Vanessa Scammell

I asked the Commission that when Magistrate Wallington made her gratuitous comments regarding new laws in her final comments...

She failed to specify which charges could possibly or maybe have had a different result, for her comments made it sound as though all 13 charges could possibly or maybe have had different outcomes, i.e.

that Craig could have been found guilty of all 13 charges.

I expressed my concerns to the Commission that upon reading the rulings thoroughly, it became blindingly apparent that the only times Magistrate Wallington referenced and suggested that perhaps the new laws would apply were in relation to just two of the charges.

Charges 5 and 7.

Not all 13.

So what were Charges 5 and 7?

Well, Charge 5 was the alleged lapsit to his castmate C3, an incident that nobody witnessed, even though people were sitting right next to her at the time, an incident that was so commonplace in the culture that Craig had no recollection of it whatsoever.

An allegation with no witnesses, with completely differing stories and accounts, and moreover, this same cast member had straddled Craig's leg at around the same time of the alleged assault.

And charge seven?

Well, that was the ankle tickle.

Again, an allegation that had no witnesses, an allegation that Craig denied, and in fact said didn't even happen with the first understudy, but that he had tickled the ankle of his cast mate Betty,

after she jumped out in his dressing room in a werewolf mask.

Even in her rulings to this ankle-tickle charge, the magistrate stated that... Ruling 717.

In conceding there was an absence of indecency, even with the new law in place, it is evident this would not have changed a thing, for apart from consent or belief of consent, an indecent act had to be proved, which it wasn't.

Why then, in the magistrate's final comments, is it acceptable that she be permitted to make such a ruinous blanket statement that reads as though this new law, i.e.

just one new element of the law, would relate to all 13 charges, let alone comment at all?

Is this common practice by a ruling officer of the court?

The Commission took the many complaints seriously and thus an investigation was initiated.

Many months later, I finally received the results of the investigation.