Michael le Vell (Kevin Webster)

Salford_Blue said:
PinkFinal said:
Prosecution:



The prosecutor added: "Nobody is saying (Mr Le Vell) didn't have a conscience at various stages, no one is saying he would necessarily have done this when he was sober", she added.

Referring to the alleged victim's evidence that after Mr Le Vell 'raped' her, the abuse stopped for a while, Ms Laws continued: "Isn't it interesting that after really pushing at the boundaries he stops for a while? What an interesting detail - why make it up?"

Miss Laws is arguing that the way the complainant has described the sexual acts, and her emotional responses to them, have a 'ring of truth', include the type of detail that it would be 'odd' to make up, while lacking the detail of a researched' false account.

"Was she a wicked, convincing liar, or did you sit and listen to it, even during cross-examination and think to yourself that she was telling the truth? Because that's all she can do", the barrister said.

Prosecutor Laws continued explaining how the complainant could have backed out had she not been telling the truth.

She said: "The opportunities she had were many - when she went to the GP, the police, when the CPS reviewed this case and decided that it wouldn't continue.

"She had the opportunity afterwards, as any vulnerable witness does, to say I just don't want to go ahead with it."

"Bear in mind, when it comes to deciding if this was possibly a lie, what she has put herself through over a long period of time - not just telling people, not just telling police, but a physically intimate examination - she has remained hell bent on his downfall.

"What has she got to gain? Absolutely nothing, unless it's the truth and that is what she wants to tell you. If you are sure that she is telling the truth and that she wasn't lying and there's no possibility she was lying it would be your duty to mark the courage from that witness box, to give evidence to you in the face if everything in this trial, to mark her courage with convictions."

Defence:



"It's a strange case of rape with no blood, no semen, no injury, no trace - almost, you may think, as if it didn't happen," Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell's barrister has told court.

Alisdair Williamson,defending, is arguing that the alleged complainant has given different versions of events to different people. He told the jury, that if they were to return a guilty verdict 'you are going to take a man's life away from him, you're going to cast him into the outer darkness of being a child rapist, if you are sure.'

Speaking of the complainant's account, he added: "Where's the consistency? Not there, I suggest, simply not there....there's an agonising lack of detail from this witness. She can't give you details because it didn't happen. That is why her story varies according to who she is talking to."


Mr Williamson continued in his closing speech: "There isn't for instance any child porn on the computer. There is no evidence from other mothers saying 'I'm concerned about leaving my daughter with Michael, there's something that made me feel a bit uneasy'...the sort of evidence these courts hear all the time, nothing, not a trace, not a drop of blood, not a funny look, not a picture of a scantily-clad child on a computer, nothing to support (the complainant's) inconsistent, incoherent and unbelievable account"


Mr Williamson said: "He is a man, not a character, a weak man, a stupid man, a drunk man, but nothing in this case has taken you anywhere near the level of certainty that you would need so that you can look in the mirror in the days that come and say, 'I was sure'. Without forensic evidence, without blood, without injury, without consistency, 'I was sure'. I suggest you can't be. On each of these counts the only fair verdict the only right thing to do, is 'not guilty'."


Both have very very good arguments, how do you decide?

Interesting article:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/csa_myths.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/csa_myths.html</a>
Click to expand...

First line of the Defence's speech is the damning part and likely one that will sway opinion.

That said, how did they convict Stuart Hall after all those years?
Click to expand...

The damning part and the one that saves him is it has been painted as an isolated case, no other claims or acts to be heard of, a break in the abuse- firstly it's nigh on impossible that he abstained due to some sort of super self discipline, an abuser doesn't work that way, I've worked with many and enough to know that if the apparent abuse stops it is most definitely taking place elsewhere and yet here we find none. Secondly, the merits of the case are quite simple, an amplified moral panic due to the saville-gate scandal, the initial case was thrown yet reintroduced after certain exposure elsewhere, the story is the same yet the timing for the CPS undoubtedly swayed the decision to go ahead a second time, is that fair to le vell??

As for Stuart hall, his wasn't an isolated case, historical forms of abuse over many years and stories that could be collaborated from victims who had never met one another, he also, don't forget, pleaded guilty after a deal was struck!
 
SiWatts90 said:
I find the whole subject of rape extremely hard to deal with as I lost a very good and decent friend because of a rape accusation. i've touched on it before in another thread but a lad I went to school with, gets dragged out of his workplace infront of everyone as his ex accused him of raping her when they had just split up.

Now, from the get go I believed him but many of our friend group didn't and turned on him, as did some members of his family. He got found guilty in court and sent down. He lasted 10 months in prison, his appeal wasn't successful, he took his life a week after as he couldn't face people thinking so badly of him, i've seen the letter he left for his mum and dad and his ex who made the allegations.

A year or so after his death the same girl who I also went to school with cried rape again, this girl wasn't the cleverest and on a drunken night out laughed about what had happened to my mate Sam and this other lad, explaining she made the whole thing up for attention, failing to realise she was chatting a copper up who was on a night out.

She is now in prison for perverting the course of justice, she got 15 months..

Not the same as a suspected pedophile but I will always be wary of knowing all facts before making a decision about anyones guilt.
Click to expand...


I have a similar story. Down South where we lived for a couple of years there was a man who lived on his own who was a little odd. He used to pace up and down outside his house when school was finished. Some girl thought it was funny to accuse him of sexually abusing her, and this whole thing went to court. Turned out he never did it, but now the kids call him a paedophile behind his back, and instead of being the guy that was found innocent, he's known as the guy that got away with being a paedo.
 
Kirkstall Blue said:
If I was on the jury I'd have to believe the child, I don't think they tell lies over sexual abuse but without evidence from other victims he'll be found not guilty.
Click to expand...

You clearly underestimate a child's ability to lie
 
Pigeonho said:
Kirkstall Blue said:
If I was on the jury I'd have to believe the child, I don't think they tell lies over sexual abuse but without evidence from other victims he'll be found not guilty.
Click to expand...
Christ.
Click to expand...


with the correct type of questioning it is quite easy to see through lies . The child is also innocent until proven guilty in this and many other cases . Not sure alcohol in this case , or any similar would have me chasing after kids though ! Lame in my opinion , very lame .
 
Also, the child isnt a child anymore right? Well, they are 17. So would lie with ease
 
CTID1988 said:
Also, the child isnt a child anymore right? Well, they are 17. So would lie with ease
Click to expand...

Age doesn't determine whether someone can lie or not. Our Sandra(cousin) could lie like a rug from being a toddler. She had more bare faced cheek than Dizzy Gillespie. My son on the other hand can't lie to save his life. He's nearly 21 now, and everytime he tells a porky it's written all over his face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.