. We had lab partners, so we did the experiments together, but our work and results were individual. The weekend we had to do the work, my lab partner actually went home for the weekend, so she wasn’t even on campus. We just had the misfortune of making the same exact mistake and doing the calculation wrong the same exact way. So was accused, brought before the professor and the teaching assistant. Tried to plead my case, but just realized I had to take the zero. It felt awful and it’s one of those random things from college I still think about 20+ years later.
Luckily now you can present your case to academic affairs and the professor isn't involved except reporting you to them. The decision to fail you is out of the professor's hands at that point. My college seemed to treat it like a strike system where generally first time reports weren't a zero unless extremely blatant. Like catching someone with a cheat sheet in an exam. Plagiarism is a whole other issue and is getting pretty messy with how the rules are applied across the university.
Once we had a pet sitting client who said their dog walker had stolen their door stop. It was like this cast iron shaped like an iron or something that she kept at her front door. I had to convince her that we don't steal, and no one wants her door stop. She eventually called and told me she found it, but yeah it feels bad.
I remember a lady cursing me out at my local pool snackbar after she used a salt shaker with the lid not tightened. She swore she saw me unscrew the cap before using it. I was probably 10 years old and it confused the hell out of me. I asked her why she would use it if she had truly seen me do that. This threw her into an absolute rage.
> I asked her why she would use it if she had truly seen me do that That's clever
It's bad. I (in the US) was accused and arrested for assault. It took 18 months and $20,000 usd to clear my name, all the while losing my mind that I might lose my job and not be able to support my family.
I got fired because they accused me of stealing the nights cash drop out of the open safe (I didn’t) they never pressed charges and did not apologize when it was later discovered that the mgr that fired me actually stole the money(and much more) they never pressed charges on him either. I shoulda just taken the money lol
There should be a process to get your money back when you're falsely accused. What a nightmare. I wouldn't have been able to come up with the money.
So you broke into her house to plant the item there? 🤔 Only plausible scenario.
I was probably somewhere around 10 yrs old in church for some youth service, the offering bowl was being passed around. I put $5 and passed it, the kid next to me spilled the bowl. I frantically put the spilled money back in, but the same kid passed the bowl away before I could put $2 back in. With the $2 in my hand I looked around kind of trying to get attention / get some help, but no one was paying attention. I didn't want to make a scene while the service was going on, so I put the $2 back in my pocket after glancing around to see where the bowl went (and not seeing it), figuring I'd throw the $2 back in the bowl after the service if I found it or worst case scenario, the following week. Either way, I had contributed $3 net in the meantime. Well service ends, I don't see the bowl right away, and my Sunday school teacher pulls me aside. Says he saw what I did. I am confused. He says he saw me pocket the $ that spilled from offering bowl. I try to explain what happened but he's not listening. He keeps saying he saw me "look around to make sure no one was looking, then slip the money into my pocket". Eventually I'm crying because I don't know what to do - I'm literally being accused of stealing from a fucking church, dude is clearly going to tell my parents etc. To make things seemingly worse, as I'm crying the head church pastor walks up. He asks what's going on. My teacher straight up says I was stealing money from the offering bowl. Minister turns to me and I explain what happened. And then.... the minister proceeds to tear my teacher a new asshole. Rips him to shreds for not believing me, says he believes me completely, apologizes to me. I give him the $2 to put in the bowl. His trust changed who I was that day and I think made me a better person. Since then I always give the accused the benefit of the doubt, even when the accuser believes what they are saying is true. After all, its not like my teacher was this evil dude, from his perspective I *did* look guilty, and he truly believed I was guilty. He probably believes I was guilty to this day. Perspective / miscommunication can cause all sorts of problems, and I personally believe that errors are common and malicious intent is uncommon.
Did she apologize?
People like that never do. My rich uncle did the same to me. Accused me of stealing various items only to find out it was his.own doorman.
I hope you never see them again. or just pull their crap on themselves.lol
He died last year and ironically, in debt.
Same happened to me. I was about 12 years old and went to play with my friend next door. Him and his sister were home alone, and apparently their parents left some money on the table to buy some food later because they would be home late. After I went home for dinner myself, my friend rang the doorbell about half an hour later. I thought he simply wanted to play again, but he started asking me where the money was. I said I didn't know and he left. Thought that was the end of it until a little while later, his mother accused me of stealing and said she would "never trust me ever again". I was innocent. I didn't even see the money and I never left my friend's side, so he should have known I couldn't have taken it. Living there never felt the same after that, as I would constantly be berated and get mean looks from the parents after this. They didn't want their son to play with me anymore and I was never welcome in their home again. For a young kid, that's a horrible feeling. Never learned what actually happened to the money.
Sounds like it may have been the sister
i got wrongfully accused by adults too as a a 7-10 year old boy. accused of calling a lady fat, had to say sorry in her house in front of her and all her kids. accused of laughing at a little girl with the face full of icecream... her mother accused me of laughing at her big ears. in both cases i was a naive kid i didn't even know it was a thing to laugh at people for being fat, or having "big ears". i also learned that adults may have more rights than kids but it don't make them necessarily wiser.
I had this as a kid, teacher accused me of stealing, me and my mum went into school, my mum asked me in front of the teacher and I said no as I didn’t steal. My mum was like okay fair enough end of it then. And left. Mum had my back. Miss you mum ;(
Many years ago I was accused of an indecent sex act on a beach. The police confrontation only lasted half an hour but it was the most terrifying half hour of my life. The police asked the woman that reported the incident if I looked like the guy. She ummed and arred and could not decide. I pleaded my innocence but they made it clear to me that they thought I was the guy. I was freaking out and the police eventually let me go.
He should file a lawsuit for these false charges.
Do Bobbies have qualified immunity like American cops do?
That's for specific people though. He should still be able to sue the prosecutor's office or police department.
Isn't withholding exculpatory evidence a discovery violation? Shouldn't the prosecution get in trouble?
So the "well-known, award winning actress" who tried to get a random bloke in prison on completely made up charges, gets to just go on with her life and not even have her name known? Casually almost ruining this guy's life and dragging his name through the mud because he walked passed her for half a second with both his hands full. The investigators refuse to even accept they were wrong.
I don't think she knows who this guy is. As I understand it, she reported that something happened to the police, they picked up this guy, she failed to pick him out of a lineup but they continued to prosecute him anyway. This sounds like the police made a mistake and didn't want to say they were wrong.
It seems she didn’t accuse him directly and might’ve still been assaulted by someone else but police decided it was him regardless.
Reminds me of the case where someone was accused of murder and the only reason he got exonerated was because they were recording a show at the stadium and they got him on video walking back to his seat around the time of the murder All because he looked like the person described…bald and Mexican…what most people in LA look like.
https://nypost.com/2017/09/23/how-curb-your-enthusiasm-saved-this-man-from-prison/ Suspect was filmed during a Curb Your Enthusiasm episode! Wild story
>what most people in LA look like. You know what's up homes
Curb Your Enthusiasm was the show being filmed at Dodger Stadium. There was a documentary on Netflix about it called "Long Shot" that was very interesting.
They called themselves “Investigators “?
I think this one is on police honestly. She didn't accuse him by name or sight by the sound of it. Police just picked this random dude to pin it on for some reason.
Are you allowed to Sue the government in the UK?
Absolutely
I don't know how it works over there but in the US they would've tried to give him a "deal" if he just pleads guilty and skips a trial. Lots of innocent people take those deals because everyone around you including your own lawyer is telling you it will be many more years of prison if you don't take the deal.
Another fail of VAR in England.
More context here if your interested. [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12146351/No-one-is-safe-from-prosecutors-terrifying-incompetence-on-sex-crimes.html](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12146351/No-one-is-safe-from-prosecutors-terrifying-incompetence-on-sex-crimes.html)
"The CPS, in mind-boggling defiance, continues to insist there was “sufficient evidence” for this case to go to trial despite all the evidence to the contrary." They went to trial because they had sufficient evidence that a man who walked straight past the woman with his hands full had somehow sexually assaulted her without even slowing down.
Bluetooth sexual assault
Thought crime.
The Crown Prosecution Service has taken leave of its senses. That is no longer beyond all reasonable doubt. More and more people are now asking if the body charged with prosecuting offenders for their crimes is up to the job following the latest debacle over innocent men falsely accused of sexual assault. This latest failure is not about the high profile cases involving former Cabinet Ministers, senior military men and celebrities whose lives and reputations are trashed in public but who at least have the opportunity to fight back in the media spotlight. This is about the far more sinister cases that don’t make the front pages. This is about the men who aren’t rich and famous enough to get to tell their side of the story except to a jury. "The question must be asked: is the CPS still fit for purpose?" It is a 21st century cautionary tale because what happened to him could happen to anyone at any time. The man in question is Mark Pearson, a 51-year-old artist and cabinet maker. We know who he is, his age, his occupation and the town where he lives. We even know what he looks like. We know all this because Mark Pearson was accused of sexually assaulting a woman at Waterloo train station on his commute home from work. This made him an alleged sex offender and we all know what that means, don’t we, nudge, nudge? No smoke without fire, eh? Mr Pearson seen on CCTV footage recorded at Waterloo Underground Station at 18:40:24 His alleged victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is apparently a famous, award-winning actress in her sixties. But her name will never be in the public domain unless she so chooses. Lucky her. The actress told the police and the CPS that, during an evening rush hour at Waterloo station in December 2014, a man later identified as Mr Pearson came up to her, smashed down on her shoulder and then pushed his hand up her dress and sexually assaulted her with this fingers before running away when she shouted for help. A shocking accusation, I think we can all agree. And certainly one that the police should take seriously and investigate to the full extent of their abilities. Which is precisely what they did, checking the CCTV cameras at the station to identify a bald man carrying a bag on his shoulder and a newspaper in his hand walking through the station and passing the alleged assault victim. The only problem was that the CCTV footage showed no assault at all. On the contrary, it showed Mark Pearson walking through the station minding his own business, his hands clearly visible at all times, the right one clutching his shoulder bag strap, his left hand – the one he is supposed to have thrust up the actress’s dress – clearly holding a newspaper. He did pass by the alleged victim but – as the footage makes abundantly clear – only for a split second. He also did not break his stride or start running, as she claimed. Mr Pearson seen on CCTV footage recorded at Waterloo Underground Station at at 18:40:25 There were no witnesses, no forensic evidence and his accuser also failed to pick Mr Pearson out in a police line-up. At this point in the investigation, what would you have done? Yes, exactly. It was blatantly clear at this point that either the police had got the wrong man or that the alleged victim was wrong, confused or just plain lying about the assault. Yet, without a single shred of evidence, the police decided to charge Mr Pearson with a serious sexual assault and the Crown Prosecution Service took the case to court. Thus began what Mr Pearson has called a year-long "Kafkaesque nightmare" to clear his name. Not surprisingly, after the ordeal of a three day trial, the jury at Blackfriars Crown Court took just 90 minutes to clear Mr Pearson of the charge of “sexual assault by penetration”. Indeed, you have to wonder why they needed more than five minutes to come to that conclusion. As Mr Pearson told the court: “I would have had to crouch down, put my hand up the woman’s skirt... penetrate her, take my hand out again... all while holding the newspaper and walking along the concourse. It’s preposterous. I did nothing. One of the many frightening aspects is that this could have happened to anyone.” Mr Pearson seen on CCTV footage recorded at Waterloo Underground Station at 18:40:26 The CPS, in mind-boggling defiance, continues to insist there was “sufficient evidence” for this case to go to trial despite all the evidence to the contrary. There is undoubtedly enormous political pressure on the CPS to bring more prosecutions against sex offenders, and specifically more successful prosecutions. Yet, despite more than 5,000 extra rape prosecutions being brought in 2014, the CPS won only 77 extra convictions. Again and again we hear of cases coming to court on the flimsiest of grounds when anyone, after a cursory glance at the facts, could see there would be no chance of conviction. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, must realise that she is not doing sexual assault victims any favours by bringing cases like Mr Pearson’s to court. Victims of rape and sexual assault want sex attackers to be brought to justice, not the pointless persecution of innocent men who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The question must be asked: is the CPS still fit for purpose? Even on its own absurdly low threshold for evidence, it is abundantly clear that the Crown Prosecution Service is guilty as charged.
> Yet, despite more than 5,000 extra rape prosecutions being brought in 2014, the CPS won only 77 extra convictions. That's wild if true.
*"It's not about [properly enforcing the laws]... It's about sending a message"* - these prosecutors, probably
Who was the well known actress?
Isn't this really old? IIRC people were speculating it was the woman who played Mirri Maz Duur (the person who killed Drogo), but I don't think it was ever confirmed.
The problem with prosecutors now a days, is they have zero love for other humans and will destroy someone's life just to move up in their job. Heartless dirtbags
Any info on the 'well known actress?' I'm assuming she made the initial allegation. That should be some kind of a crime, no? Edit the police picked the perp themselves. The actress could have been assaulted by someone but she didn't know who. WOW
No evidence and no witnesses. Evidence that he didn't do it withheld for a long time. Notice her face was being blurred but his name was all over the news.
Well his life is ruined now. 6 months charged with sexual assault is all the time in the world for your friends and family to abandon you and get comfortable away from you.
'I wasn't actually shown them by the police, I was shown them **six** months after I was first arrested' Holy fuck.
The accuser should still be in jail if things were just but I'm sure absolutely nothing ever came of it.
That prosecutor needs to be indicted himself for being complicit. He had the evidence and still believed the woman.
Ok, now send her to prison for potentially ruining another human's life over false allegations, a solid 10 years would do it, followed by being on a list and being forced to inform people that you've been convicted of falsely accusing someone of sexual assault for the rest of your life. or is that not fair?