Vanessa Scammell

But was this change of story going to be simple?

No, it was not.

Craig's barrister pointed out to her that in this moment she chose in which Craig is out of view for around five to seven seconds, a fake leg gag visible to the audience was occurring.

He asked her if she could recall who operated and lifted the prosthetic leg up over the top of the bed sheet.

She couldn't recall.

She had performed over 150 shows in the role of Janet, yet she could not recall who operated the fake leg in the scene.

She was then asked if it was in fact her who operated the fake leg.

Again, she said she couldn't recall.

Craig's barrister then told her that it was her who operated the fake leg, as evidenced in archival footage.

Again, she said she didn't recall.

Let's go to Craig's chief evidence in relation to this second moment of the bed scene.

Further, C1 was asked if the archival footage was representative of how the bed scene played out every night of the production.

Her response was that this was typical, that it didn't change from this, that this was how the scene looked each and every night, at least from the audience point of view.

In this one moment, when C1 admits that the scene took place in this fashion each and every night, she determined without question that on each and every night her back was turned to Craig in the first moment before he disappeared from view of the audience, and that in the second moment Craig disappears from view, she was holding and operating a prosthetic leg as a gag whilst Craig was at the opposite side of the set.

In determining that this was how the scene played out each and every night, she has virtually admitted that her hands are never resting on the bed covers, nor is Craig ever crouched down in front of her.

So did the magistrate take this into account?

Did she accept this evidence?

Keep listening to find out more.

But there was no such claim from C1, which made the prosecutor's efforts untenable and quite farcical.

And what of the other allegation?