Vanessa Scammell

With further pressure placed on her as to whether the first understudy had told her about this assault, she essayed the I don't remember saying any of this in that detail tactic, but was confronted with the sound recording of her actual words played to the court and thereafter capitulated.

So what of the first understudy?

When she was taken to this evidence in her cross-examination by Craig's barrister, she rejected it as false.

The other fabrications that C2 had given in her evidence in relation to this same castmate, to each and every one, the first understudy rejected them.

Further, it became apparent that not only were C2's allegations fabrications, her fellow castmate never complained of offensive conduct to anyone of her experience on the Rocky Horror Show.

C2's dishonest allegations were directed to the press, were then incorporated into her police statement, but neither the press, police nor the prosecutor bothered to ask the person in question who was allegedly assaulted if these claims were true.

The journalists incorporated these accusations into the initial email that Craig received, with no substantiating evidence, no names, no solid details, just vague, broad and damning allegations.

In fact, when Craig received the first email outlining these allegations, the journalists had not even interviewed TFU to get her side of the story, but they accused Craig nonetheless.

So where were the questions that should have been asked by the journalists way back in 2017?

Where was the investigation in investigative journalism?

Perhaps a pertinent question the journalists could have asked was, how on earth did Craig manage to remove that castmate's costume, underwear, mic belt, suspenders, heels and stockings whilst performing this scene in around four to seven seconds?

for this is approximately how long this part of the scene runs for, whilst performing this scene in the Rocky Horror Show of 2014.

As Craig's barrister surmised, So let's look at the magistrate's rulings pertaining to C2.

Number 92.

It seems to me that the magistrate chose to ignore the fact that the bulk of C2's evidence had been presented two years earlier to police.

Her lies and fabrications had already been cemented in print and on recordings.

Her confusion came two years later when she had to recall what she had said all of those years ago.

And now let's go to the magistrate's ruling number 748.

The four complainants were brave and honest witnesses.

It's important now to reference commentary by Chief Justice Lucy McCallum, the Chief Justice of the ACT.