To think this is an insane verdict

There wasn't any evidence that he gave this to the child.

Sickening, even if the assault couldn’t be proved he should be found guilty of abductions

Just bc he's a pilot he still needs a base somewhere, surely?

He’s been described as an ex USAF pilot by some sources.

If he has got previous on record as described upthread I can’t see how he would still be serving in the mil and I also can’t see any of the major airlines touching him with a barge pole…

No evidence of sexual assault, no evidence of the administration of drugs, and no real evidence of kidnap given that he did not keep the girl in his flat or try to hide her away. I completely agree that it sounds absolutely mad that he didn't just take her back into the shop and/or call the police, but that is not in itself proof beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the offences he was charged with.

Surely the obvious thing to do was to go into Harrods? It can't be the first time they've had to deal with a lost child.

Why the English class system comment? He is posh the child is not I'm guessing?.

I predict it's just a matter of time before he kills a woman. If he hasn't already.

Another predator left out on the streets. That poor girl and her family.

Benadryl could just be an ingredient in the cough mixture that he’s picked up in America.

But what’s he doing giving it to someone else’s child who he’s taken back to his accommodation?!

He’s either wicked or demented. I was going to say maybe the balance of his mind was disturbed by drugs he’s been taking himself, but that still wouldn’t make any normal person do what he did.

Feeling or basic intelligence?

You can't really believe nothing happened to this girl just because there's no evidence ?

I think he's guilty as fuck and that he had a good lawyer.

As a pp said, it will have been his word against hers. Its why rape prossecutions are so difficult to obtain too, because it's often his word against hers.

Four words. The English class system.

I wonder if the length of time that benadryl can be detected in urine couldn't definitely put it on the two hours or whatever that he had her.

Really disturbing case though.

It's horrendous. The thing about the sexual assault. Obviously judge said no DNA evidence. But does that mean the girl accused him of sexual assault and the jury didn't believe her?
That part seems morally hard to understand. Also why was he wandering around with her? You'd speak to security outside the shop or the police? Seems really awful tbh.
And why is he of 'no fixed address'. Just bc he's a pilot he still needs a base somewhere, surely?

Sounds very odd. But we weren't on the Jury

Wtf did he mean when he said "no direct route" to any of the three police stations. What sort of direct route? Why did he keep the girl in his flat for 2 hours? Why wasn't his ex wife's accusations submitted by the prosecution? I was under the impression the girl accused him of inappropriate touching, but I could be wrong. Either way the no guilty verdict is indeed a weird one.

Sorry @Lincoln24 cross posted at the same time

This is an awful case. The guy sounds highly predatory and dangerous.
I can understand the jury feeling there wasn’t concrete evidence for the drugging and sexual assault (I believe the girl though), surely the abduction charge should have been a guilty verdict??

I'm normally one to have faith in the justice system but on the face of it, it's difficult to understand. Or I could perhaps understand the acquittal for intent to commit a sexual offense, which seems less clear cut, but how on earth is it not kidnapping?

caselaw.findlaw.com/court/wa-court-of-appeals/115212454.html caselaw.findlaw.com/court/wa-court-of-appeals/115212454.html]]]]

Got it. Shocking.

Just Google his name and divorce

I get there might have been no evidence of the drug in his flat but it was in her body. Surely it’s not beyond reasonable doubt that he administered it seeing as he was with her. Is he saying her parents drugged her? Or a random hypothetical person who’s never been caught?

How did you find that?

And he was described as ‘no fixed abode’. How come? There is so so much about this case I cannot understand.