Michael le Vell (Kevin Webster)

[allan harper]

Layers?

 

[bernabias home shirt]

It'll be interesting to see how it goes. Purely a guess based on his reactions, I would say he's guilty, but then again i've not heard or seen her reactions as she's behind a curtain, so to speak.

The think is though you can't guess when the rest of someone's life is at stake. Like I said earlier I have no idea if he is guilty or not. If I were sat on that jury I would have to be pretty certain to send a man down for x years.

I agree. And if its just his word against hers then I can't see how a conviction could be considered safe?

Like 2sheikhs said earlier why would the cps take the case on
If this is based on one persons word against the other.

 

[mackenzie]

The think is though you can't guess when the rest of someone's life is at stake. Like I said earlier I have no idea if he is guilty or not. If I were sat on that jury I would have to be pretty certain to send a man down for x years.

I agree. And if its just his word against hers then I can't see how a conviction could be considered safe?

Like 2sheikhs said earlier why would the cps take the case on
If this is based on one persons word against the other.

That has always made me wonder. Surely they must have more than just what we are hearing at the moment?

 

[worsleyweb]

I agree. And if its just his word against hers then I can't see how a conviction could be considered safe?

Like 2sheikhs said earlier why would the cps take the case on
If this is based on one persons word against the other.

That has always made me wonder. Surely they must have more than just what we are hearing at the moment?

I think the "other thing" is him allegedly saying to a 3rd party something along the lines of having terrible secrets or something. I saw it in the papers the other day.

 

[mammutly]

Like 2sheikhs said earlier why would the cps take the case on
If this is based on one persons word against the other.

That has always made me wonder. Surely they must have more than just what we are hearing at the moment?

I think the "other thing" is him allegedly saying to a 3rd party something along the lines of having terrible secrets or something. I saw it in the papers the other day.

The timeline - chronology will also be important. Whether dates, times, context of the allegations are coherent.

 

[Paladin]

I've been a juror on two rape cases. In one case the judge stopped the trial and directed the jury to return a 'not guilty' verdict. In the other case we were split 6v6 when we retired. We persuaded three of the accused's guilt. Two others did not enter debate at all, for some very misguided reasons (they were a disgrace to our system of justice). We found the accused not guilty eventually, because we couldn't reach a 10-2 majority.

From what we are reading about the Le Vell case, I would imagine there isn't enough evidence to convince the jury of guilt. Whatever the truth of the matter, his life and career are in tatters, and the alleged victim may well have psychological damage. Very sad.

 

[tidyman]

Iwe were split 6v6 when we retired. We persuaded three of the accused's guilt. Two others did not enter debate at all, for some very misguided reasons (they were a disgrace to our system of justice). We found the accused not guilty eventually, because we couldn't reach a 10-2 majority.

I'm not sure I'm reading this right. Are you saying you were stuck on 9/3 guilty but because you couldn't convince one of the three to go guilty, you all agreed to go not guilty?

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Iwe were split 6v6 when we retired. We persuaded three of the accused's guilt. Two others did not enter debate at all, for some very misguided reasons (they were a disgrace to our system of justice). We found the accused not guilty eventually, because we couldn't reach a 10-2 majority.

I'm not sure I'm reading this right. Are you saying you were stuck on 9/3 guilty but because you couldn't convince one of the three to go guilty, you all agreed to go not guilty?

I think he means the judge will have instructed that he would accept a 10-2majority verdict but that couldn't be achieved. As a consequence, it means not guilty

 

[Mr Ed (The Stables)]

One of the best things that the signing of the Magna Carter in 1215 at Runnymede ensured was firstly the right of everyone to be tried by ones peers, and secondly that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

I just hope that all this media circus that is following this case doesn't result in a miscarriage of justice either way.

However who was it that said "It's better that 100 guilty men go free, than one innocent man be convicted"

 

[tidyman]

Iwe were split 6v6 when we retired. We persuaded three of the accused's guilt. Two others did not enter debate at all, for some very misguided reasons (they were a disgrace to our system of justice). We found the accused not guilty eventually, because we couldn't reach a 10-2 majority.

I'm not sure I'm reading this right. Are you saying you were stuck on 9/3 guilty but because you couldn't convince one of the three to go guilty, you all agreed to go not guilty?

I think he means the judge will have instructed that he would accept a 10-2majority verdict but that couldn't be achieved. As a consequence, it means not guilty

No it doesn't. Assuming he is talking about in this country.