Black Police Officer ‘Cleared’ Of Assault on Polish Woman in UK

Black Police Officer ‘Cleared’ Of Assault on Polish Woman in UK

A black immigrant to the UK from Jamaica named Rudvelle Walters – who subsequently joined the British police force and served in it for eighteen years – has been ‘cleared’ by Southwark Crown Court of sexually assaulting a Polish woman (i.e. a White woman) at a ‘Best Western’ hotel in Wembley, North London on 5th February 2019.

Now what I love about this case is not that Walters has been cleared or that a black-on-white sexual assault allegedly happened in London – they are common enough although the data is largely hidden – but rather the rationale offered for clearly Walters is a good example of why the legal system in the UK and around the Western world is no longer fit for purpose.

The ‘Reading Chronicle’ describes how:

‘Mr Walters, a police constable with the Met for 18 years, always denied allegations that he put his hand inside the female complainant’s underwear and slapped her bottom, and said it was the woman who was over-friendly with him as he tried to do his job.

The allegations were made by a Polish woman in her twenties, who cannot be named for legal reasons.

The court heard Mr Walters had been called to her room at the Best Western in Wembley, north-west London, in the early hours of February 5 2019 after she was reported missing by her husband following an argument.

Giving evidence in his trial, Mr Walters said he had not touched the complainant during the 20-minute welfare check, at which he said she was “being difficult” and not answering his questions.


Mr Walters, originally from Jamaica, said the woman seized his phone and called her telephone number from it, and then used his phone to send a Facebook friend request.

He said any subsequent message to her from his account was sent in error, due to his “fat fingers” pressing the “send” button instead of deleting the prompt.

Prosecutor Abigail Husbands accused Walters of changing details in his various accounts of that night.

But Mr Walters said his innocence would have been proven had he remembered to switch his body-worn camera on.

He said: “And if I had my camera on, I wouldn’t be here now, because it would show what I was accused of was not true.”

Scotland Yard said Mr Walters’ suspension would be reviewed in light of the acquittal.’

To put this in layman’s terms – I am not a lawyer, but I do have more than a passing acquaintance with legalese – Walters didn’t actively disprove that he didn’t touch the young Polish woman concerned and got off primarily because the prosecution simply didn’t have any direct evidence that he did. Hence Walters was not convicted by the jury not because he didn’t probably do it but because there was ‘reasonable doubt’ that he did.

The circumstantial case against Walters gives a decent enough indication that there is at least some truth to the young Polish woman’s claims because:

A) Walters’ personal phone number somehow got into the young Polish woman’s phone (he claims she did this).

B) Walters’ personal phone called the young Polish woman’s phone (he claims she did this).

C) Walters’ Facebook account sent a friend request to the young Polish woman’s Facebook account (he claims she did this).

D) Walters did not turn on his police body camera any time during his contact with the young Polish woman (he claims this was an accident).

E) Walters’ phone sent her at least one text message – the implication is multiple however - after he left her presence (he claims he did this in error).

Do you see what I mean?

While it is possible Walters is being completely truthful and the young Polish woman really did all those things and that he really was that forgetful and clumsy – rather odd for an eighteen-year veteran of the police force however – it just doesn’t sound plausible but is just plausible enough without any counter evidence other than ‘he said, she said’ that a jury felt (rightly I might add in all fairness) that there was/is ‘reasonable doubt’.

It doesn’t change the likelihood being that Walters did exactly what she said he did however and in probability thought that because the jewish-run pornography industry loves to imply that ‘white women are desperate for some BBC’. Despite this the simple reality is that white (and most other race’s) women – who aren’t overweight and/or emotionally damaged – don’t want to date let alone have sex with black men and prefer white men.

That a legal system exists that allows someone to get away with crimes because there is a ‘reasonable doubt’ that they did the crime is diabolical in the first place, but what is worse is that this lack of aptitude in dealing with and punishing crime compounds the situation in the UK and around the western world. Where niggers are committing crime with impunity against the citizens and increasingly hamstrung police forces and law courts that are so backed up with cases that it just isn’t funny.

The British police and legal system – as with those in Europe, North America and Oceania – are in desperate need of sweeping reforms to give the police the ability to decisively deal with the rampaging hordes of niggers, kebabs and spics on the streets of the western world.

Or maybe rather than having to create a police state just to control the economic migrants who have been foisted upon the Aryan nations by treasonous elites, left-wing activists and jews: we simply deport them back to where they came from.

Now wouldn’t that be a thought?