Vanessa Scammell

Six weeks later, when the magistrate read her verdict, it became apparent that she did not accept this evidence.

The only reference to it was this.

Number 182.

It was put to her that in the bedroom scene she could not see what was happening and she only assumed that the accused had touched her with his finger, that she felt it and it felt purposeful and occurred in the context of him talking about the little slip.

Though he had to make a flub-flub noise by striking his lip with his hand, she was uncertain as to the precise moment the touching had occurred.

So how did the magistrate reconcile the fact that the video footage showed C1 operating a prosthetic leg whilst Craig was metres away and meanwhile there was a stagehand in the back of the set?

And that in her evidence, when asked if it could have happened at any other time, C1 replied, no.

She most certainly didn't reply with, I'm not certain, as the magistrate suggests.

In ruling number 729, she went on to say that... The fact that he desisted when C1 swatted his hand away.

And in number 726... I accept the evidence of C1 that she didn't consent to the indecent touching.

Indeed, the evidence was clear that she could not communicate her consent as she was required to play her role on stage.

Again, this ruling made it evident that she did not take into account any evidence given by C1, nor of Craig, for the evidence was that during the moment C1 chose, she was in fact having to operate an artificial leg with two hands and was some distance away from Craig.

How could she have possibly used a hand to swat him away when she was in the middle of this leg scene, using both hands to swing a leg above the set, a leg that weighed around 5 kilos?

Again, I ask these crucial questions.

Why should a witness not be robustly questioned?

And indeed, was she really pressed, as the prosecutor suggested?

After the video was shown, C1 was asked the question once before being asked to do her best to pinpoint the moment of the assault.

How could this sort of questioning from Craig's counsel be considered pressing, or, as was the suggestion, too much?

How could the magistrate make comments as she did,

And what of the crew member Craig mentioned?