The prosecutor's office has stated that filmmaker and activist Mary Kross made false statements in her claims that she had been attacked on Stroomi Beach in Tallinn in November 2018.
On a post on its social media page Wednesday evening (link in Estonian), the office said that: "The court has found that the statements made by Mary Cross have been proved false."
The office also encouraged those who have genuinely been the victim of a crime to report it to the police immediately, noting people have nothing to fear from being accused of making false statements – provided they have not done so.
"We … encourage anyone who has been the victim of a crime to contact the police as soon as possible. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to track down the perpetrator, but you should not be afraid of being prosecuted for making false statements - only if it is proven that the case described to the police never happened [will this take place]," the office went on.
The prosecutor's office also noted its regret that a false picture of what happens in a case can also be presented to the media.
Mary Kross response: Think hard before approaching the police
Kross claimed that she had been attacked by two men who threw rocks at her dog, while she was walking on or near the beach in North Tallinn.
The men exhorted her to return home, she said, and later sketched a logo emblazoned on one of the men's clothing which resembled that of the Conservative People's Party of Estonia (EKRE).
The story first appeared on the social media page of tech entrepreneur Karoli Hindriks, where Kross was not named.
After reporting the claims to the Police and border Guard Board (PPA), a subsequent investigation, including mobile phone records analysis, revealed there was no evidence that Kross had been at the location at the time she said.
Kross exercised her right to remain silent after being charged with providing false evidence.
After more than one delay in the hearing at the Harju County Court, the prosecutor's office terminated the case on the grounds of it not being in the public interest, last week.
Kross was however ordered to pay €3,000 to the Estonian state.
Kross also claimed in the media on Wednesday that the incident had indeed taken place.
In a piece published in daily Eesti Päevaleht (link in Estonian), Kross said that she had more than one mobile phone and that another piece of evidence, that security footage revealed her car had not been parked where she said it had, could be mitigated since she may have parked elsewhere.
Kross added she opted to agree with the prosecutor's office to wind up the case since the alternative of appealing any guilty decision in court would not be attractive to her, also decrying the use of the case to gain political capital (Kross is married to Reform Party MP Eerik-Niiles Kross).
She added that she agreed to pay the sum levied on her to the state, given the latter had picked up procedural costs over the matter.
Kross also suggested people think before approaching the PPA, particularly as an alien, recommending that people bring an interpreter with them if going to the police is necessary.
The PPA should also consider the psychological state of those who approach it, particularly if suspects in a crime are also present, Kross said, concluding that people do not have a clear picture of what really happened that day simply from what they read in the media.
Editor: Andrew Whyte