UK - Man accused of kidnap and sexual assault of girl aged 9 in Knightsbridge, London

[GRT]

Dumb jurors.
Everybody wants to be a scientist.

Maybe the prosecution just didn't make their case.

I've seen cases before where I was sure the defendant was guilty, but the juries acquitted them.

 

[GRT]

He was arrested after the trial. If the police knew beforehand, I believe they could still arrest and charge him but there would be reporting restrictions in place until the first trial was over (providing the girl was not the subject of the images). If the girl was the subject in the images, the prosecution could justifiably apply to have that evidence introduced as soon as it became available.

It might be that someone who knows him saw the news reports on this case and reported him to police with their suspicions. I think he was initially arrested on "suspicion" and not "possession".

I think police had a suspicion he was going to be acquitted and they were ready.

 

[jepop]

He was arrested after the trial. If the police knew beforehand, I believe they could still arrest and charge him but there would be reporting restrictions in place until the first trial was over (providing the girl was not the subject of the images). If the girl was the subject in the images, the prosecution could justifiably apply to have that evidence introduced as soon as it became available.

It might be that someone who knows him saw the news reports on this case and reported him to police with their suspicions. I think he was initially arrested on "suspicion" and not "possession".

Thanks for the reply. Excellent points. The poster to whom I was replying wondered if the child image connected with this creep's post-trial arrest could be of the child he has just been acquitted of kidnapping and assaulting. I think not because why would it have not been introduced at the trial,? I think you are saying it would have been admissible evidence at any point during proceedings, so the picture is not of her imo.

It's great that he was arrested on these new charges before he could even leave the court after his acquittal. He's off the streets for now. But do wonder how the girl's parents feel about this development. Pretty upset, I'd hazard a guess, as the creep just got acquitted in relation to their own child who was not believed by the jury. And on the contrary the jury found his whole BS story credible enough it seems. So credible that he was not even found to be a kidnapper. What the what now is all I can say.

Still, parents hopefully shielding their young daughter from the hard facts. I'm hoping they have adequate professional psychological support to help themselves and her navigate through. They can reassure their daughter that she is totally believed and the police have the bad man in jail where he belongs or something like that. Jmo

 

[jepop]

Dbm

 

[jepop]

It's very very strange. Why wouldn't he just take the girl into the huge shop with numerous staff she was outside?

The jury must have believed his story, which as far as I can tell is that he was a clueless but good guy, a bumbling fool just trying to help. Did the defense introduce evidence of low IQ or a hero complex or something? Lol, doubt it!.

Still, even though any normal and reasonable person would do as you say and take her into store security, this guy didn't but that's only cos his poor clueless heart was in the right place and poor bumbling fool that he is, he was just trying to be a good. Imo this is along the lines of what the jury must have given this creep credit for. Moo

In reality, imo he saw an opportunity. He passed her, did a double take and made a split decision to go for it. Went back, asked her some questions, calculated the risk. He behaved like the opportunistic predator he very likely is. Jmo

 

[Indy_ar]

Yes, that was the original man. But, he was found not guilty. Then, at the bottom of that story they mention that a 57 year old man (name withheld) was arrested after that on suspicion of child images.

But, it has to be the same guy we're all thinking.

I don't know if you are going to a different link somehow. The link I posted sends me to a person being charged with possessing indecent images, not the kidnapping and assault charges.

" Man, 57, charged with child sex offences
A 57-year-old man has been charged with child sex offences, the Met Police has said.
Robert Prussak, of no fixed address, has been charged with one count of possessing indecent images of a child and another count of making an indecent image of a child"

I think this is separate from the other charges and it was published 6 hours ago.

 

[Skigh]

I don't know if you are going to a different link somehow. The link I posted sends me to a person being charged with possessing indecent images, not the kidnapping and assault charges.

" Man, 57, charged with child sex offences
A 57-year-old man has been charged with child sex offences, the Met Police has said.
Robert Prussak, of no fixed address, has been charged with one count of possessing indecent images of a child and another count of making an indecent image of a child"

I think this is separate from the other charges and it was published 6 hours ago.

I am not quite sure what you mean.
A Robert Prussak (57) was charged and subsequently aquitted of abducting a 9 year old child. Immediately after the court case a 57 year old man called Robert Prossak was arrested for having an indecent imagine of a child.

 

[GRT]

I don't know if you are going to a different link somehow. The link I posted sends me to a person being charged with possessing indecent images, not the kidnapping and assault charges.

" Man, 57, charged with child sex offences
A 57-year-old man has been charged with child sex offences, the Met Police has said.
Robert Prussak, of no fixed address, has been charged with one count of possessing indecent images of a child and another count of making an indecent image of a child"

I think this is separate from the other charges and it was published 6 hours ago.

Yes, that's the guy, but he was just found not-guilty by a jury on all charges.

I think he was arrested earlier this year and just had his trial. That was for taking the lost girl and drugging her and touching her inappropriately.

But, as soon as he was found not guilty, he (or someone closely matching his description) was arrested for possessing child images.We think it's the same guy.

 

[jepop]

It is the same guy. The link previously posted up thread names him as the same guy and it discusses the latest arrest. Not reposting it here, but the linked article can be read to confirm the content and the naming. There is no longer any "we think it is the same guy". It is the same guy.

 

[Indy_ar]

Yes, that's the guy, but he was just found not-guilty by a jury on all charges.

I think he was arrested earlier this year and just had his trial. That was for taking the lost girl and drugging her and touching her inappropriately.

But, as soon as he was found not guilty, he (or someone closely matching his description) was arrested for possessing child images.We think it's the same guy.

The link I posted about his arrest is for the latter charges (possessing) and not for the kidnapping / assault charges, and it now gives his name. It appears that it was previously withheld. As Jepop said, it is naming the same guy.

 

[Lucy6226]

I now think there was a reason they stayed in his apartment for two hours. IMO, it's possible she wasn't watching cartoons and had been effectively drugged, with no memory of it. JMO.

RSBM

I think that's exactly what happened sadly.

 

[Skigh]

USAF captain denies making indecent images of a child

Appearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court this afternoon, Prussak, denied making and possessing indecent images of a child.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Skigh]

USAF captain denies making indecent images of a child

Appearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court this afternoon, Prussak, denied making and possessing indecent images of a child.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Baby baby Jane]

It was reported that there was no evidence of the “Benedryl” substance found at his residence in the drinking glasses. So, no evidence that the chemical was attributed to him.
(not been reported, that I saw, that parents were asked if she’d had medicines given by them in previous day(s).)

Thinking the images were found during police search of his devices/residence.

 

[PoirotPink]

It was reported that there was no evidence of the “Benedryl” substance found at his residence in the drinking glasses. So, no evidence that the chemical was attributed to him.
(not been reported, that I saw, that parents were asked if she’d had medicines given by them in previous day(s).)

Thinking the images were found during police search of his devices/residence.

When they said they found no evidence of Benedryl, I believe they only tested two glasses containing water that were found in his apartment. He was arrested whilst he was still with the girl (outside the Israeli Embassy) so the police found the apartment in the state they had left it in.

However, it might be the case that he drugged her (with glass A containing Benedryl), which she complained was bitter, whilst sitting her down to watch cartoons. The drug took effect, so the girl passed out (thus having no memory of what happened next and also losing perception of time). As far as she's aware, she didn't feel good after the bitter drink (disorientated?), but if she fell asleep and woke up in the same position (in front of the TV), it may not have occurred to her that she'd passed out. Meanwhile, glass A has already been emptied/rinsed/washed and he has refilled it and offered her another glass (glass B) in order to help rouse her from the effects of the drug as it wears off. The girl's perception would be that he'd offered the second glass immediately after the first, which is what she tells police. And when the police arrive, they test glass B but find no Benedryl. JMO.

They were at his apartment for two hours!

Also, he's been charged with "making" images. But, he was only in the UK for an interview. I would assume paedophiles don't risk going through customs with devices containing such material. To be charged with making images, the police would have to know that the victim (in the images) was in his presence; either he was captured in the images OR the victim was the girl in this case. JMO.

This man sounds like a convincing and devious liar.

 

[Skigh]

Robert Prussak, 57, was arrested on Tuesday moments after being acquitted by a jury of abducting the schoolgirl outside of London's famed Harrods department store on April 22.
He spoke only to confirm his identity and to deny making an indecent image of a child between October 17 and December 10, 2023, and possession of a Category A moving image of a child on April 22.

These seems to be as if he had an image of a child and video he took of a child on the same date he took a 9 year old child to his flat.

 

[PoirotPink]

In reality, imo he saw an opportunity. He passed her, did a double take and made a split decision to go for it. Went back, asked her some questions, calculated the risk. He behaved like the opportunistic predator he very likely is. Jmo

Absolutely. It was said, IIRC, that they waited for seven minutes to see if anyone would show up. Even that seems calculated to gauge whether he could get away with taking her to his apartment without being immediately tracked down. Also gave him a cover story.

Even the prosecution fell for it, to some extent, because they said his interaction started out as "good samaritan", which I seriously doubt.

 

[PoirotPink]

and possession of a Category A moving image of a child on April 22.

I'm assuming that's 22nd April 2024, rather than April 2022.
The kidnap happened in April!

 

[dm799]

Obviously no idea if he recorded anything himself, but when they say 'making'; it doesn't mean the person took the images/vids themself.

“To make” has been widely interpreted by the courts and can include the following:

• opening an attachment to an email containing an image: R v Smith; R v Jayson [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 13
• downloading an image from a website onto a computer screen: R v Smith; R v Jayson [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 13
• storing an image in a directory on a computer: Atkins v DPP; Goodland v DPP [2000] 2 Cr. App. R. 248
• accessing a pornographic website in which indecent images appeared by way of automatic “pop-up” mechanism: R v Harrison [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. 29
• receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group
• live-streaming images of children

Source: CPS
And the no fixed abode thing is incredibly common too, and doesn't actually mean someone is homeless.

 

[PoirotPink]

Obviously no idea if he recorded anything himself, but when they say 'making'; it doesn't mean the person took the images/vids themself.

“To make” has been widely interpreted by the courts and can include the following:

• opening an attachment to an email containing an image: R v Smith; R v Jayson [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 13
• downloading an image from a website onto a computer screen: R v Smith; R v Jayson [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 13
• storing an image in a directory on a computer: Atkins v DPP; Goodland v DPP [2000] 2 Cr. App. R. 248
• accessing a pornographic website in which indecent images appeared by way of automatic “pop-up” mechanism: R v Harrison [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. 29
• receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group
• live-streaming images of children

Source: CPS
And the no fixed abode thing is incredibly common too, and doesn't actually mean someone is homeless.

Good point. I was just speculating and the date of one of the images seems suspicious.