Michael Le Vell's accuser

Home Forum Chat Forum Michael Le Vell's accuser

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 65 total)
  • Michael Le Vell's accuser
  • Pigface
    Member

    What purpose would be served by naming her.

    Premier Icon martinhutch
    Subscriber

    Yes, she should. Whether or defendants in such cases should be named prior to conviction is another matter altogether.

    Surprised the CPS took this one forward. Couldn’t see any realistic prospect of conviction based on the evidence presented to court.

    Bit difficult to say without knowing the facts. Has he been found innocent of the crime or could they not prove he was guilty?

    His life and career are in tatters. if she had no real grounds for the case then she should be named and shamed in my humble opinion!

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    …no need to name her….

    ….should he have even been named. Innocent but tainted by the case for ever?

    Premier Icon El Vino
    Subscriber

    who would benefit by knowing her name? we could have a tabloid witch hunt if you like but I for one have no interest, either way she is likely to be a pretty damaged and vulnerable person

    Premier Icon ir_bandito
    Subscriber

    His life and career are in tatters

    but if he’s innocent, they shouldn’t be.

    But the accuser should remain anonymous. If further evidence appears and leads to a conviction, she should retain the right to anonymity, given the alleged crime.

    Premier Icon zilog6128
    Subscriber

    What purpose would be served by naming her.

    To discourage others from making up lies like this? It ranks pretty highly on the list of shitty things you can do to a person. I’d prefer she was prosecuted herself (even anonymously), but failing that the mob justice of social media/tabloids would do.

    Neither party should be named unless there is guilt, or unless either party chooses to be named.

    Simple, really.

    Premier Icon wwaswas
    Subscriber

    To discourage others from making up lies like this?

    We don’t know that they’re lies.

    Only that a jury wasn’t convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he did what she alleged.

    [edit] I would agree CF but the number of times that further victims come forward when sex criminals in particular are named and charged makes me wonder if there is a wider public good served in naming them? Often convictions only occur because of these other victims finding out they weren’t the only ones.

    It’s a hugely complex area though.

    Premier Icon rOcKeTdOg
    Subscriber

    so, when does the mini series of this start, will he play the lead and will he write his own biography or use a ghost writer?

    will Max clifford be his publicisor…..oh, wait 😕

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    she was under 14 when she made the allegations I dont see how naming her now will help anyone

    Premier Icon martinhutch
    Subscriber

    The trouble is, it may not be lies, even though the evidence was clearly insufficient to convict him in the eyes of the law. There is a small risk that your witch-hunt will be persecuting a victim of a child sex attack.

    As I said, there is a strong case IMV for anonymity for both parties.

    Rockape63
    Member

    I’m just delighted he’s been found not guilty. From the start it never added up…..there was never an explanation of when or how he was alone with this girl from the age of six onwards. Now you look at the summing up of the case, the Prosection were asking the Jury to believe this girl because she was well brought up and polite and therefore believable.

    This despite the fact that not a shred of credible evidence had been produced and her story had varied depending on who she spoke to!

    Just outrageous that the CPS can drag a person through such a life changing hideous experience on such a flimsy story!

    Premier Icon takisawa2
    Subscriber

    I know of someone who lost everything on the say-so of an 8yr old who, a year later, casually admitted they had made it all up. 😐

    Stringing up the child up isnt the answer for sure. You have to look to the system thats let it get that far…

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    From the start it never added up…..there was never an explanation of when or how he was alone with this girl from the age of six onwards.

    he admitted in court to accidently falling asleep in her bed when drunk though?

    Rockape63
    Member

    he admitted in court to accidently falling asleep in her bed when drunk though?

    True, which was a bit odd for sure….and you wonder if it was all based on that memory, perhaps helped by the Mother sensing a financial opportunity?

    Premier Icon notmyrealname
    Subscriber

    His life and career are in tatters

    but if he’s innocent, they shouldn’t be.
    But the accuser should remain anonymous. If further evidence appears and leads to a conviction, she should retain the right to anonymity, given the alleged crime.

    The sad thing for him is that shit sticks. Just like with Jim Davidson, they’ve both been found innocent or the CPS have not proceeded with the prosecution but both people will always be ‘the guys who were arrested for kiddie fiddling’

    Reading some of the responses here that are pretty much along the lines of he’s been found innocent but still might be guilty, it seems that some people still think that where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

    cranberry
    Member

    I think that in cases of sex crimes, and especially in the case of sex crimes against children the CPS seem to feel that they must put the allegations before a court, even if given the same evidence in the case of another sort of crime they wouldn’t see the case as viable. That may well come down to the nature of the evidence in these cases which can often be of the “he said/she said” nature due to a lack of independent witnesses and partly due to the seriousness that society rightly ascribes to sex crimes.

    The consequences of publicly even just _alleging_ that sort of crime can be huge and life-long, so I can see a lot of fairness in anonymity for both alleged victim and alleged perpetrator, with the identity of the perpetrator only being released on conviction, or even after conviction and appeal.

    Premier Icon wwaswas
    Subscriber

    pretty much along the lines of he’s been found innocent but still might be guilty

    Maybe I didn’t make myself clear;

    It’s not been proven that the accuser is guilty of lying and for that reason naming them would not be reasonable.

    Question is what does it do the credibility of the other cases? Guilty or not this could cause them to fall apart.

    chipsngravy
    Member

    Now Michael Le Vell has been cleared, what of his accuser? Should she remain anonymous?

    Over to you.

    TuckerUK
    Member

    We don’t know that they’re lies.

    Only that a jury wasn’t convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he did what she alleged.

    What the judge said in his summing up indicated to me that he didn’t believe the girl either. In fact, when I read the judge’s summing up I even told my partner that Le Vell would be found not-guilty.

    Doesn’t always work that way unfortunately (Sion Jenkins?).

    TuckerUK
    Member

    I know of someone who lost everything on the say-so of an 8yr old who, a year later, casually admitted they had made it all up.

    I know of a teacher who was marched off school premises after a maladjusted female pupil (13-16) accused him of touching her inappropriately. It eventually transpired she’d lied, but by the time that had happened he had already committed suicide – teaching was his life.

    Premier Icon MoreCashThanDash
    Subscriber

    In Jim Davidsons defence, he wasn’t accused of kiddie fiddling, his alleged victims were over 18?

    TuckerUK
    Member

    In Jim Davidsons defence, he wasn’t accused of kiddie fiddling, his alleged victims were over 18?

    But they were children once weren’t they? Pervert! HANG HIM!

    And the age of consent in Madagascar is 21, so for the uneducated that think paedophiles have something to do with age of consent, he’s a paedophile.

    ninfan
    Member

    It’s not been proven that the accuser is guilty of lying and for that reason naming them would not be reasonable.

    So you’re saying we should prosecute her for perjury?

    nealglover
    Member

    …I’d been looking forward all my life to the experience

    Really !? That’s a bit odd.

    Also seems odd that you wouldn’t know your not allowed to talk about the case to anyone then.

    Premier Icon benji
    Subscriber

    Don’t personally give a monkey, sick of all the celebrity trials, not enough reporting of the nonces that live amongst but because it wasn’t salicious news for the mass media, they go relatively unnoticed.

    hora
    Member

    No. Ever.

    Say I’ve been abused from the age of 6-14. Im told if the man isnt found guilty (have you SEEN the rape conviction rates) then I’ll be named and shamed…

    I wouldnt go ahead. I’d refuse. Why climb two mountains, dig up the grief in triple and risk him winning again?

    Anyone who names her should get 10yrs.

    O.J got off his murder charge. If you saw the bodies/crime scene and where the victims were attacked. But thats slightly OT

    leec247
    Member

    A very good friend of mine who I was house sharing with at the time was working as a teacher in a secondary school and got accused inappropriate behaviour with a 14 girl whilst on a trip. The school and police took her side straight. It was his word against hers. Turned his whole world upside down put a massive strain on his marriage only for her to turn round later and say she made it up. I wouldn’t ever wish the way he was treated on anybody

    To discourage others from making up lies like this? It ranks pretty highly on the list of shitty things you can do to a person. I’d prefer she was prosecuted herself (even anonymously), but failing that the mob justice of social media/tabloids would do.

    You really are mind expanding stupid, well done.

    Premier Icon scotroutes
    Subscriber

    If he’s not guilty, she lied in court. I thought that was an offence?

    If he’s not guilty, she lied in court. I thought that was an offence?

    you keep thinking!!!

    hora
    Member

    Scotsroutes. They have to convict the acussed beyond reasonable doubt.

    The doubt seems to be ‘no DNA evidence’

    deadlydarcy
    Member

    If he’s not guilty, she lied in court. I thought that was an offence?

    Have a wee think why we don’t have perjury cases after every court case where it’s one person’s word against another.

    Edukator
    Member

    Google what happened when they retro-DNA tested lots of (mainly black) men in American jails for rape. It turned out that many were innocent and that the rapes had been committed by quite a small number of men. Hope that makes you think, Globalti. Frankly you succumbed to peer pressure and it’s 50 : 50 you put an innocent man in jail.

    Edukator
    Member

    It depends where the jury is.

    I’m just astonished that you admit that anything other than your own assessment of the evidence influenced your vote. I hope the defendant finds this thread, in fact it’s tempting to send it the papers to denounce an unsafe prosecution, as Emile Zola did.

    nealglover
    Member

    I’m just astonished that you admit that anything other than your own assessment of the evidence influenced your vote.

    Why do you think jurors go into a room to discuss things ?

    So they can all sit in silence and stick with what they already thought.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 65 total)

The topic ‘Michael Le Vell's accuser’ is closed to new replies.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks are open.

Skip to top