Again, you always act like you know exactly what has gone on, when none of us do.
Again, you are also acting like you know what went on, when you were not there, all of us read the same thing.
What we do know - a compliant was filed by someone who had witnessed various instances of unacceptable workplace behaviour by the Duchess. A journalist reported that he had had many similar stories told to him. The Duchess and her representatives denied it.
What we do know - JK is the person who (did not file, but wrote to his mate, Simon Case - who is not HR (both proven to work against MM), what he claims MM did, without any witness to collaborate - not even the 'victims' themselves. On top of this he licked his tittle tattle to the journalist (Valentine Lowe, from the Times), who then wrote it down, claiming he spoke to several 'witnesses' - not the victims themselves. He does not say who the witnesses were, or exactly what they witnessed, nor how many (could be the same people who were being told the tittle tattle by JK himself, most certainly he does not give us any direct incidents or witness accounts). When someone says they have been bullied, the first question is, 'really, what happened?' and the person takes you through it all. What are the details in this case? Emails sent at 5am? that you answer when you come in at work at 9? What was the threat about the emails? (eg. the emails came with a threat if you don't answer them within the hour (by 6am) ?
If the complainant and the journalist are telling the truth, there were victims. If the Duchess is telling the truth. Who to believe?
If??? That is the big IF? Considering no one but JK would verify, yet he says there are several witnesses and victims?
You seem quite confused. Both JK and VL are the storytellers here. VL retelling what JK has told him. JK either making up a story or not, but either way it's not collaborated. Considering that there are supposedly several people involved, it is very weird that there is no one to collaborate. If it was just JK vs MM, then you could have doubts, but with supposedly so many witnesses? From an accused that is disliked by the victims and witnesses, yet they don't want to point the finger? Very unlikely. Sorry, I don't buy it.
On the other hand we have someone who we know is prepared to mislead a court of law in a signed witness statement in order to avoid inconvenient facts that would hurt her court case being known (and that’s the “at best” summary of her behaviour).
Once more, if MM had lied, she would have perjured herself, a serious offence that leads to jail time. She did not speak to OS, JK did. The judge was referring to the technical issue that JK was at work, under MM office at the time.
Just as you don't call the Queen a liar when she suddenly realised a lapse of memory with the Paul Barrel case.