People really need to get it together, the excuse that the police are not equipped or trained to deal with social media is bull, they had the 40k messages, they are legally obliged to pass all of them over, not just the relevant ones. A common lawyer tactic is in fact burying the pertinent information an an avalanche of information. IE the legally accepted practice would be to always give them the full 40k and hope the one really relevant one gets overlooked by the intern or 1st year who was tasked to trawl through them. Doing the work yourself, identifying the 6 that blow your case and passing those specifically to the defence is poor form.
They collected the information easily, they had it for a long time and they failed to disclose it when their job is simply to box up all evidence and pass it to the defence, they passed everything else, they purposefully withheld the only evidence that completely exonerates him.
Then all the people saying she may still have been raped, no, read up on the case and don't destroy this guy's life in particular whoever it was who would have convicted him based on how he looks.
The specific incidents she claimed were rape were referred to in texts in which she both bragged to friends she thought the specific nights were great, she also after those 'rapes' kept texting him for further sex. Revenge, spite, sociopath, I don't know the reason but she had sex with him, enjoyed it, told others she enjoyed it and asked him for more than at some later date decided hey I want to screw you so I'm going to claim that is all rape.
The situation in which they have sex 10 times consensually and then he rapes her at a later date is absolutely a situation that happens, consensual sex doesn't preclude the possibility of rape and I've never seen anyone suggest so, but when you have sex 10 times, keep asking for more sex, tell all your friends it's great and at a later date decide that those 10 times having sex were rape no, it's not possible she was raped, she's simply lying.
This is why men want anonymity the same as the, despite clear and obvious proof she was lying most people still don't actually believe he's innocent while at the same time the liar is unnamed and unknown. The police are being excused throughout this thread for being understaffed or undertrained. There will be a box somewhere with evidence, they have to give this to the defence, they took out the hard drive before handing it over, that is as simple as it gets. It's more effort to take out evidence than to forget it, it's corruption at it's worst. My guess is someone said, election of some kind coming up, we don't want to appear soft on rape right now as it's a campaign piece for someone, let this guy dangle for a couple years, we'll keep pushing the case back despite knowing he's innocent. That is how the world works.
Last point, people keep suggesting the case collapsed directly because of the evidence screw up and the case was thrown out because of a technicality. No the case was dismissed because on seeing the evidence the prosecution decided they wouldn't get a conviction.... because the evidence completely exonerated him. Which is another problem, he doesn't get his day in court to prove his innocence, they kept him dangling for two years then close the case rather than let him prove he's innocent.
A spokesman for the CPS said:.....
“In November 2017, the police provided more material in the case of Liam Allan. Upon a review of that material, it was decided that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.
“Therefore we offered no evidence in the case against Liam Allan at a hearing on 14 December 2017. We will now be conducting a management review together with the Metropolitan police to examine the way in which this case was handled.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...g-out-urgent-assessment-after-trial-collapses