There have been a small number of high profile cases in UK where police/CPS have failed to identify or disclose evidence that casts doubt on accusation. Failure is not limited to sexual crimes though. In part that's about not looking for evidence contrary to prosecution case. Far more though it's down to system's demand for everything in paper bundles and failure to deal with sheer volume of data on a phone or PC.

The accuser has had anonymity for around forty years. There's a reasonable case to be made for extending that to the accused. There would be discretion to judge to remove it in interest of justice such as where (Savile, Clifford etc) serial offending is probable.

Are you seriously suggesting the accuser should lose her anonymity if the case collapses? Do you include a not guilty verdict as a collapse? Not guilty means the jury were not sure; it doesn't make the accuser a lying charlatan. If she is then the charge of perverting the cause of justice is appropriate.

The pendulum has not even reached half way. While the consequences of an ill founded accusation against an innocent male are ruinous the probability for those not chancing their hand is around same as that of a dual engine failure from unrelated causes.

security video
 

If the hotel security video provides evidence that:

"... was incapacitated, that it took 18 to 20 minutes to get from the elevator to the room, and this whole time he’s trying to get me into the room, and I’m trying to put up whatever fight I can,” Pina said.

.... then this is nothing at all like a 'he said/she said" event.

Right. *if*.

I haven't seen that video, have you?

As nearly as I can tell, she (Pina) hasn't seen it either. So, like I said, what we have is what Pina claims that someone else told her the video shows. IOW, "she said". If there is indeed video whcih does indeed show the captain dragging her down the hall into his room and her clearly trying to resist (not drunkenly requiring assistance) then yeah, that's nothing like he said/she said.

Got a link to that video? If not, then all you, or I, or anyone else has is what she said.

A Squared, you'd need to have lived in the Seattle area to appreciate all the twists and complexities of the whole sad Ed Murray fiasco (very short version, gay Seattle Mayor was accused by multiple men of having been sexually abused by Murray as minors - some accusations first reported over 20 years ago - ultimately resulting in his resignation). There were enough people (many employed by the city of Seattle) attempting to protect Murray and smear his alleged victims that the lawyer in question probably believed it was the only way to get his version of the story out.
Once the accusations of sexual misconduct became public, others quickly came forward with similar stories, which pretty much sealed Murray's fate. Some have postulated a similar motive here - to get other possible victims to come forward.

I’d bet money that’s the motivation for all the publicity here—get a few F/As to come forth with a story like this F/O’s experience and AK, the captain is toast.
GF

I reckon the first thing the airline would do would be to ask to see the hotel's security video. I don't see how the hotel could refuse, especially as the lawsuit depends on it being called a work place.
If the video showed what is being alleged, the captain would have been immediately fired.

That's one of the things whcih don't quite add up. She claims that Alaska's attorney investigating the incident has seen the video, (prior to her filing of the lawsuit) and that it does show the captain dragging her into his room against her resistance, yet they didn't fire him. That seems extraordinary.

"..things which don't quite add up" more than quite I would say.

Not guilty means not guilty; not enought evidence presented to prove beyond reasonable doubt the accussed actually did what the accuser claims. Not guilty verdict does not, however, does not mean they were not sure, therefore the accused might still be guilty.

Not proven | Legal Issues in Scotland Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia
Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland.
Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction ("proven") and two of acquittal ("not proven" and "not guilty"). Historically, the two verdicts available to Scots juries were that the case had been "proven" or "not proven". However in a dramatic case in 1728 the jury asserted "its ancient right" to bring in a "not guilty" verdict even when the facts of the case were proven (see jury nullification). As the "not guilty" verdict gained wide acceptance amongst Scots juries, Scots began to use "not guilty" in cases where the jury felt the "not proven" verdict did not adequately express the innocence of the defendant.

"get a few F/As to come forth with a story like this F/O’s experience and AK, the captain is toast"

Any FA short of cash? Join us and make free money. Captains are rich anyway!
To hell with the truth.

Unbelievable comment.... :rolleyes:

Or as Larry L. Archie, Esq. famously advertises: "Just because you did it doesn't mean you're guilty."


The plaintiff media campaign hails the accuser as a decorated military veteran. But so is the accused, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel in the reserves.

Unless Alaska coughs up a big cash settlement, we'll probably find out more as this case progresses.

Sadly, that's the case in pretty much any legal process. It's an open secret in the industry that you can hire accredited 'experts' that will give whatever testimony you pay them to give.

Sailvi767
A colleague of mine with a well known ME airline had a similar accusation from an FA with the difference that she made a phone call to him saying unless you give me a large cash donation I'm going to accuse you of attempted rape and assault.
He immediately called ops, both removed from the flight. An investigation revealed her story false (hotel CCTV and key log) furthermore it also revealed she had used this ploy several times successfully in the past!

Conversly, I have been on jury service for a rape (inability to give consent) the perp was really cocky (sorry) arrogant and a genuine toerag but we couldn't find him guilty as not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Felt really frustrated but sometimes the law sucks. Sadly its all we have and this problem will always cause controversy with justice and injustice in both senses.

experts are not proffered victims. and its hardly a secret (anywhere) that experts are available to testify for a fee.

".....The suit appears long on accusations and short on evidence to me..."

So far, we have a Complaint and a couple of newspaper articles based on it. Do you really expect the "evidence" to be included in the Complaint?

Haven't you watched Perry Mason at least?

No, please enlighten us with your legal wisdom perfessor. ;)

The complaint isn’t evidence, it’s a complaint that’s all. The factual matter will come out of discovery, depositions and trial. This case won’t go to trial and likely be covered by NDAs all around. You’ll get more here than from the legal system.


Gf

google :

"........What Complaints Look Like

Criminal complaints tend to look similar, particularly within the same
county or court. Prosecuting offices have templates that they adjust
depending on the case at hand.

A complaint normally has a caption at the top indicating:
the court where the case is being filed
the party filing the complaint (for example, “The People of the State of
California” or “United States of America”), and
the defendant.

The complaint then includes come kind of description of the accusations against the defendant.

....."

and

"....evidence: Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects....."