Michael le Vell (Kevin Webster)

[KingRuben]

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.

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!!!
I think he will get off. He's obvioulsy got enough cash to buy a very good defence team.

Such cases will now almost always go to court and trial, even if its a stab in the dark towards an innocent man, especially if its a young girl as the crown cannot run the risk of letting a guilty man get away, even if it is the smallest chance the accused is guilty, I knew somebody accused and found not guilty of rape after 13 months of bail and there wasn't even the slightest bit of evidence to suggest rape, just that he had said it was consented, it's understanding the way in which it's done but sometimes the real victim can be the accused

 

[peoffrey]

This is the kind of thread that needs a post from Blue Silk.

 

[jimharri]

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.

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!!!
I think he will get off. He's obvioulsy got enough cash to buy a very good defence team.

Honestly? I haven't got a clue whether the child is lying or not. No one on here has. And if that was the strongest case the prosecution has (''Ladies and gentlemen of the jury; do you think the child is lying?''), a half decent defence brief (as you said, he can afford it) would pick that argument apart in double quick time. As you said, the prosecution must believe they have a pretty good case. I hope so.

 

[nobody can eat fifty eggs]

If the child was lying, the prosecuting lawyer said it was then an Oscar deserving performance. A slight dig at LeVell I think.
Its up to them to prove the case against him and from what we've heard so far, they haven't. Hard case for the jurors and it will be interesting to hear the summing up by the judge.

 

[Phil Meup]

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.

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!!!
I think he will get off. He's obvioulsy got enough cash to buy a very good defence team.

Such cases will now almost always go to court and trial, even if its a stab in the dark towards an innocent man, especially if its a young girl as the crown cannot run the risk of letting a guilty man get away, even if it is the smallest chance the accused is guilty, I knew somebody accused and found not guilty of rape after 13 months of bail and there wasn't even the slightest bit of evidence to suggest rape, just that he had said it was consented, it's understanding the way in which it's done but sometimes the real victim can be the accused

Agreed.
That's a terrible ordeal for that guy.

 

[BlueMo']

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.

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!!!
I think he will get off. He's obvioulsy got enough cash to buy a very good defence team.

So anyone who is on trial is guilty? If that's the case why bother with trials at all.
Let the CPS decide without all the judge and jury rigmarole. Save the taxpayer a fortune.

 

[jimharri]

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.

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!!!
I think he will get off. He's obvioulsy got enough cash to buy a very good defence team.

So anyone who is on trial is guilty? If that's the case why bother with trials at all.
Let the CPS decide without all the judge and jury rigmarole. Save the taxpayer a fortune.

Agreed. That was a staggering comment to come out with, even by BlueMoon standards. I didn't comment on it earlier as I thought the poster might have wanted to retract it when he'd had a chance to read it back to himself.

 

[Phil Meup]

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!!!
I think he will get off. He's obvioulsy got enough cash to buy a very good defence team.

So anyone who is on trial is guilty? If that's the case why bother with trials at all.
Let the CPS decide without all the judge and jury rigmarole. Save the taxpayer a fortune.

Agreed. That was a staggering comment to come out with, even by BlueMoon standards. I didn't comment on it earlier as I thought the poster might have wanted to retract it when he'd had a chance to read it back to himself.

You forgot the ubiquitous smiley face!
That's a joke right?
I'm talking about crimes of this nature - that's what this thread's about isn't it!!!

 

[jimharri]

So anyone who is on trial is guilty? If that's the case why bother with trials at all.
Let the CPS decide without all the judge and jury rigmarole. Save the taxpayer a fortune.

Agreed. That was a staggering comment to come out with, even by BlueMoon standards. I didn't comment on it earlier as I thought the poster might have wanted to retract it when he'd had a chance to read it back to himself.

You forgot the ubiquitous smiley face!
That's a joke right?
I'm talking about crimes of this nature - that's what this thread's about isn't it!!!

No; I didn't forget it. I had no intention of posting a smiley face. You obviously believe he's guilty and doesn't deserve a trial; fair enough. I believe any defendant is entitled to a fair trial, no matter how abhorrent his (or her) alleged crimes are. We'll have to agree to differ on this.

 

[mr t]

Who knows if he's guilty or not? Only 2 people know the truth. I've not paid any serious imterest to the trial but from what I can gather it seems there doesn't seem to be any witnesses or evidence to prove the case one way or the other. Not an easy decision for any juror/jury to make.