To think this is an insane verdict

[DancingNotDrowning]

pilot who takes lost girl back to his hotel not guilty of kidnap and assault.

unbelievable verdict, poor girl.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2xv1yx83o.amp

He sounds like a danger to children

You're right, I just double-checked – he admitted taking Benadryl tablets the night before for hayfever, but there was no trace of it on or inside the glasses and bottle of water and the girl confirmed while giving evidence that she hadn't taken any medicine while in the flat.

Are you 100% sure it's the same man in the divorce court docs? Massively defamatory if it's not the same person and you're accusing him of plotting to attack children. And courts really don't favour the defendant – they allow them to exercise their right to a fair trial and they are either acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law.

Yes it is the same man, an article linked on here refers to his wife and previous convictions against her.

If you're a criminal barrister then surely you know the jury will have been presented with evidence that showed he could not have been guilty of the crimes he was charged with?

To be clear, that is not what had to be presented to the jury in order for this verdict to come back. The burden is on the prosecution to show that the defendent did commit the crime. The defense does not have to prove that the defendent could not have committed the crime (though of course if they can they will do so). If the evidence sums to "this person could have committed the crime but not clear evidence that he actually did so" then the jury is required to return a not guilty verdict. People in this country have a right to their freedom as the default - the government has to meet set standards to deprive them of that.

But I agree that OP should know that the jury will know far more about the actual evidence presented than the general public.

It's also ok to just be angry that bad people sometimes go unpunished in our world, and to feel like this is probably one of those times.

Presumably he meant that the route to any local police stations wasn't straightforward.

We don't know that that divorce report refers to him. If it is, it wouldn't be probative of anything in relation to the child.

On its face, the judgment sounds nuts.

From what we can see in the media reporting, the factors supporting reasonable doubt were that the glass the girl drank from did not show any trace of the drug, the absence of DNA evidence and that it wouldn't make much sense for him to first take her back to his apartment before then taking her to a very busy, public place to assault her. Maybe that's enough for "reasonable doubt".

Perhaps there's other relevant evidence too, like his search history.

That said, his conduct is completely unfathomable. The story as to how she ended up back at his apartment might not be completely lacking in credibility but keeping her there for 2 hours, without contacting anyone? That in itself may not be evidence of a crime but I just do not see how there could be any remotely credible explanation for it, other than nefarious ones.

Strange verdict on the face of it. At least he's not going anywhere in the immediate future.

The FindLaw link further up the thread? That just mentions a man of the same name. There was no mention of his ex-wife's name in the kidnap trial so you can't be sure it's her either.

It could be him or it could be someone's Googled his name and found this article and decided it's the same person. If I Googled my name I'm sure I'd find articles naming other DowntonNabbys.

There is no power to grant a retrial of someone who has been acquitted in the absence of new evidence that could not have been found before the trial.

Neither Edwards nor Joyce got off.

One of the media reports about the trial said it was the same guy as the DV case.

Do you have the link for it? Because I've just looked and cannot find any report that references that same divorce case.

https://nypost.com/2024/10/29/world-news/ex-air-force-pilot-robert-prussak-acquitted-of-kidnap-sex-assault-of-girl-in-london/

Quite far down the article.

I was double-checking if it was the same Robert Prussak before I found the above. "Both" do appear to be 57 year old pilots who were living in California.

Crossed post! Thanks.

Look at the last paragraph of Daily Mail article on this case (image attached).
What do yih think dailymail are implying here?...

Wtf did he mean when he said "no direct route" to any of the three police stations.

This is almost certainly a lie. The DM wrote an article recently that he was staying in Chelsea Cloisters on Sloane Avenue. It's a 10min walk from Harrods to Chelsea Cloisters, a grubby serviced apartment block that's known for sex workers. He didn't take her "around the corner" to his place. He would have had to walk with her for a long time, at least 10-15 blocks to get back.

There is also a police station right next to Chelsea Cloisters. He would definitely have known this, or at the very least the reception could have told him if he was bonkers enough to come back with a lost child.

I don't follow this. I didn't raise any issue around needing violence or slyness?

Well that would be unsurprisingly - but it would also be unsurprisingly if it's the DM just failing to proofread or fact check.

I am very slow at typing 😁

interestingly this fellow was of ‘no fixed address’.

This is an example of why we don't do convictions by public opinion and require actual evidence that the person committed the crime in question. The defendant not having a permanent home (or conversely, being a longtime resident of a particular place) should be irrelevant.

Hot news. People in the early stages of dementia don't tend to know they have it, and may apply for jobs.

I'm not saying this man did have it, I'm simply saying that you can't be as rigid about the interpretation of the facts as some people on this thread are.

The US media doesn't have the same defamation laws as the UK though and can print stuff that can't be published here. "Speaking speculatively" is no defence against defamation in the UK. Plus it's not speaking speculatively if you state categorically that someone has sexually abused a child after they've just been acquitted of said offence, while also stating that they can now continue to commit crimes against children. Hugely defamatory! What was reported about his marriage, however unpalatable, doesn't make him a paedophile. Just ask Lozza Fox what happens when you publicly call someone that!

The NY Post is a tabloid and should never be taken as fact.

Indeed Chelsea Cloisters has quite a reputation.

Agreed!