Michael le Vell (Kevin Webster)

[Anonymous]

i dont think he should of been named prior to trial, and the person that made this up will never be named and can get on with her life without any comeback, but has completely tarnished her accused forever.

Michael Le Vell will just get on with his life now , he's been judged to be innocent of all charges ....... he'll just carry on with his every day life the way that Craig Charles has.

As for the girl ....... well she's been judged to have made things up from what i can see ..... so let's say that she suffers a genuine sex attack in the future , who's NOW gonna believe her ????

So the judge said she made it up ?

I'm referring to the jurys decision , and probably the judges too ...... how is it possible for them to clear Michael Le Vell of ALL charges , without disbelieving the girl ?????

There appeared to be no real evidence ...

He was either judged to have done it , or judged not to have done it ...... and i don't see how he can't be judged not to have committed these offences , without fingers being pointed in the girls direction ?????

 

[bobmcfc]

Michael Le Vell will just get on with his life now , he's been judged to be innocent of all charges ....... he'll just carry on with his every day life the way that Craig Charles has.

As for the girl ....... well she's been judged to have made things up from what i can see ..... so let's say that she suffers a genuine sex attack in the future , who's NOW gonna believe her ????

So the judge said she made it up ?

I'm referring to the jurys decision , and probably the judges too ...... how is it possible for them to clear Michael Le Vell of ALL charges , without disbelieving the girl ?????

Lack of evidence perhaps ? Absence of proof is not proof of absence as they say. If the judge has said she's a liar and has made it up then fair enough but I think the waters are being muddied here as to being able to prove a crime has been committed or not being able to prove it.

 

[Anonymous]

So the judge said she made it up ?

I'm referring to the jurys decision , and probably the judges too ...... how is it possible for them to clear Michael Le Vell of ALL charges , without disbelieving the girl ?????

Lack of evidence perhaps ? Absence of proof is not proof of absence as they say. If the judge has said she's a liar and has made it up then fair enough but I think the waters are being muddied here as to being able to prove a crime has been committed or not being able to prove it.

An admirable viewpoint .... but whether ANYONE'S actually said it or not , i reckon that's what most are now likely to be thinking.

If Le Vell had of lost the case , people would have judged him guilty , no iffs or buts ..... how can the girl losing be any different??

 

[bobmcfc]

I'm referring to the jurys decision , and probably the judges too ...... how is it possible for them to clear Michael Le Vell of ALL charges , without disbelieving the girl ?????

Lack of evidence perhaps ? Absence of proof is not proof of absence as they say. If the judge has said she's a liar and has made it up then fair enough but I think the waters are being muddied here as to being able to prove a crime has been committed or not being able to prove it.

An admirable viewpoint .... but whether ANYONE'S actually said it or not , i reckon that's what most are now likely to be thinking.

Then that would be a very uneducated view would it not.

 

[stony]

I'm referring to the jurys decision , and probably the judges too ...... how is it possible for them to clear Michael Le Vell of ALL charges , without disbelieving the girl ?????

Lack of evidence perhaps ? Absence of proof is not proof of absence as they say. If the judge has said she's a liar and has made it up then fair enough but I think the waters are being muddied here as to being able to prove a crime has been committed or not being able to prove it.

An admirable viewpoint .... but whether ANYONE'S actually said it or not , i reckon that's what most are now likely to be thinking.

It's not what I'm thinking. I still don't know if he did it or not, it's her word against his, and as such it was always unlikely to be enough to convict.
Do I think she's made it up ? I don't know
Do I think he's guilty ? Again, I don't know.
Until one of them confesses, no one apart from the people involved will ever know for sure.
I haven't got a clue who the victim is, but I do know that this will have damaged both of them. One of them is an innocent victim and whichever that one is, there will always be a cloud over them.

 

[Anonymous]

Lack of evidence perhaps ? Absence of proof is not proof of absence as they say. If the judge has said she's a liar and has made it up then fair enough but I think the waters are being muddied here as to being able to prove a crime has been committed or not being able to prove it.

An admirable viewpoint .... but whether ANYONE'S actually said it or not , i reckon that's what most are now likely to be thinking.

Then that would be a very uneducated view would it not.

I only wish people saw things that way bob , but they aren't likely too ....

 

[bobmcfc]

An admirable viewpoint .... but whether ANYONE'S actually said it or not , i reckon that's what most are now likely to be thinking.

Then that would be a very uneducated view would it not.

I only wish people saw things that way bob , but they aren't likely too ....

He seems to be getting on with it now anyway.

 

[warpig]

So his self confessed "dark secret" was going to the pub and having a few pints every night. A secret so dark he did it in public. Ok.

i think the 'dark secret' actually refers to the mulitple extra-marital affairs he had when his wife was in hospital being treated for beast cancer. could be wrong though.

Indeed you are correct Gareth.

Not sure many would sleep with him without it being for a kiss and tell - hardly yourself now is he.

well they have, seeing as though there has been none. or are you suggesting he has made this up? and thanks. right back at you.

 

[cyberblue]

So the judge said she made it up ?

I'm referring to the jurys decision , and probably the judges too ...... how is it possible for them to clear Michael Le Vell of ALL charges , without disbelieving the girl ?????

Lack of evidence perhaps ? Absence of proof is not proof of absence as they say. If the judge has said she's a liar and has made it up then fair enough but I think the waters are being muddied here as to being able to prove a crime has been committed or not being able to prove it.

The Prosecutor said if you believe the girl you muct find him guilty .they clearly didnt believe the girl so they didnt find him guilty .there were 8 wowen on the jury so i feel they would show more sympthay to the girl but they just didnt find her version credible<br /><br />-- Wed Sep 11, 2013 4:44 pm --<br /><br />

i think its clearly an act of someone being extremely vindictive, i believe he had a terrible divorce and is hated by his ex and family !!

i dont think he should of been named prior to trial, and the person that made this up will never be named and can get on with her life without any comeback, but has completely tarnished her accused forever.

that said, i was listening to a guy on sky news this morning and he said that in these type of cases they name the person, in the hope more victims will come out and feel comfortable to testify. i think he said after Jimmy Saville was named there was something like 50+ people came forward. Although in this case how the CPS allowed it to go to trial is beyond. Maybe he can get back to fiddling with undercarriages on corrie now

It is pretty much common knowledge who the girl is though so she cant get on with her life. People are quick to say he is innocent but what about if he isnt and has been found not guilty purely due to lack of evidence? What about the girl then - how does she feel. Not only has she had the ordeal but is also being called a liar when she looks for help?

Im pretty sure she received some abuse on her personal page on a social networking site yesterday so people know who she is.

He is innocent because there was no evidence .you cant have it both ways

 

[johnmc]

He is innocent because there was no evidence .you cant have it both ways

Serious question, do you think OJ Simpson was innocent?

 

[cyberblue]

i think it was exactly that, a very public two fingers to the accused. my understanding is that they headed to a private function at a nearby hotel after they left that bar.

It strikes me as being deeply classless on his part. He should've got out of there immediately and away from the public eye. Instead a self-confessed alcoholic goes drinking.

While I agree with you that it's a bit classless, I can hardly blame the guy for having a bit of a chip on his shoulder after being dragged through a trial for something he hasn't done. Can you?

It might be a bit classless but what else would you expect a self confessed alcholic to do ?

 

[moomba]

I'm referring to the jurys decision , and probably the judges too ...... how is it possible for them to clear Michael Le Vell of ALL charges , without disbelieving the girl ?????

Lack of evidence perhaps ? Absence of proof is not proof of absence as they say. If the judge has said she's a liar and has made it up then fair enough but I think the waters are being muddied here as to being able to prove a crime has been committed or not being able to prove it.

An admirable viewpoint .... but whether ANYONE'S actually said it or not , i reckon that's what most are now likely to be thinking.

If Le Vell had of lost the case , people would have judged him guilty , no iffs or buts ..... how can the girl losing be any different??

Because the burden of proof is different between the two. The prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did it, the defence only had to establish some doubt.

 

[cyberblue]

He is innocent because there was no evidence .you cant have it both ways

Serious question, do you think OJ Simpson was innocent?

Yes i do think OJ was guilty but there was tons of evidence .The Jury didnt acept the evidence (amongst other things) in this case there was no evidence .just his word against hers The Jury did not believe her if they did he would be banged up

 

[johnmc]

He is innocent because there was no evidence .you cant have it both ways

Serious question, do you think OJ Simpson was innocent?

Yes i do think OJ was guilty but there was tons of evidence .The Jury didnt acept the evidence (amongst other things) in this case there was no evidence .just his word against hers The Jury did not believe her if they did he would be banged up

So guilty men can go free dependant on the evidence or lack thereof.

 

[2sheikhs]

Sorry if it's a re-post but I can't be arsed going through nearly 100 pages.


Michael Le Vell has said he turned to jelly when confronted by his young victim.

It's less sticky than Vaseline, apparently

 

[Pelly Greeny]

I think this might have got some way towards helping the jury make the decision they did.

But the court heard that medical experts who had examined the girl had found no clear physical evidence that she had ever been sexually abused.

When she was examined two years after the last alleged attack, tests indicated that she had not had full sex, the jury was told.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10299456/Coronation-Street-actor-Michael-Le-Vell-not-guilty-of-child-sex-charges.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... arges.html</a>

 

[malg]

No smoke without fire........etc, etc, etc.

 

[johnmc]

I think this might have got some way towards helping the jury make the decision they did.

But the court heard that medical experts who had examined the girl had found no clear physical evidence that she had ever been sexually abused.

When she was examined two years after the last alleged attack, tests indicated that she had not had full sex, the jury was told.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10299456/Coronation-Street-actor-Michael-Le-Vell-not-guilty-of-child-sex-charges.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... arges.html</a>

They said this is perfectly possible and been seen in numerous other cases.

 

[Bluebee2]

Le vell may well have been found not guilty, Jimmy Saville never faced a trial, innocent until proved guilty I ask you ?

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

He is innocent because there was no evidence .you cant have it both ways

Serious question, do you think OJ Simpson was innocent?

Do you think Chedwyn Evans was guilty?