Vanessa Scammell

He said he would.

He was sorry, the frustration of the situation.

When asked how she dealt with C1, the following transpired.

No.

The day following the alleged face grab, the resident director gave evidence of a conversation she had with C1, where words to this effect were spoken.

She told me that Craig had apologised and I said, good.

But then C1 had said she didn't want him to apologise and I was very confused as to why.

A reminder yet again that when the press first reported these allegations, the following was heard.

Note well, but she didn't complain.

There was zero evidence that she complained.

And further, C1 herself admitted in court four years later she had never made a complaint of sexual misconduct or harassment ever.

So what happened when all of the police eyewitnesses collapsed?

What and whom did the magistrate rely on in her rulings in relation to this face-throw?

In ruling number 741, the magistrate said...

C3 said that she saw that the accused sort of shoved C1's face to one side.

The action struck her as being aggressive.

But, as presented previously, C3 did not witness this, and most certainly not with two hands she didn't.

Further, it was established in Cross that she was repeating a story she had been told.

This is considered hearsay.

So why was this witness evidence considered at all?