The Le Vell and Saville case got me thinking about the accusers

I realise Le Vell was found innocent of charges, and reports suggest the evidence was really flimsy and should never have gone to court, and it got me wondering. As the Jimmy Saville cases have not gone to court I will not comment on them. But I suspect that some spurious claims are being made against some people. I beleive that the CPS are being told to pursue every case, no matter how small the chance of conviction, as social services and the police are terrified of being hung out to dry if they ignore an accusation that later turns out to be true.

What is "in it" for the accusers that are making the spurious claims? It can't be the 15 minutes of fame due to annonimity. Having to sit through a week in court being cross examined is not for the faint of heart.

Is it purely financial for these people? If so, how do they gain finiancially? Do they get a fat chunk of coin from a goverment compensation pot - if so how much? Or are they looking for money from the perpetrator?

 

It could be all kinds of reasons. It might be a delusion, or changing their mind about something they regretted later, or just made up after being rejected. Might even be the 15 minutes of fame thing. The only people that really know are the accusers.

 

I believe it is all down to compensation. There are no doubt some genuine cases with Saville but I have no doubt there are a lot of chancers hoping to jump on the compensation gravy train to make some money.

 

The girl has not been proven to be a lying, the jury couldn't say without any reasonable doubt that what she claimed actually happened.

 

She kept changing her testimony didn't she? Hardy credible and believable as the truth.

 

True.

That jury you mentioned took only four hours to dismiss 12 charges though. I think that suggests what they thought.

 

If what I read was correct then it was said in court that the girl had recently (before she told anyone about the rapes) been to a speech by a woman who during the speech had claimed she had been raped as a child and had come back from it and become a model. The alleged Le Vell victim also wanted to become a model and had come back from the speech saying something along the lines of how excited the speech had made her, that the same thing had happened to her and that she was 'now part of a special group' and wanted to become a model too.

Sounds to me like she wanted fame, notoriety and wanted to emulate this other girl and thought that making something up would make her infamous and give her a help on the ladder to being a model.

Of course I haven't heard all the evidence and don't know what really happened or didn't happen so I'm just speculating.

 

She should be named and shamed - let her have the public humiliation that Le Vell has wrongly had to endure

 

Yes, because that will really encourage rape victims to come forward, wont it? Some folk need to think before they start typing.

 

So men should be allowed to have their lives ruined by some twisted bitch and they keep out of the papers after the trial is ended?

 

What they should do when the verdict is not guilty is assess whether they believe the 'victim' was lying and making a false allegation. If so then they should be put on trial for it and publically named. If their assessment decides that there is simply not enough evidence to convict the alleged rapist or that there is doubt then the anonymity should remain.

 

What I couldn't work out was where the offences Le Vell was accused of actually took place. Was the girls and her mother living with Le Vell?

 

If you use certain search terms on twitter you can find posts that would suggest the answer to this question. Whether they are true or not I cannot comment.

 

The victim here is le vell. Whilst recognising that rape victims need to be encouraged to step forward, we must not lose sight of the wrongly accused male victim and the pain he has to suffer. That pain also extends and cascades to his own family, daughters included. If that girl has made false allegations she should be tried and punished.

 

I wouldn't know and couldn't possibly comment. I do however wonder what Michael Le Vell's 17 year old daughter thinks of all this as the accused would have been the exact same age as her when all of this allegedly happened. I'm surprised that there hasn't been any kind of comment from her in the media or any backing of her dad but then I suppose she probably doesn't get along with him as he cheated on her mum who now hate's him.

 

This already happens. Accuser of Ian & Christine Hamilton was put on trial and found guilty IIRC.

 

Deleted, probably too much information.

 

Careful.

 

Apparently she said she reported oral rape to the police in March 2012 however the Police say there is no record of this.

 

What do you mean? I'm only saying that I think it's odd that the usually so intrusive media haven't published any opinions from his daughter who at that age would usually be subjected to awful pressure to talk from the likes of the Sun. Nothing wrong with that is there?