Michael le Vell (Kevin Webster)

[PinkFinal]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/426919/No-evidence-of-injury-to-Michael-Le-Vell-s-alleged-rape-victim" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/426919 ... ape-victim</a>

Dr O'Connor replied: "Having no injuries certainly does not negate any of those allegations - a significant number of children and young people who make allegations of assault and come to us to be examined will not have any injuries."

 

[johnmc]

You see you give the game away there.
And your next sentence pours petrol on the fire.

Only rational people weigh up evidence and then decide guilt.
Where as you and a few other numpties have already decided on the level of guilt.

Ironic isn't it.

Theres no game Squirty. If you believe that everyone found "Not guilty" by a court is innocent then fine. Thats a belief held by most of society as such. However Id also say a lot of people know someone who has been to court and got off with something they did do.

Example, friend of mine got into a silly fight years ago and bottled someone. He pleaded not guilty on the grounds that there were several people involved in the fight and cant be sure that he inflicted the damage. He got found not guilty as there wasnt enough evidence to say it was him. In your eyes he is innocent.

In your eyes OJ Simpson is innocent.

In your eyes Zimmerman is innocent

Thats where I am coming from. You have your opinion and Im not arguing it with that, and maybe the rational comment muddied the point I was trying to make. But I will standby my opinion that being found not guilty does not always mean innocent, although it may do in the majority of cases.

 

[nobody can eat fifty eggs]

You see you give the game away there.
And your next sentence pours petrol on the fire.

Only rational people weigh up evidence and then decide guilt.
Where as you and a few other numpties have already decided on the level of guilt.

Ironic isn't it.

Theres no game Squirty. If you believe that everyone found "Not guilty" by a court is innocent then fine. Thats a belief held by most of society as such. However Id also say a lot of people know someone who has been to court and got off with something they did do.

Example, friend of mine got into a silly fight years ago and bottled someone. He pleaded not guilty on the grounds that there were several people involved in the fight and cant be sure that he inflicted the damage. He got found not guilty as there wasnt enough evidence to say it was him. In your eyes he is innocent.

In your eyes OJ Simpson is innocent.

In your eyes Zimmerman is innocent

Thats where I am coming from. You have your opinion and Im not arguing it with that, and maybe the rational comment muddied the point I was trying to make. But I will standby my opinion that being found not guilty does not always mean innocent, although it may do in the majority of cases.

Well said, a lot of people will think in black and white especially if he gets off with this. Its a tough call for the jury and it sounds to me a tough case to prove for the prosecution. They really need to try and add all the circumstantial evidence together to beef up the case and convince the judge and jury of his guilt.

 

[mcmanus]

I know it's his her word against his but did you see his haircut when marrying Sally. Guilty as charged and straight to execution.

 

[PinkFinal]

I went into the public gallery today for an hour. All I will say is none of us have any idea if he is guilty or not. Listen to the defence for 5 minutes and you may think no, listen to the prosecution cross examine him and you may think yes. Only a jury who listen to all the evidence over two weeks are in a position to judge fairly.

Those who are saying he is guilty are wrong to do so. Innocent until proven guilty.

Well said.

 

[Blumers Bloomers]

I've not heard all the evidence but the fact that he was released without charge initially, then charged months later made me think there was some compelling evidence that had come to light so the CPS would take it to court - I take it this is not the case?

 

[fredmont]

I've not heard all the evidence but the fact that he was released without charge initially, then charged months later made me think there was some compelling evidence that had come to light so the CPS would take it to court - I take it this is not the case?

Seems the girl had flash backs that included rape for the first time.

Apparently it was said in court that she had asked police officers if she could sell her story to the newspapers.

 

[jimharri]

You see you give the game away there.
And your next sentence pours petrol on the fire.

Only rational people weigh up evidence and then decide guilt.
Where as you and a few other numpties have already decided on the level of guilt.

Ironic isn't it.

Theres no game Squirty. If you believe that everyone found "Not guilty" by a court is innocent then fine. Thats a belief held by most of society as such. However Id also say a lot of people know someone who has been to court and got off with something they did do.

Example, friend of mine got into a silly fight years ago and bottled someone. He pleaded not guilty on the grounds that there were several people involved in the fight and cant be sure that he inflicted the damage. He got found not guilty as there wasnt enough evidence to say it was him. In your eyes he is innocent.

In your eyes OJ Simpson is innocent.

In your eyes Zimmerman is innocent

Thats where I am coming from. You have your opinion and Im not arguing it with that, and maybe the rational comment muddied the point I was trying to make. But I will standby my opinion that being found not guilty does not always mean innocent, although it may do in the majority of cases.

Actually; in those scenarios it was in the eyes of the law, not just an ordinary Joe Soap. Both were acquitted (rightly or wrongly) by a jury in a court of law. Did they commit the crimes that they stood trial for? Impossible to know, unless you (or anybody else) was there. The case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion is not enough to convict. Also; in relation to the statement in red above, does it not also follow therefore that not everybody convicted is actually guilty?

Is Le Vell guilty? Damned if I know.

 

[Rascal]

Is Le Vell guilty? Damned if I know.

The only people who will know 100% are him and the girl surely

Im so glad im not a juror on this case

 

[cyberblue]

It can't possibly be just her word against his. The CPS wouldn't go near the case without at least a 75% chance of conviction.

Because it is high profile someone at the CPS might have wanted to make a name for themselcves or they might have been pressured into it by someone "upstairs"

You still need evidence mate.

You are right but there doesnt seem to be any ,thats why i said the CPS must have been presaured