markyboyblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 1,017
Joycee Banercheck said:
No not Heywood, Salford actually. Must be a lot of them about. This lad wasn't a city fan. I can't help talking about him in past tense!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Michael le Vell (Kevin Webster)
- Thread starter Blue>Red
- Start date
No not Heywood, Salford actually. Must be a lot of them about. This lad wasn't a city fan. I can't help talking about him in past tense!
Joycee Banercheck
Well-Known Member
Yeah he is. He's a blue. I know the guy and I've seen him in Mary D's. We must know different peadophiles.markyboyblue said:Joycee Banercheck said:Its in all the papers so I don't think I'm being slanderous or owt. Paul Mc Connell. He was PJMCCIUK on here I think. I used to think he was a voice of reason. Scary innit.stony said:What's he called Joycee ?
No not Heywood, Salford actually. Must be a lot of them about. This lad wasn't a city fan. I can't help talking about him in past tense!
The crown find it very hard to turn down such cases even if there's is no defining evidence, there was a case where a few from Bradford were given no further action by the police only to be found guilty years on, I think it's more so will the suspect crack under cross examination, and the crown covering there own backs which is understandable although you have to sympathise with somebody accused and charged of such hideous crimes and having to go through such stress of a trial when they really are innocent to a point where their case should of never got to court, but if it catches more then it's the only way, the media reports may keep the victims identity hidden but I think if you add two and two together you can guess quite well who the victim is, and if that's right then there's a reason also. With the jury out I think he will be found not guilty unless there's something else we don't know
the blue panther
Well-Known Member
I don't know if anyone's posted here since the judge started his summing up, but, I just heard that the medical evidence was 'neutral' from which I conclude that there's no evidence of the girl being raped as a 6 year old, as you'd expect some evidence of harm. In the absence of that, unless the girl has been very, very convincing, I can't see Levelle being convicted.
He seemed to put his denials across pretty well as far as I can make out, and, if he gets off, then as much as I detest the snivelling rag git, he'll have my sympathy for having been falsely accused. We'll be quick to put him down if he's convicted, so, it has to work both ways in my eyes.
He seemed to put his denials across pretty well as far as I can make out, and, if he gets off, then as much as I detest the snivelling rag git, he'll have my sympathy for having been falsely accused. We'll be quick to put him down if he's convicted, so, it has to work both ways in my eyes.
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
Joycee Banercheck said:I must be the 0.01 that hope the kid didn't get touched.stony said:Markt85 said:A lot of sad c*nts on here will be disappointed he's not guilty
Utter horseshit. If he's innocent then 99.9% of people on here will be happy that a child wasn't abused.
squeeze me in to that percentage.
stonerblue said:Joycee Banercheck said:I must be the 0.01 that hope the kid didn't get touched.stony said:Utter horseshit. If he's innocent then 99.9% of people on here will be happy that a child wasn't abused.
squeeze me in to that percentage.
Two of you who didn't read my post properly then...tsk...
jimharri
Moderator
If he is acquitted/cleared/found not guilty (choose your own terminology), a lot on here simply won't have it. Go through this thread; a sizeable number of BM'ers have him down as guilty, end of.
I'm wondering what the other 0.09 percent think.....stony said:stonerblue said:Joycee Banercheck said:I must be the 0.01 that hope the kid didn't get touched.
squeeze me in to that percentage.
Two of you who didn't read my post properly then...tsk...
Phil Meup
Well-Known Member
That's because these cases are notoriously difficult to bring to trial, because it's so painful for the victims to re-live their experiences. He wouldn't be on trial unless he was guilty IMO! Do you honestly think the child is lying!!!jimharri said:If he is acquitted/cleared/found not guilty (choose your own terminology), a lot on here simply won't have it. Go through this thread; a sizeable number of BM'ers have him down as guilty, end of.
I think he will get off. He's obvioulsy got enough cash to buy a very good defence team.
Phil Meup said:That's because these cases are notoriously difficult to bring to trial, because it's so painful for the victims to re-live their experiences. He wouldn't be on trial unless he was guilty IMO! Do you honestly think the child is lying!!!jimharri said:If he is acquitted/cleared/found not guilty (choose your own terminology), a lot on here simply won't have it. Go through this thread; a sizeable number of BM'ers have him down as guilty, end of.
I think he will get off. He's obvioulsy got enough cash to buy a very good defence team.
I've no idea whether the child is lying or not, but I wouldn't take it as an indication of guilt just because someone is on trial.