Vanessa Scammell

The accused gave evidence that he and C1 had a terrific friendship.

I infer that he was unhappy and feeling harassed due to the problems in the performance that night.

But his ire was towards Mr... Not C1.

Number 747.

In all the circumstances, I cannot exclude the reasonable possibility that the unusual force associated with the goodbye touch on that evening was accidental or negligent and not intentional or reckless.

The charge must be dismissed.

And what of the prosecution witnesses to this alleged face throw?

Ruling number 82.

It was put to C2 that she could not possibly have seen the assault on C1 as she had been offstage vomiting at the time.

After initially denying the vomiting, she accepted that if it was in the show report, then it must have happened.

Ruling 96.

I had no reason to doubt C2's truthfulness, but there were issues of reliability.

Her memories of what she observed and was told about, of offending against others, was confused and sometimes prone to exaggeration.

It is clear that on May 9th, she could not have made the observations she described.

Possibly she was in the wings.

but this is not the evidence she gave.

This gobsmacking ruling still astounds me.

First of all, the magistrate had no reason to doubt C2's truthfulness.

What of the heinous and false accusations this same accuser made about Craig kissing the vagina of another cast member, of a shower attack, of lying about being on stage?

What of her false claims that Craig hugged her with a semi-erection or that he took his clothes off starting with his shoes and socks?