In the post, dated December 12, 2025, the survivor said that after eight years, nine months and 23 days, she finally saw “a small ray of light” with the conviction of six accused in the case. “For that, I am grateful,” she said, while adding that she had begun losing faith in the trial court as early as 2020, when she felt there were changes in the manner in which the case was being handled, particularly with regard to one accused.

The survivor alleged that her fundamental rights were not adequately protected during the trial and cited several concerns, including the illegal access of the memory card, a crucial piece of evidence, three times while it was in court custody. She said two public prosecutors resigned during the course of the trial, citing a hostile environment, and told her that they believed the proceedings were biased.

She also said she repeatedly sought a proper investigation into the alleged tampering of the memory card, but the investigation report was not shared with her despite multiple requests. “Every request to move this case away from the same judge was dismissed,” she wrote, adding that her plea for the proceedings to be held in open court, allowing public and media scrutiny, was also rejected.

Addressing what she described as misinformation surrounding the case, the survivor clarified that the prime accused was never her personal driver or employee. “He was a random person assigned as a driver for a film I worked on in 2016. I met him once or twice during that time and never again until the day this crime happened,” she wrote, urging people to stop circulating false narratives.