Careful now.Thenumber1blue said:If he is genuinely innocent ,incidents like this ruin people's lives,I know someone this has happened too and fuck all has happened to the scum making up the stories !
Thenumber1blue said:If he is genuinely innocent ,incidents like this ruin people's lives,I know someone this has happened too and fuck all has happened to the scum making up the stories !
Prestwich_Blue said:Some of you seem to struggle with the concept that the girl might have been telling the truth but that the jury didn't feel they could convict him beyond reasonable doubt. There's a huge difference between telling a barefaced, vindictive lie about a rape that demonstrably never took place and a situation where it's one person's word against another. Le Vell might have lied through his teeth for all we know. Only he and the girl know what really happened.
But the prosecution failed to make a strong enough case. That's the outcome here. To me, that's one of the weaknesses of a jury based system. Cases aren't necessarily decided on the pure facts but on how the two sides present their case.
My dad was on a jury for a fraud case and he said that there was little doubt in the jurors' minds that the defendants had done it but the prosecution case was poorly presented & failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore they returned a not guilty verdict.
Blue silk said:I have so far restrained from commenting on this thread quite deliberately. Since a poster specifically mentioned me by name, I thought I would explain why I have taken that stance.
Cases like this are incredibly, horribly complex. I would go so far as to say that historic child abuse cases are some of the most difficult cases to prosecute and defend in the whole of criminal law.
This is so for two essential reasons. First, the mere passage of time removes the scientific and medical evidence that is often present in sex abuse cases: evidence of injury to the genital areas, existence (or absence) of intimate (sperm, sweat or saliva) and non-intimate DNA material (hair) and other forensic material such as clothing or carpet fibres is wholly absent from both victim and accused. This is not a one-way street in favour of the defence: usually if a complaint of rape is made within hours of the assault taking place, the absence of any material which forensically links victim and accused is a real pointer towards the accused’s innocence. The suggestion that there is no forensic evidence linking the victim with the accused will easily be met with the answer ‘well after all this time, there wouldn’t be’. So historic sexual abuse cases usually boil down to victim’s word versus defendant’s word. These cases are hard to prove and sometimes hard to dismiss.
This brings into play the second consideration. Almost by definition, whether the alleged abuse has taken place or not, the victim (and therefore the prosecution’s chief witness) is ordinarily a significantly damaged individual. This can be for one of two reasons. If abuse has taken place, the emotional trauma of first being the victim of a rape or sexual assault, and secondly undergoing the process of a criminal investigation, prosecution and trial (especially one subject to much media attention) is often – usually one might say – absolutely devastating. The process of putting the accused on trial necessarily involves taking an emotionally battered individual and emotionally battering them again. This can have a very serious impact upon their presentation when giving evidence.
Then again, where the abuse has not taken place, you are again almost by definition dealing with an individual who has completely fabricated an allegation of abuse or so hugely exaggerated events that some innocent interaction has been quite wrongly turned into something malicious and evil. Why does this happen (for in some cases it undoubtedly does)? A variety of possible reasons, all of which can be succinctly summarized by saying that allegations of this nature are not made by normal, well balanced people: to make a false allegation of this sort usually requires a motive, and the motive is most frequently that the accuser has a deeply flawed or damaged personality themselves. Where the defendant is a close family member or friend a dysfunctional relationship which does not involve sexual abuse might lie at the root of a false allegation of sexual abuse.
So whether because a genuine abuse victim has been through such an ordeal (on top of any pre-existing psychological wounds which may have been there in the first place) or because the alleged victim in a case where there has not actually been any abuse is a fantasist or manipulative liar, almost always you are dealing with a chief prosecution witness who has got very considerable psychological issues to confront. (In the past, there have been anecdotal reports of relatively innocent disclosures which have been misconstrued by overzealous investigators and have led to inappropriate criminal charges. This sort of case tends not to happen now because sexual and child abuse teams are now usually highly experienced, and are usually extremely careful not to take two and two and reach the conclusion ‘five’. I am also consciously disregarding the controversial possibility of ‘false memory syndrome’)
Who is lying, who is telling the truth? It is often almost impossible to determine one from the other, a task not helped by the absence of any forensic evidence which would provide pointers either way. All comes down to how a jury (or a Judge, in a civil sex-abuse case like a care case) perceives the victim as a witness. But in giving evidence, a witness will often be disjointed, may make errors about minor details, may contradict herself and so on. That can be the result of the ordeal of giving evidence on an otherwise honest witness, and it can be be the product of a basically honest witness who is embellishing details to increase the chances of a conviction of somebody who is in truth guilty, or it may be because the accused is making the whole thing up. I would hate to have to be the person who decides which is one and which is the other.
Another notoriously difficult aspect of this type of case is that children’s responses to questioning are often motivated by different sorts of considerations than adults’ responses to similar questions in the same situation. A child might display fear when being questioned about an allegation which she has made: that might be because the process of being questioned is an ordeal, or it might be through fear of the consequences of the dishonesty being discovered. A child might even display some pleasure at being questioned: that might be pleasure that despite the child’s misgivings, the complaint is being taken seriously and investigated properly, or it might be pleasure that a deception is being swallowed. So judging a child’s reactions to questioning through an adult’s perspective can be a dangerous and uncertain task.
So how can a case of one’s word against another’s get to court? Well, because if that’s all you’ve got, you still need to make a decision as to whether it is in the public interest that a case is brought or not. If the one witness you have is likely to come apart under cross examination, you may pull the plug on the case. But if you have a complainant whose case hangs together, sometimes you put the case before the court and let the jury decide. That’s how the system works.
Besides, what is the alternative? As already suggested, the passage of time in many historic sex abuse cases inevitably means they are her word vs his. Do we not prosecute any of them? Victims of abuse, even in historic cases, are entitled to have their complaints put before a court. If guilt is not established to a jury’s satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt, that is a sign the system is working, not failing. A system which is failing would be one which does not even give the victim the chance to see their abuser convicted and punished.
I have no knowledge (informal, inside or otherwise) of this particular trial and have no clue as to what the jury will do in this case. I suspect that one poster's experience of a hung jury (ie not capable of reaching a 10-2 decision either way) that in the end gave up and said 'not guilty' is more common than we would like to think. What I do know is that, guilty or not, these cases are incredibly difficult ro prosecute and incredibly difficult to defend.
Don't know what's happened there ,just saying eye for an eye in these situations.If you are found to be lying when accusing someone of something this horrific,then you need to go down for ruining someone's life.Even if he is a rag .The Flash said:Thenumber1blue said:If he is genuinely innocent ,incidents like this ruin people's lives,I know someone this has happened too and fuck all has happened to the scum making up the stories !
Very close to a Daneurysm there, fella.
You don't get it do you.Thenumber1blue said:Don't know what's happened there ,just saying eye for an eye in these situations.If you are found to be lying when accusing someone of something this horrific,then you need to go down for ruining someone's life.Even if he is a rag .The Flash said:Thenumber1blue said:If he is genuinely innocent ,incidents like this ruin people's lives,I know someone this has happened too and fuck all has happened to the scum making up the stories !
Very close to a Daneurysm there, fella.
Prestwich_Blue said:Some of you seem to struggle with the concept that the girl might have been telling the truth but that the jury didn't feel they could convict him beyond reasonable doubt. There's a huge difference between telling a barefaced, vindictive lie about a rape that demonstrably never took place and a situation where it's one person's word against another. Le Vell might have lied through his teeth for all we know. Only he and the girl know what really happened.
But the prosecution failed to make a strong enough case. That's the outcome here. To me, that's one of the weaknesses of a jury based system. Cases aren't necessarily decided on the pure facts but on how the two sides present their case.
My dad was on a jury for a fraud case and he said that there was little doubt in the jurors' minds that the defendants had done it but the prosecution case was poorly presented & failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore they returned a not guilty verdict.
The cookie monster said:Me toofoxy said:Pigeonho said:Hopefully it was a sly dig at the whole sorry affair. For all we know he might be in the nearest Starbucks.
That's what I was thinking. His whole personal life has been exposed to the public.
He has had his personal life dragged through the courts
Especially the bit abt drinking 6 or 7 pints every night for 20/30 years
I'm sure it was a reference to that.
Don't need to get it,i've said what I needed to say !andyhinch said:You don't get it do you.Thenumber1blue said:Don't know what's happened there ,just saying eye for an eye in these situations.If you are found to be lying when accusing someone of something this horrific,then you need to go down for ruining someone's life.Even if he is a rag .The Flash said:Very close to a Daneurysm there, fella.
You saying she's been found to be lying, I've not seen this reported anywhereThenumber1blue said:Don't need to get it,i've said what I needed to say !andyhinch said:You don't get it do you.Thenumber1blue said:Don't know what's happened there ,just saying eye for an eye in these situations.If you are found to be lying when accusing someone of something this horrific,then you need to go down for ruining someone's life.Even if he is a rag .
Where did I say that ?andyhinch said:You saying she's been found to be lying, I've not seen this reported anywhereThenumber1blue said:Don't need to get it,i've said what I needed to say !andyhinch said:You don't get it do you.
jimharri said:As I said a good way back in this thread, there's a lot of people on here who had him down as guilty. Next time, it might be best wait for the trial to actually take place.
pominoz said:jimharri said:As I said a good way back in this thread, there's a lot of people on here who had him down as guilty. Next time, it might be best wait for the trial to actually take place.
You expected no opinions to be posted in the cellar about such a high profile case?
Many people had him down as not guilty, should they have waited until after the trial, as well?
There is also the fact that he still could be guilty, it has just not been proven..
wayne71 said:pominoz said:jimharri said:As I said a good way back in this thread, there's a lot of people on here who had him down as guilty. Next time, it might be best wait for the trial to actually take place.
You expected no opinions to be posted in the cellar about such a high profile case?
Many people had him down as not guilty, should they have waited until after the trial, as well?
There is also the fact that he still could be guilty, it has just not been proven..
Well that's just plain daft, we may as well just bin the legal system and jail anyone who is ever accused of a crime...
Unless any new evidence is produced then the guy is not guilty.
Prestwich_Blue said:Some of you seem to struggle with the concept that the girl might have been telling the truth but that the jury didn't feel they could convict him beyond reasonable doubt. There's a huge difference between telling a barefaced, vindictive lie about a rape that demonstrably never took place and a situation where it's one person's word against another. Le Vell might have lied through his teeth for all we know. Only he and the girl know what really happened.
But the prosecution failed to make a strong enough case. That's the outcome here. To me, that's one of the weaknesses of a jury based system. Cases aren't necessarily decided on the pure facts but on how the two sides present their case.
My dad was on a jury for a fraud case and he said that there was little doubt in the jurors' minds that the defendants had done it but the prosecution case was poorly presented & failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore they returned a not guilty verdict.
wayne71 said:pominoz said:jimharri said:As I said a good way back in this thread, there's a lot of people on here who had him down as guilty. Next time, it might be best wait for the trial to actually take place.
You expected no opinions to be posted in the cellar about such a high profile case?
Many people had him down as not guilty, should they have waited until after the trial, as well?
There is also the fact that he still could be guilty, it has just not been proven..
Well that's just plain daft, we may as well just bin the legal system and jail anyone who is ever accused of a crime...
Unless any new evidence is produced then the guy is not guilty.
fredmont said:Prestwich_Blue said:Some of you seem to struggle with the concept that the girl might have been telling the truth but that the jury didn't feel they could convict him beyond reasonable doubt. There's a huge difference between telling a barefaced, vindictive lie about a rape that demonstrably never took place and a situation where it's one person's word against another. Le Vell might have lied through his teeth for all we know. Only he and the girl know what really happened.
But the prosecution failed to make a strong enough case. That's the outcome here. To me, that's one of the weaknesses of a jury based system. Cases aren't necessarily decided on the pure facts but on how the two sides present their case.
My dad was on a jury for a fraud case and he said that there was little doubt in the jurors' minds that the defendants had done it but the prosecution case was poorly presented & failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore they returned a not guilty verdict.
Don't think you are getting it. The prosecution didn't have a case to present.