Michael le Vell (Kevin Webster)

[Paladin]

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

Yes, this is correct.

Well I know it's your story and everything but it quite clearly isn't correct.

A hung jury is a completely different scenario to a not guilty verdict.

It was perhaps 20 years ago, so my recollection may be clouded. What I do remember though, is that the court official asked the foreman for the verdict, and he said 'guilty' by mistake. Some of us coughed behind him until he realised his mistake, and then he corrected himself.

I have just looked up what happens when a jury cannot agree on a 10-2 majority verdict, and it appears that this does not get recorded as 'not guilty'. Whether this was the same 20 years ago, I am not sure. However, the outcome was inconclusive, but I do not think there will have been a retrial. I am not sure on this though.

 

[Benarbia_is_god]

If it transpires that it was all a pack of lies will the girl in question be put on trial herself? I don't have a clue if he's guilty or not but surely a not-guilty verdict means it never happened? Meaning the lady in question has attempted to ruin a mans life, truly wicked if that is the case.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

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.

He's apparently already been promised his job back , if he's cleared , so his career certainly won't be over , and neither will his life ...... one time rape allegations , a crown court trial , together with being held in custody in prison , certainly don't appear to have done the likes of Craig Charles much harm over the past 19 years!!

I know where your coming from mamba re his career won't be over if found not guilty
Tbh I think it will,his character plays a part of a single dad bringing up a small child
I just think corrie bosses will play it safe and maybe pay him off

As some have said mud does stick,and people will still see a guy that possibly abused & raped a child,even though acquitted.
Tough decision for the top brass on the street to make I guess.

 

[Phil Meup]

If it transpires that it was all a pack of lies will the girl in question be put on trial herself? I don't have a clue if he's guilty or not but surely a not-guilty verdict means it never happened? Meaning the lady in question has attempted to ruin a mans life, truly wicked if that is the case.

... or that his expensive legal team have managed to manipulate the facts in order to put doubt into the minds of the jury!
I've been on a jury (twice!) and it is interesting how it works. There's no morality in the legal system: they don't care whether one is innocent or guilty: they just want to win the case.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

If it transpires that it was all a pack of lies will the girl in question be put on trial herself? I don't have a clue if he's guilty or not but surely a not-guilty verdict means it never happened? Meaning the lady in question has attempted to ruin a mans life, truly wicked if that is the case.

The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did what they had been accused of. A not guilty verdict simply means the defence managed to put reasonable doubt in their minds, not that it never happened.

 

[2sheikhs]

If it transpires that it was all a pack of lies will the girl in question be put on trial herself? I don't have a clue if he's guilty or not but surely a not-guilty verdict means it never happened? Meaning the lady in question has attempted to ruin a mans life, truly wicked if that is the case.

The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did what they had been accused of. A not guilty verdict simply means the defence managed to put reasonable doubt in their minds, not that it never happened.

What happens with the Scottish system? I believe they have, guilty, not guilty and probably did it but couldn't be proven. That system seems to acknowledge that somebody just got themselves a clever lawyer.

 

[tidyman]

Yes, this is correct.

Well I know it's your story and everything but it quite clearly isn't correct.

A hung jury is a completely different scenario to a not guilty verdict.

It was perhaps 20 years ago, so my recollection may be clouded. What I do remember though, is that the court official asked the foreman for the verdict, and he said 'guilty' by mistake. Some of us coughed behind him until he realised his mistake, and then he corrected himself.

I have just looked up what happens when a jury cannot agree on a 10-2 majority verdict, and it appears that this does not get recorded as 'not guilty'. Whether this was the same 20 years ago, I am not sure. However, the outcome was inconclusive, but I do not think there will have been a retrial. I am not sure on this though.

No worries, I wasn't suggesting you were making it up or anything. I know as much as anyone that time and in my case at least, a few thousand gallons of ale, can play havoc with the memory.

I started a posted in the boxing thread the other day with, who can forget that UNFORGETABLE day at Granada Studios? And the quickly edited it when I remembered the fight I was on about was actually at The Free Trade Hall.

 

[Anonymous]

He's done quite well under questioning today apparently , and the case is nearing it's conclusion ........

it's only a 'stab in the dark' at this point , but it's my guess that he'll be cleared of all these charges , due to the girl 'showing no physical evidence' of actually being attacked.

 

[kippaxkid74]

He's done quite well under questioning today apparently , and the case is nearing it's conclusion ........

it's only a 'stab in the dark' at this point , but it's my guess that he'll be cleared of all these charges , due to the girl 'showing no physical evidence' of actually being attacked.

Abuse from 2 years ago and earlier does not leave any injury that will show that far on. All the medical people agree on that fact. It can't be used to either say he did do it or didn't do it, as any injury would have healed in that time.

 

[WEMBLEY76]

Wasn't there a story a few years ago that one of Mr Le Vells family won a large amount on the lottery,(alledgely)if I remember correctly...just a thought,money can sometimes divide families...