overandunder2012 Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 I don't dispute that and in the eyes of the law he is innocent. My objection was to the somewhat stupid statement that the girl who made the accusations should be sued. Should everybody who gives evidence for the prosecution in a losing case be sued? If not why in a sex abuse case? It's hard enough for abused people to give evidence as it is let alone with the fear that they will be sued for it. i think as it stands he could sue if he wished but i feel its unlikely he would as i think most people in his position would just want to move on as quick as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amateur Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Even if allowed back on to Corrie, what's the betting that there is a nasty accident involving a garage hoist in the very near future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ack-ack Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Even if allowed back on to Corrie, what's the betting that there is a nasty accident involving a garage hoist in the very near future. They'll never let him back in the garage, he'll end up working for Rita in the news cabin ( between 0900 and 1500) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remmyman Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Our legal system isn't perfect but it's all we've got, and I for one would rather be tried under British law than a lot of others I could think of ! It matters not what we think, the case is done and dusted and he's been found innocent and I for one and am pleased for him. It would appear that he has enough issues in his life already which now he can hopefully begin to address. Regards Remmyman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul65 Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Our legal system isn't perfect but it's all we've got, and I for one would rather be tried under British law than a lot of others I could think of ! It matters not what we think, the case is done and dusted and he's been found innocent and I for one and am pleased for him. It would appear that he has enough issues in his life already which now he can hopefully begin to address. Regards Remmyman He's been found not guilty, not 'innocent'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) He's been found not guilty, not 'innocent'.And the difference in law is what exactly? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10299456/Coronation-Street-actor-Michael-Le-Vell-not-guilty-of-child-sex-charges.html Quote: During the trial, the girl claimed Mr Le Vell had held a teddy bear over her mouth as he raped her, telling her: It's our little secret, no-one needs to know otherwise you'll die and the evil will come over you. But the court heard that medical experts who had examined the girl had found no clear physical evidence that she had ever been sexually abused. When she was examined two years after the last alleged attack, tests indicated that she had not had full sex, the jury was told. ---- What were the CPS thinking?! Edited September 10, 2013 by aris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remmyman Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 He's been found not guilty, not 'innocent'. If I remember correctly the saying is 'innocent untill proven guilty', he was found not guilty so ............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kennym Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) I've always followed the mantra of "no smoke without fire". It's a difficult case because it hasn't been proven that he's completely innocent, so the accuser hasn't necessarily lied either. it rather points to the fact she did lie if a doctor gave evidence to say the girl had never had full sex Edited September 10, 2013 by kennym Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjh Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Yeah, I second that. very true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) very true How can you say that, when on this forum there is a member who took his police force and their barristers on and won,by himself. Jury's are not stupid and in general get it right more than they get it wrong,that is why we still use the system . Oh and welcome Edited September 10, 2013 by welsh1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secretagentmole Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 How do you prove the accusations are false? That's not part of our legal system. If the accusation isn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt does that automatically make it false? Or does there need to be a new court case where the accuser is put on trial? Well the fact she was proven to be still a virgin even after being "raped" has a lot to with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul65 Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 And the difference in law is what exactly? Dunno, I'm not a lawyer. Are you? Probably not, as you are asking me that. The prosecution were unable to prove guilt, therefore the presumption is that he is innocent. He was not 'found' innocent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul65 Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Well the fact she was proven to be still a virgin even after being "raped" has a lot to with it. Fine, so prosecute her. Prove the case against her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Dunno, I'm not a lawyer. Are you? Probably not, as you are asking me that. The prosecution were unable to prove guilt, therefore the presumption is that he is innocent. He was not 'found' innocent. He was presumed innocent before the trial started. A basic facet of criminal law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secretagentmole Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Fine, so prosecute her. Prove the case against her. She lied, you cannot be vaginally raped on multiple occasions,as she claimed to have been and still be virgo intacto! Case proven, arrest her, name her, shame her! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil3728 Posted September 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 From the Daily mail this morning, not the best paper I know. As Le Vell walked free, it emerged that the CPS initially ruled there was insufficient evidence to charge him after his arrest in September 2011. But the decision of Nazir Afzal, Chief Crown Prosecutor in the North West, not to prosecute was over-ruled by Alison Levitt QC, the principal legal adviser to the Director of Public Prosecutions for England. The victim’s mother made a formal complaint in February 2012 and asked for the decision to be reviewed. The girl also made further allegations and the actor was charged in February this year. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2417013/Why-charged-As-Coronation-Street-actor-cleared-child-sex-attacks-furious-family-say-hes-victim-celebrity-witch-hunt.html#ixzz2eZH7cqj9Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Seems a little fishy to me, a overturn to prosecute and all of a sudden the girl comes forward with more evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeds chimp Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Dodgy as a £9 note.... reading it all the trail should not have gone ahead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Makes you wonder rather deeply about the intelligence of the QC who advised the CPS/ Time for a new tender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 who has the best larywer is innocent Didn't help Berlusconi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Makes you wonder rather deeply about the intelligence of the QC who advised the CPS/ Time for a new tender. It was a witch hunt kicked into high gear after the embarrassment of the Saville affair where they ignored 30 years of warnings. The CPS have nothing to lose - so why not give it a go? Having been on a jury myself, and seeing the haphazard, spurious, and contradictory evidence they presented in that case, i'm really not surprised (though clearly a scroat of the lowest degree - we aquitted the chap on trial). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty7247 Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 High profile case, again. Personally, i belive all who are accused of such crimes, should have not be named, as has been stated, he is Innocent until proven guilty. There has been several cases of women claiming they have been raped, and as such, the accused's life is effectively ruined, only for it to come out that it was made up. The accusers life just carries on as normal. If you are found guilty, then yes, you deserve all the negative attention such a crime respects. As in this case, medical evidence has proven that no intercourse has taken place, surely something needs to be done as to stop this happening again. Someone being falsely accused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njc110381 Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 And the difference in law is what exactly? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10299456/Coronation-Street-actor-Michael-Le-Vell-not-guilty-of-child-sex-charges.html Quote: During the trial, the girl claimed Mr Le Vell had held a teddy bear over her mouth as he raped her, telling her: It's our little secret, no-one needs to know otherwise you'll die and the evil will come over you. But the court heard that medical experts who had examined the girl had found no clear physical evidence that she had ever been sexually abused. When she was examined two years after the last alleged attack, tests indicated that she had not had full sex, the jury was told. ---- What were the CPS thinking?! If that is the case the girl should be taken through the process and an example made of her. This chap's life is pretty much ruined and she will walk away to carry on as normal. It's a shame that when the story came out it was so big, yet I'm sure many won't even hear that he was cleared. That's just not right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 I'm sure many won't even hear that he was cleared. I doubt that,it was plastered all over the tabloids this morning. Matthew Kelly went through a very similar case some years ago.The man was close to being sectioned due to the pressure,when it was eventually revealed all allegations were malicious,but that was after all the suspicion and the high media profile coverage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinkella Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 What about Colin Stagg, wasnt he innocent and yet he was hounded by police. I hope Michael le Vell can get his life back in order for the sake of all his family and friends as well. People dont seem to understand the damage thats been caused, he must of been eating his stomach from day one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 This thread raises a number of interesting points 1) should the case have been brought to court in the first place? I suspect the CPS will be under pressure to justify that 2) when there is a case where the accuser has anonymity (rape cases) should also the accused? There is the argument that they should, however the counter argument is that having the accused named could encourage other victims to come forward. That's a tricky one. 3) what should happen to people who make false accusations. I assume that there is enough current legislation that covers this - wasting police time, perjury etc. I don't feel that celebrities get a raw deal. They, by choice, live their life in the public eye and one of the downsides of that is that if you accused of a crime then it will be over the front pages of the tabloids. Being wrongly accused of a crime would be devastating for most people not just celebrities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.