Thread:Comments:London cop fired for rape despite 'insufficient evidence' to prosecute/On What Evidence?

I'm curious as in to what evidence was produced. I'm no fan of the police, and a quick review of my contribs will reveal why, but the polis are orgs whereas officers are individuals, and I have no bias against or dislike of this man without seeing the I.P.C.C. file.

It seems clear to me we're not getting the full story. The sources I've seen don't seem to have all the evidence - why else wold the victims' group demand prosecution, the I.P.C.C. call him a rapist and the Met fire him? Most likely, he interviewed poorly; maybe something didn't check out, stuff sounded suspect. Whatever it is, it better be damn good if the Met fancy their chances before an employment tribunal.

Now, if there isn't anything else in that file, let's analyse the evidence:


 * She was clearly comfortable with him, if only through inebriation, in that they cuddled happily enough and she went apparently voluntarily to sleep with him.


 * She was incredibly drunk and does not remember the night.


 * She claims to have awakened to discover herself being raped.

So, it seems a reasonable line of events is that she consented and passed out mid-shag. It is not actually impossible for this to have been very brief and almost unnoticeable, but if she wakes - even within seconds - without remembering how she got there, we end up here. Further, might not her recollection be impaired? Yes, drunkards can make decent witnesses, but not if they can't remember anything.

The obvious response is that he should not have taken advantage of a drunken girl, and that taking her to a locker room was pretty seedy. However, whilst not something the Met will want from their employees, giving someone what they want while they're pissed is not an offence, and oft remembered by both parties as a good night out.

Really, it's a clear not guilty verdict. However, there is no real convincing display of evidence for innocence either; in my homeland, not proven would be the correct verdict. Without more information, it's impossible to reconstruct the night's events.

So... What's missing from the public record? What was the evidence used to 'prove' rape? And, why has the public not been informed how we got to this decision? Something hasn't found it's way into the media, that much is clear. Unable to do anythhing in fair, open court, the Met seems to have created it's own little closed court - and everyone's ganging up to join in.