StrangewaysHereWeCome
Well-Known Member
In case any of you had forgotten.
Guilty.
Guilty.
worsleyweb said:mycity79 said:Michael Le Vell,
Ooh Michael Le Velllll,
He watches the red shite
Alone in his cell.
(if found guilty!!)
black mamba said:markyboyblue said:. This for me is a bad thing to stomach as it puts more pain and worry on the victim. You have to remember that tp do the things he has "allegedy" done he is not normal at all so he won't do the decent thing and own up.
Own up ???
Like women who falsely cry rape do , you mean ??
I don't know whether Michael Turner(Le Vell) is guilty or not , but if he really hasn't done it why should he plead guilty ????
markyboyblue said:black mamba said:markyboyblue said:. This for me is a bad thing to stomach as it puts more pain and worry on the victim. You have to remember that tp do the things he has "allegedy" done he is not normal at all so he won't do the decent thing and own up.
Own up ???
Like women who falsely cry rape do , you mean ??
I don't know whether Michael Turner(Le Vell) is guilty or not , but if he really hasn't done it why should he plead guilty ????
I know there are a lot of cases where people cry "rape" or "abuse" and they should be dealt with very harshly with sentences for all of them. My point here is that I think some people are wired different in the first place so that they never really think they have done anything wrong so never feel guilt.
jimharri said:If (repeat, if) he's acquitted, there's going to be a lot of people on here with egg on their faces.
johnmc said:jimharri said:If (repeat, if) he's acquitted, there's going to be a lot of people on here with egg on their faces.
Court proves whether or not there is enough evidence not whether the person is guilty or not unless you have 100% faith in the courts?? In cases where it is one persons word against the other it's especially difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
So even if he is not guilty in court you cannot say he is innocent of all charges either for definite.
Sorry if this doesn't make sense but in some cases a not guilty verdict does not make the person innocent necessarily just that there wasn't enough evidence.
I get where you're coming from. There was a couple of VERY high profile cases in the States where two celebrities were acquitted of the charges they faced. Were they innocent? Doubtful. However; legally, they were acquitted of the charges they faced by a jury of their peers and therefore, in the eyes of the law (like it or not), they did not (without reasonable doubt) commit the offences with which they were charged. As may end up being the scenario with Le Vell. People on here have come to a pretty swift conclusion without hearing both sides of the argument. Is he guilty? Only he and his alleged victim know that for sure.johnmc said:jimharri said:If (repeat, if) he's acquitted, there's going to be a lot of people on here with egg on their faces.
Court proves whether or not there is enough evidence not whether the person is guilty or not unless you have 100% faith in the courts?? In cases where it is one persons word against the other it's especially difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
So even if he is not guilty in court you cannot say he is innocent of all charges either for definite.
Sorry if this doesn't make sense but in some cases a not guilty verdict does not make the person innocent necessarily just that there wasn't enough evidence.