The Hypocrisy of Accusing Actress For False Assault Claim

Mark Pearson sexual assault

Mark Pearson speaks publicly of his ordeal with ITV.

Without any supporting evidence a blogger has accused an actress of making a false sexual assault allegation, mirroring the prosecution’s argument in the case itself, which was also made without evidence.

I’ll start with the caveat that someone who knowingly and maliciously makes a false sexual assault or rape allegation is obviously a terrible human being that at the very least deserves to be publicly named and shamed, and quite reasonably should be charged and locked away much like the person they accused could have been (and sometimes is).

All we’re officially told in this case is that the accuser is an ageing actress. The court heard an impossible claim that in the middle of rush hour at Waterloo Station, a man called Mark Pearson managed to penetrate her with three fingers for several seconds as they crossed paths. CCTV reveals that Pearson was holding a newspaper and clutching a rucksack, and passed her in 1 second tops. He’s not guilty of the crime described.

So in effect the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) allowed a man to be tried in court for a crime, with absolutely zero supporting evidence. There was no witnesses or medical evidence either.

However in response, US blogger Dean Esmay has done a very similar thing. He’s named and shamed somebody as the accuser with nothing more than a claim of “sources” – an unsubstantiated allegation. (I won’t directly link to his blog for legal reasons.)

Now in principal I am not opposed to protecting sources, that’s a big part of an investigative journalist’s job, however to be so absolute in his claim Esmay must also have seen supporting evidence himself. Such evidence might include better quality (and verifiable) CCTV putting her in the vicinity, a recorded confession that she made it up, or some other tangible proof. He has not suggested this exists, and anything less than that (such as the hearsay from somebody involved in the case) is not strong enough. We don’t know if the source is telling the truth and we don’t know that Esmay is telling the truth about having a source.

Furthermore if tangible proof does exist then there is no reason why it couldn’t have been carefully leaked anonymously. Instead Esmay wants us to have faith that he’s made the right call. Something many redditors have asked for, when naming numerous other culprits.

Of course Esmay could be absolutely correct in what he says and may eventually be vindicated, but throwing a name out there as a “disgusting false rape accuser” with no explanation other than “I have sources” is pretty careless. He could have held on to the info for a more appropriate time, worked on releasing evidence, and stuck to cold hard facts instead of emotion.

Unsurprisingly people have accepted what he says at face value, just like people accept false claims of rape and sexual assault at face value. There is some clear hypocrisy there.

Meanwhile what a lot of people are overlooking is that the police and CPS share a portion of the blame – arguably a very large portion.

Collusion In A Fantasy

In the UK investigators gather evidence and the CPS decide whether it is good enough for charges to be filed and the case to be brought to court. In this case there was no evidence against Mark Pearson, so both have a lot to answer for. In fact the defence has shown that the prosecution used edited CCTV footage that slowed down the speed at which the pair crossed paths, making it seem more likely that the crime could have occurred from a timing standpoint. That’s downright appalling!

What’s interesting is that it’s not clear how Pearson became the prime suspect. The actress failed to pick him out of a video identity parade. So did she accuse him directly or did the police take her statement and force it on to him?

She wasn’t the one collecting the CCTV, she didn’t identity him, she wasn’t the one who decided to go to trial, and she wasn’t the one who tampered with the evidence. Whatever did or didn’t happen that day snowballed in to a fantasy that the police and prosecution encouraged. Therefore naming and shaming the woman (even accurately) should probably come with some considerations. It’s even possible something may have still happened that day under different circumstances than alleged at trial.

Mark Pearson on the other hand certainly shouldn’t have been named. If there is going to be protection in cases like this it should go both ways, unless there is a conviction.

Follow WideShut

                               

Categories

  • Robert J. Williamson

    He was found not guilty, therefore it didn’t happen therefore she made it up. What else is there? She is mentally ill? She claims she was sexually assaulted by him, she wasn’t, which is proven in a court of law. She is therefore a liar, and made the entire event up.

    • http://rantingoldgit.blogspot.co.uk/ Arthur Sparknottle

      Your conclusion is stupid and fallacious. See my post above for an explanation.

      • Robert J. Williamson

        So, why didn’t she state that it happened in a different place? And stop with the name calling, grow up and respond like you are an adult. Internet tough guys like you are not big and clever, it’s childish and cowardly, as you would never speak like that to a man’s face.

  • Colin Jackson

    You’re making some pretty fine distinctions here. While the CPS certainly bears some responsibility for bringing a prosecution, the accuser bears all the responsibility for bringing a false rape accusation and allowing it to go to prosecution. At any point she could have said she made it up, but chose to put the future of an innocent victim at risk. I would like to see this person at least be required to undergo some psychotherapy, as she is clearly in need of it.

    • Neighbor

      um he might be the wrong guy?? no evidence she made it up

      • Colin Jackson

        Does it really seem likely she was “digitally penetrated” for several seconds while fully clothed in the middle of a crowded train concourse? Unless it was Barry Allen doing it, it seems unlikely to the point of impossibility. I’m normally inclined to believe any rape claims as a matter of course, but this one just seems too unlikely.

        • Jon_357

          I personally am not at all inclined to believe unsubstantiated allegations of rape, having once been falsely accused by a person I’d never even shaken hands with. False allegations of rape and historic child abuse are far more common than most people would like to think. As you very correctly say, this case seems unlikely to the point of impossibility however I’d add that the police rigorously investigate all complaints however spurious and the burden of proof for a proscution is so low as to be almost nonexistant. It just needs a good prosecution lawyer who specialises in sexual cases, a weak defence lawyer (plenty of those, especially if the defendant is not rich) and a conservative jury.

          I take my hat off to the blogger in question; false accusers need to be named and shamed, both for the immensd damage they’ve done to the victim of their false allegation (this is something I would not wish on anyone, even my worst enemy) and for the general public since anyone she is likely to have contact with should think very very carefully about being alone in a room with someone who has made false rape allegations.

        • Elinor Quinn

          Who or what is Barry Allen?

      • Dave Brown

        The fact the CCTV camera shows that there is no way he could of fingered her in the Vagina is proof enough of a false accusation for me.

  • http://rantingoldgit.blogspot.co.uk/ Arthur Sparknottle

    The ‘actress’ did not accuse Mr Pearson. The police and cps did that. She didn’t pick him out of an identity parade. The police and cps chose to accuse this man. It is perfectly possible that the accuser simply reported an assault. This aquittal does not mean that she lied at all. It means that the police on feeble evidence identified a suspect and reported the matter to the CPS. It was the CPS that ordered the prosecution.

    This woman may very well have been assaulted in the station but without it happening under CCTV scrutiny.

    • Dave Brown

      The attack never happened.

      Look the case up.

      It is fucking impossible for it to of happened.

  • Samuel White

    Why are you certain the blogger who did the naming and shaming has no supporting evidence? How do you know he hasn’t got a *very* good friend close to the investigation who hasn’t provided him with the facts? Yet you’re so certain it’s the opening 4 words of your article.

    You then go on to say: “US blogger Dean Esmay has […] named and shamed somebody as the accuser with nothing more than a claim of ‘sources'”.

    Why is this so bad? He’s obviously got the information using foul means. What do you expect him to do, sizzlechest? What a farking bizarre little rant.

    • Samuel White

      Just so we’re on the same page.
      ** You say the blogger was “without any supporting evidence” but he named a woman anyway.
      ** The blogger claims he published the lady’s name on the strength of his sources. Even though you haven’t got a clue what or who these sources are it’s just not good enough for you.
      ** You DON’T say anywhere you have a problem with him publishing her name…. You’re clearly inferring that he just needed to name his sources and show us the leaked scanned documents etc as well.
      ** Even though the blogger bravely performed the public service of providing us with the crazy old bat’s name, you would also have him naming his inside sources and landing them in a world of shit.

    • Keelan Balderson

      I’m not certain, but by virtue of not providing such evidence, it’s as good as hearsay. Random bloggers making claims is not how justice is served. You do know that multiple DIFFERENT women have been accused by internet sleuths, right?

      There are ways and means of anonymously leaking proof in the internet age.

      If somebody wants to be so bold as to claim they know who it is, they better be prepared to prove it. A bit like how accusing somebody of assault should also come with supporting evidence.

      The hypocrisy seems lost on you.

      • Samuel White

        All the stories surrounding Watergate were just hearsay.

      • Samuel White

        To answer your question: no I didn’t. And considering the deafening noise of crickets chirping by way of complaint by her or anyone close to her…. I think the dude was correct.

  • Elinor Quinn

    This woman could have withdrawn the charge at any time. Certainly Alison Saunders should explain the “reasons” this case was brought to court. I think she should resign, but that is just my opinion. The false accuser obviously did not think of how much more difficult this kind of accusation makes it for genuine victims. Had Mark Pearson been convicted, would she have “waived her anonymity” and presented herself as the courageous survivor of sexual assault? Would this have revived her career?

  • Jon_357

    Yes, she could have refused to co-opera and after all, she made the initial false allegation. It happened to me last year (by someone I’d never even shaken hands with) on a much worse scale and nearly killed me – that’s not an exaggeration.

    I do believe false accusers (and this happens more often than people would like to think) should be dealt with very seriously – the anonymity they have, even if no charges are brought or their victim is acquitted just encourages others. Especially if there’s a celebrity angle and there’s publicity.

    I could name my accuser (male, by the way, and there were no grounds for ‘further action’ by the police/CPA) very easily – I’m not in the UK; English law does not apply over here and am seriously considering it. Same with the famous ‘Exaro Nick’ who accused Ted Heath, Lord Bramall, Harvey Proctor etc. It is very much in the public interest that false accusers are named and shamed.

    Anonymity was brought in in order to not discourage people from reporting rape/abuse. Anonymity should not apply to false accusers in order not to encourage them from committing a criminal act that can destroy the lives of innocent people.

    The cases that reach the papers are only the tip of the iceberg.

  • Jon_357

    Yes, she could have refused to co-operate and after all, she made the initial false allegation. It happened to me last year (by someone I’d never even shaken hands with) on a much worse scale and nearly killed me – that’s not an exaggeration.

    I do believe false accusers (and this happens more often than people would like to think) should be dealt with very seriously – the anonymity they have, even if no charges are brought or their victim is acquitted just encourages others. Especially if there’s a celebrity angle and there’s publicity.

    I could name my accuser (male, by the way, and there were no grounds for ‘further action’ by the police/CPA) very easily – I’m not in the UK; English law does not apply over here and am seriously considering it. Same with the famous ‘Exaro Nick’ who accused Ted Heath, Lord Bramall, Harvey Proctor etc. It is very much in the public interest that false accusers are named and shamed.

    Anonymity was brought in in order to not discourage people from reporting rape/abuse. Anonymity should not apply to false accusers in order not to encourage them from committing a criminal act that can destroy the lives of innocent people.

    The cases that reach the papers are barely the tip of the iceberg. The damage caused to innocent men and women and their families is incalculable.

  • Heeb

    I observed part of the trial and can confirm that the woman who’s name is being circulated IS the woman who made the accusation (S.F). The fact that she is a ‘woman’s activist’. Is telling.

  • Frank and beans

    She should be named, shamed and charged.

  • jamadan d

    The problem is that you are making it easier for a woman just keep saying that she was sexually assulted.
    Maybe she didn’t want to go to class or maybe she had another reason.

    Just think what kind of pervert is hunting 60 years old women in the subway.
    (And didn’t happened based on the CCTV footage)

    You are ok with that unproved and crazy story, then to accept that she might have a few reasons to lie?

    It doesn’t make any sense.

    It technically could have happened.
    Maybe the guy has magic powers.
    Have you thought about that?

    Maybe he is a magician, or a lawyer?
    You can never trust those guys.

  • jamadan d

    And I guess it’s happening because the rape stats are too low.
    And because the society hates women.
    And because the courts have bias against women.

    So we took to cort a guy based on her unbelievable story, and CTV footage showing that nothing happened.