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

The jury presumably found it was not compelling evidence. They had the benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses in person.

Heartbreaking.

But "lessons will be learnt" when he does it again and hopefully gets caught.

That poor family and poor wee girl.

But did that happen? If he wanted to assault her, why on earth would he take her to a park in London rather than stay in the flat? They jury clearly were not convinced.

My take is that he drugged her in the flat, temporarily lost his nerve when she only became drowsy rather than unconscious, gave up on the plan and left the flat to get rid of her. Then in the park decided it was now or never, and it was worth the risk to get what he could.

Certainly more plausible then "maybe he has unknown early dementia".

And in the wider context of his actions, yes I would say that this assault did happen.

The fact that a witness says something is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, is it?

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

its in this article

Yep, another poster shared it.

Reading some of these links it seems a man of the same age who cannot be named for legal reasons was arrested at the same court on the same day this trail ended.

Make of that what you will.

Again, the NY Post is a tabloid. Something being printed in it is about as reliable and fact-checked as reading it on a bathroom wall.

Not necessarily sometimes juries make fucking weird decisions. Sometimes they’re imperfect. Sometimes they hold themselves to impossible standards. Sometimes they believe ridiculous stories.

like I said perhaps a discussion best had with colleagues but I just feel so defeated for women today

At the bottom of the BBC article:

On Tuesday, the Metropolitan Police arrested a 57-year-old man at Isleworth Crown Court on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children.
He was taken to a police station and remains in custody.

The justice system was never set up to protect women or children nor to handle sexual offences. Tinkering with it is pointless when it simply isn't fit for purpose.

It can be, depending on the circumstances. I once gave evidence in court about an assault on a child that I witnessed. There was no evidence other than my statement (the victim refused to speak against her parent), but my statement was sufficient for the CPS to prosecute and the court to convict. In these circumstances, with the child having been taken to his apartment for 2 hours, and sedatives found in her system, the child's witness statement is extremely compelling evidence.

My mind went straight to my own daughters who are just a few years older than her and I thought if my daughters were lost in a big city, I wouldn’t want them stuck out alone,” he said of the moment he supposedly saw the girl standing alone while on his way to Buckingham Palace

That's so implausible. Doesn't everyone tell their children - "if you get lost go into a big shop and tell the assistants"

And of all the possible shops available , it was Harrods. They would know exactly what to do.

Some background on Chelsea Cloisters

Chelsea Cloisters

Forgive me

Still, what are the odds of there being two Robert Prussaks, both aged 57 with two children and both from San Diego?

Those are the details we can match from Court documents. This source is likely less reliable but also seems to confirm that they are one and the same person (by reference to their education and employment histories):

www.fastpeoplesearch.com/robert-prussak_id_G-7557116675976108389

I cannot see how this is not abduction!

"Abduction is the illegal holding of an adult or child without their consent or against their will through force or deception. On the other hand, Kidnapping is the illegal holding of an individual through force or threatening behaviour and is typically followed with a ransom or used as a bargaining chip."

www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/specialist-areas/serious-violence-and-assault/child-abduction-and-kidnapping-solicitors/#:~:text=Typically%20this%20is%20where%20a,imprisoned%20without%20their%20valid%20consent.

No worries!

From that BBC article, it appears that they re-arrested him again at the court house straight after the verdict, for possessing indecent images of children.

I work in safeguarding of children and its never ceases to surprise me at what alot of people wouldn't class as a safeguarding issue when it very clearly is. Regular jurors off the steets all have unconscious biases. All may not see things as a danger or issue. Tbh I don't understand the system of juries. How can they decide someone's fate when they have no clue in law,crimes and safeguarding.

simply isn't fit for purpose.

To be fair, by the logic of your own post, that is not its purpose.

Yup.

The NY Post is trashy & so is the DM but their stringers are ballsy and get the stories first. That nuggets was in the Post & DM but much hand wringing until the BBC also post it.

Whaaat!!! Oh yea and he definitely "wasn't guilty" of his previous crime. Crazy

yep. I've just scrolled down the entire thread to see if anyone mentioned that. Unless the police have a vendetta against this guy then they must have been sitting on this waiting to go for this after this trial, they must be so frustrated.

I'm not saying they never get things wrong, but this guy seems to be a danger to children so I hope they get him for something.