"I watched the CCTV on the CE Website of the purported complainant and CM entering the hotel and of her going out back out to collect the pizza. She certainly doesn't look extremely drunk from that. However, I wonder why they decided to edit approx 30 seconds out of the video from 4:09 onwards. Did they think people would get bored? One second she's in frame, in the next shot she's disappeared. Begs the question as to what happens in that period - does she fall over ?"
Interesting point Cadno, I hadn't spotted that. The complainant is there in the frame timed 04:09.00 and the next frame is timed at 04:09.33. So the question is just what happened in the missing 33 seconds?
Just before she disappears, you can see the taxi drive off and CM run out of the frame to the LEFT. Presumably, this is because the complainant realized that she did not have her handbag as the taxi drove off, said something to CM, and he then ran after the taxi in an attempt to retrieve it. Of course he failed, because it wasn't in the taxi, as she'd actually left it in the take away, before she even approached CM.
But After the the missing 33 seconds, we see both the complainant and CM walk back into the frame from the RIGHT! So, applying a bit of logic; during that missing 33 seconds CM must have re-appeared from the left of the picture and both he and the complainant must then have moved from left to right, so that they moved out of the picture to the right of the doorway.They then re-appear a little later. In the last frame, before she disappears, she appears upright and steady on her feet. SO, IF she fell (and I can't say that she didn't), then she must have fallen, then got up and then moved out of the picture to the right with the returning CM - all in 33 seconds. I'd say that was unlikely, if she was "extremely drunk"
Did you notice the inner door to to the hotel lobby in the left of the picture? In the frame timed 04:08.48, as the complainant was getting out of the taxi, it begins to open. Then in frame 04:09.33, it begins to close. In other words, that door began to open 12 seconds before the complainant disappeared and remained open for the whole of the missing 33 seconds before starting to close again.
Do you know what I think?
I wonder, if just as the complainant and CM arrived at the hotel in the taxi, SOMEBODY walked through that door out of the hotel. If they did, then they must walked right past the complainant and would have had a very good view of her, and her behavior. In other words, that somebody would have been a perfect witness as to her state of intoxication, as she arrived at the hotel.
Now if that witness could testify that she was indeed extremely drunk, then you would think it would have been very much in the interests of the prosecution, to track them down and produce that witness in court.
On the other hand, if that witness could testify that the complainant did not appear that drunk, then it would very much have helped the defense!
As far as I can see no such witness was produced and so at the hotel we only have the testimony of the hotel porter, against the testimonies of CM and CE
So did the video clip, as produced in court include the missing 33 seconds? Did it show somebody walk out of the hotel as the complainant and CM arrived? If it did, then did anybody ask who it was and if there had been any attempt made to trace them?
And if the video as shown in court did not include the missing 33 seconds, then why were those seconds cut out?