Michael Le Vell

Jury finds him innocent

 

With cases like this we just have to hope that this is the correct verdict, because with a lack of physical evidence the only two people who know the truth are the accuser and the defendant. The only way we can be 100% sure is when the defendant confesses or the accuser owns up to making it up. In cases like this when both are sticking to their story there is always going to be some doubt, hence you have to hope the jury reaches the correct verdict.

It would be awful to think that someone is getting away with the crimes he has been accused of if he had done them, but it would also be awful to think of someone getting locked up for those crimes if he is innocent. I would not like to be on a jury for this kind of trial.

 

i have just said pretty much the same to my work collegues! quality reply

 

Once again making an absolute mockery of the shameful laws which allowed an innocent man to be named and shamed

 

The problem is that she didn't stick to her story, she changed it considerably several times.

 

I completely agree ST and it's about time the law was changed.

 

No evidence of damage on her according to the female doctor who checked her. Helen Flanagan and Brooke Vincent having no reason to doubt him. That the accuser was being helped by Le Vell to try and become an actress. The flashbacks she said she had. The evidence did seem to heavily point to not guilty. Although mud sticks slightly so his reputation has been tarnished by not being allowed to be anonymous. He's still a drunk who cheated on his cancer stricken wife many times though.

 

So she will hopefully now face prosecution for falsely accusing someone of these vile crimes and wasting court/police time. Maybe her mum can find something else to push her into for a quick cash-in; X-Factor? BGT?

 

Yes, but she never changed it so far as to say he hadn't actually done anything.

Regarding the naming of the accused and the anonymity of the accuser, it's a very difficult area. You have to give the accuser anonymity, because otherwise a very small percentage of true victims would ever come forward. Lets not forget we're talking about horrible crimes here. Of course, there are always going to be cases of accusers making stuff up, but my guess would be that this is a very small percentage of people who bring these alleged crimes to court.

Due to the way that our law stands you will find that a very high number of people being found 'not guilty' are actually guilty, because our law states that you cannot give a guilty verdict if there is any reasonable doubt. So finding someone not guilty is not really the same as saying you don't think they did whatever they are being accused of, it instead means that you cannot say that you are 100% sure they did it. Whether you are 0% certain they did it or 99% certain they did it, you cannot find someone guilty, because you don't feel they did it beyond reasonable doubt. Or that's the way it is supposed to be anyway.

The reason that the police release the names of the accused in cases lie this is because they feel there is enough evidence there to question the accused in court and they are basically fishing to see if anyone else will come forward. Come on, that's one of the reasons that Jimmy Savile got away with what he did. The victims didn't know how many of them there were and they were all scared of him. If one had taken him to court and his name had been released there could have been over a hundred others that would have then come forward and a vile rapist could have been stopped and brought to justice.

On the flipside of that is that once accused it is difficult to remove the tag, as Matthew Kelly found for some time, even if you are found not guilty. Matthew Kelly wasn't even tried! At the end of the day, it's then down to the public to respect the court's decision and not prejudice against someone who was not found guilty. Of course, the public are not always like that, otherwise there wouldn't be the songs aimed at Dave Jones when Wednesday come down to Oakwell.

 

I agree to an extent but I can't believe that some guilty men don't get off with their crimes so would anybody really want to punish a woman twice if she really has been raped but the rapist gets off? It's a very difficult situation and one that has no easy answers but one thing I am sure about is that a man should have the right to anonymity until found guilty.

 

Didn't someone getting into trouble for identifying her on the internet? Hope he's allowed to get back on with his life in peace - unfortunately he'll still carry the stigma despite being found innocent. .Just ask Dave Jones

 

Sorry didn't read Gordon's thread - what he said :-(

 

This could come after he has been found guilty though, not before he's even been trialled.

 

No, that's the point. Take Le Vell's case as an example (and please bear in mind that I am creating a scenario here for case of argument and I am not suggesting that Le Vell is at all guilty). He has been found not guilty, but if he were a serial rapist, like Jimmy Savile (or a whole host of 70's TV personalities are turning out to be!), others may have also come forward with further evidence and he would then not have got away with the crimes. If he were afforded anonymity any other victims would not have heard the other accusation and they would have carried on with the shame/fear/etc that goes with being a victim of sex crimes and not come forward.

So take Jimmy Savile as another example. If he had been accused by one person and had been afforded anonymity he would probably have got away with it. However, had he been named and a further 100 people come forward even he would have struggled to get out of that one. Lets not forget that a good portion of his victims were vulnerable even before they had endured what they went through, so they would have found it almost impossible to stand up against someone that they were that terrified of.

It's not ideal and you have to have sympathy for people publicly named who turn out to be innocent, but I'm capable of drawing a line under it and not tagging him as a rapist, so why can't everybody else? I would hate to be named in the papers as being tried for that kind of crime, but as a father of an 8 year old daughter I would hate for someone to get away with unspeakable crimes, when releasing his name could have lead to another half dozen victims coming forward and the person being convicted. Rapists and sex offenders don't usually stick to the one victim.

It's a horrible situation all round and it's not nice to think that people will make such crimes up that could wreck a lot of people's lives, but I will stand by the statements that a very small percentage of accusers of this kind of crime (and again, I am not speaking about this particular case, as I don't know all the facts) are making it all up, whereas a much larger percentage of guilty people get off with these crimes due to the reasonable doubt clause.

 

Go to the Ched Evans website to see details of a miscarriage of justice. Strange things can happen in court!

 

Dunno about the Ched Evans case, but Steven Gerrard was found not guilty of assault, yet we can all watch him 'not' assaulting the DJ on youtube!

 

Couldnt agree more!

 

They have not found him innocent. They have found him not guilty.

Innocent is not a verdict a court can reach here unless acquittal can be used

How I see not guilty is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

 

It's the bloke who's had his car stuck on ramps for the last 4 month I feel sorry for.

 

People who make false claims against innocent people should face the same penalty as the defendant would if guilty