Hit & Run

Brickbat: Are You Going to Believe Her or the Video?


Waterloo Station
Credit: hugh llewelyn / photo on flickr

The woman, reportedly an award-winning actress, claimed that as she was walking through London's Waterloo Station a man sexually assaulted her, putting his hand inside her underwear and penetrating her for "two or three seconds" then struck her violently in the shoulder. But surveillance video showed the man walking past her and never breaking his stride. He had his bag in one hand and a newspaper in the other. He did not strike her. There did not appear to be any physical contact. Nevertheless, police tracked the down the man, Mark Pearson, and prosecutors charged him with assault by penetration, even though the woman failed to pick him out of a video lineup and they could find no witnesses to the attack. It took the jury just 90 minutes to acquit him.

NEXT: Rise of the Robot Cars

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It's the accusation that's important,not the evidence.And we all know the guy was 'thinking ' of raping here.

    1. What kind of a person makes something like this up? She needs to be investigated. Somethings just not right.

      1. I'm sure she believed it. At least by the time she retold the story over and over and over.

        1. I don't think so,she wanted attention or someone wanted to set this guy up.

          1. If she FEELS that she was raped, then she WAS raped!

            Do not ask "Y"... The reason "Y" is, she has NO "Y" chromosome, and only those with a "Y" chromosome, have the ability to "fib". EVERYONE just "knows" this, these days...

          2. someone wanted to set this guy up.

            It seems unlikely she targeted Pearson. CPS identified him working from the time on his metro card and the CCTV video, then she failed to pick him from a lineup. It seems more likely she wanted her sexual assault victim story and when police presented evidence identifying a specific person could not back down without revealing her fabrication.

            1. I still don't understand how they fingered him out of all the people who swiped their cards during the requisite time frame.

      2. What kind of a person makes something like this up?

        A sexual predator?

      3. "What kind of person makes something like this up?"

        The brainwashed idiots that have had rape culture bullshit pumped into their heads since birth.

        She almost got to be the noble victim she needs to be.

      4. I was initially thinking it must be Sarah Silverman, but then he said award-winning actress.

        1. what was the tip off ? award-winning? or "actress" ?

        2. I was initially thinking it must be Sarah Silverman, but then he said award-winning actress.

          She's identified on liveleaks. She's credited with "awards" but I've never heard of her or anything she's ever been in. Since it's mostly British maybe her "celebrity" is localized. She's supposed to be in the next season of Game of Thrones but IMDB doesn't show that so I'm not sure I believe it.

  2. Rolling Stone will take up her cause and continue its war on our War on Women.

  3. Justice did not prevail. The process is the punishment

  4. He should have just told them he was a muslim, they would have let him go immediately and apologized.


    1. I bet you can use you long tongue so fast they don't know they've been violated.

      1. I prefer my mates to crawl away with the unsettling feeling of sticky violation.

        1. which I'm sure they do after any and all encounters...

        2. Sticky Violation sounds like a good punk band


  6. Sadly the theory that any press is good press is often correct. She'll probably be staring in her own lifetime movie soon.

    1. And this guy's life may be ruined. She's truly a candidate for the wood chipper.

  7. The woman, reportedly an award-winning actress

    It appears to be Souad Faress. I guess she's famous in England.

    1. Yep - she has a role in Game of Thrones this season.

      1. That's not possible, that show ended years ago. Charles Dance's character died in the series finale.

  8. Sue.

    Sue hard.

    And out with the name of the *victim*. Let's go. People should know she's a liar.

    1. I was trying to figure out who she played but I guess her episodes haven't aired yet.

  9. The CPS said: "There was sufficient evidence for this case to proceed to court and progress to trial. We respect the decision of the jury."

    Well, isn't that peachy.

    Defense: 'The video shows he did nothing.'
    'CPS: 'Doing nothing is a type of evidence to us!'

    1. SEE?!?!? Its just a little TOO neat and tidy, isn't it?!?!? HE KNEW she would try to get him prosecuted and THATS why he appears SO innocent as if he had done nothing!!! BECAUSE HE WAS GUILTY AS SIN!!!

      The man is history's greatest monster....

    2. Just wait, this same shit is coming to America eventually. What do you think all the bullshit campus "rape" hysteria is about where they throw out any semblance of due process for the accused? It's to get a wedge in the door to try to bring it into the courts as well.

      1. That is the main point of this, as far as I am concerned; just walking along minding your own business and some whack job decides to accuse you of assault and perhaps there is no ubiquitous camera to prove your innocence, which will of course be your burden. While being dismissive of the antics and hysteria of college students is understandable, it seems an entire generation is being inured to this very perception and that is how bullshit incrementally becomes the law of the land [by the way, WTF are my real initials, though it seems to be public domain these days...].

    3. "I have hearsay and conjecture. Those are *kinds* of evidence."

  10. Maybe hopefully with this as evidence he'll be able to sue her for defamation and false accusation. All the evidence is on his side that this was a malicious accusation, and with the video already accepted as court evidence he should have no problem with authenticity.

    1. She felt she was violated, his suffering is just part of her healing process.

    2. I'm sure the bizarre sexual assault laws in England preclude him from suing her. Even now the release of her name is not legally permitted in England.

    3. Except she didn't accuse him. Apparently her testimony was entirely by video. She never IDd the person she accused either in the lineup or court. All she said was that it was someone.

  11. OK, so I am assuming that she made this accusation before she knew the "incident" was recorded by a camera. So I suppose she called police and had him arrested assuming that it would be her word against him all the way, and knowing that a "rape victim" is always correct in a court of law.

    But I would expect that the existence of the video recording became known to everybody before the trial started. I expect that the prosecution would have reviewed the video as well.

    So did this non-case go to court because the female "victim" did a Bart Simpson, claiming "That's my story and I'm sticking to it"? Or was there some other reason to ride it out to the end?

    1. Read the link I posted at 7:04, it has a good explanation of what is going on with "rape" prosecutions in England.

    2. The case went to court because somebody molested her. Sure, the evidence suggests it wasn't this guy who did it, but somebody did. So where is he and why aren't the police finding him?

      And why aren't you asking that question? You assume just because she was mistaken on who it was that assaulted her (and who could blame her for being somewhat confused after just being traumatized in such a fashion?) that she was mistaken as to whether or not the incident happened at all. You accuse her of lying about being raped just because one single tiny detail of the rape incident was incorrectly reported.

      You and your patriarchical system of "evidence-based reality" suggest that just because there's no physical evidence that a rape occurred must mean that no rape occurred. A more inclusive definition of reality would admit that rapes that exist solely in the mind can be every bit as real as rapes that exist in the physical world. Your insistence that we accept your definition of reality is a form of privilege-blindness, you literally cannot conceive of there being other ways to view reality. This is why we must demolish this structure of ciswhitemale-dominated thought and usher in a new era of acceptance and inclusiveness that embraces multiple truths and realities. Only then can we see that any woman who attests to having been raped has been raped, for this is her reality and her reality is just as valid as any other.

      1. BULLSHIT with a capitol BULL

    3. "Because of Souad Faress' vindictive and attention-seeking lie, Mr. Pearson endured a nightmare year of harassment from the CPS, which is under the control of rabid feminist Alison Saunders."

      "Anyone familiar with the macabre history of Stalinist repressions will remember that Stalin often issued quotas for the numbers of victims he wanted expunged from Soviet society. When his underlings in the NKVD and its predecessors had gone through the typical scapegoats, including kulaks, suspected Tsarists, Mensheviks and members of the intelligentsia, they simply picked up random people from the street to make up the numbers."


      That is why it went to court. They really are mimicking the USSR in an attempt to destroy western civilization.

    4. I doubt the "victim" was ever shown the surveillance video.

  12. What was her reason for lying in the first place?

    Have we already forgotten the Salem Witch Trials?

    1. You mean that incident where the accusers got everything they wanted just by making unfalsifyable claims?

      I'm sure if she remembered them, she wouldn't have been deterred.

  13. Aren't people prosecuted for this sort of thing in England? Falsely reporting a crime? Are they prosecuted for it here in the US? Why isn't fucking mattress girl in jail or that skag from the Rolling Stone piece?

    1. Because false rape accusers are never prosecuted. The logic being because it would somehow discourage real rape victims from coming forward. Just like prosecuting insurance fraud deters people from filing legitimate insurance claims....oh,..wait....

      1. Seems more logical that woman like this make people more skeptical of rape allegations which would in turn discourage women to come forward

      2. Not only is she not to be prosecuted, under English law they are not allowed to name her. Talk about not having a right to face your accuser, he can't even publicly name her.

        More seriously, why are the prosecutors absolved in this? If you have video evidence that directly contradicts your accusations, how can an ethical prosecutor proceed? Aren't their legal ethics for attorneys that say it is not permissible to suborn perjury? Surely they knew that her account was not credible, based on the conflict with the video.

        1. Maybe they just didn't watch the video before the trial because it was triggering?

        2. Ethical prosecutor?

  14. Also, note that they only found the guy because they were able to track his metro card...

    Alt Headline: Public Transit Leads To False Rape Allegations

  15. All that's lacking is an English version of Al Sharpton.

  16. Apparently the head of the Crown Prosecution Service has all but instituted a quota system for sexual assault charges and convictions. Because that could never, ever in a million years go wrong at all.

    1. From the article linked above: on the direction of their new anti-rape activist leadership they have charged an additional 5,000 men with rape, year over year. This increase resulted in an additional 77 convictions.

      Wow. Assuming that all 77 convictions were proper, that's an awful lot of false or inconclusive cases to take to trial. But I suppose the process is the punishment, right?

      And apparently the bar is set pretty low for proof in English courts - the article makes it sound like it is somewhere close to a US college student court, rather than a full reasonable doubt kind of standard of proof.

  17. But its on the internet, we have to believe it lol.


  18. If there hadn't been CCTV footage he would probably have been convicted. Creepy.

  19. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.