Michael le Vell (Kevin Webster)

[StrangewaysHereWeCome]

In case any of you had forgotten.

Guilty.

 

[CityWest]

Michael Le Vell,
Ooh Michael Le Velllll,
He watches the red shite
Alone in his cell.

(if found guilty!!)

Oops, of course!!

 

[markyboyblue]

. This for me is a bad thing to stomach as it puts more pain and worry on the victim. You have to remember that tp do the things he has "allegedy" done he is not normal at all so he won't do the decent thing and own up.

Own up ???

Like women who falsely cry rape do , you mean ??

I don't know whether Michael Turner(Le Vell) is guilty or not , but if he really hasn't done it why should he plead guilty ????

I know there are a lot of cases where people cry "rape" or "abuse" and they should be dealt with very harshly with sentences for all of them. My point here is that I think some people are wired different in the first place so that they never really think they have done anything wrong so never feel guilt.

 

[worsleyweb]

I might go and watch from the public gallery later this week. Norris will be there.

Years ago when I was at mancat college I used to always go and watch trials. Remember watching another rape trial maybe 20 years ago and the man was acquitted and his family started screaming slag and slut at the accuser. Really classy family.

 

[peoffrey]

. This for me is a bad thing to stomach as it puts more pain and worry on the victim. You have to remember that tp do the things he has "allegedy" done he is not normal at all so he won't do the decent thing and own up.

Own up ???

Like women who falsely cry rape do , you mean ??

I don't know whether Michael Turner(Le Vell) is guilty or not , but if he really hasn't done it why should he plead guilty ????

I know there are a lot of cases where people cry "rape" or "abuse" and they should be dealt with very harshly with sentences for all of them. My point here is that I think some people are wired different in the first place so that they never really think they have done anything wrong so never feel guilt.

Rape is difficult to prove with many allegations not receiving a trial let alone successful prosecution. It's not just a lone woman being dragged in to a back alley by knifepoint. There's women too drunk to remember whether they consented the night before etc. Who exactly was this girl that Le Vell is accused of repeatedly abusing? How did she know him and where did these alleged acts take place?

The outcome of this will be interesting once all the details are known.

 

[jimharri]

If (repeat, if) he's acquitted, there's going to be a lot of people on here with egg on their faces.

 

[peoffrey]

If (repeat, if) he's acquitted, there's going to be a lot of people on here with egg on their faces.

The media are having a field day with this one.

 

[johnmc]

If (repeat, if) he's acquitted, there's going to be a lot of people on here with egg on their faces.

Court proves whether or not there is enough evidence not whether the person is guilty or not unless you have 100% faith in the courts?? In cases where it is one persons word against the other it's especially difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

So even if he is not guilty in court you cannot say he is innocent of all charges either for definite.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense but in some cases a not guilty verdict does not make the person innocent necessarily just that there wasn't enough evidence.

 

[Anonymous]

If (repeat, if) he's acquitted, there's going to be a lot of people on here with egg on their faces.

Court proves whether or not there is enough evidence not whether the person is guilty or not unless you have 100% faith in the courts?? In cases where it is one persons word against the other it's especially difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

So even if he is not guilty in court you cannot say he is innocent of all charges either for definite.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense but in some cases a not guilty verdict does not make the person innocent necessarily just that there wasn't enough evidence.

I'll bet the bloke who was wrongly jailed for this crime doesn't think all that much of jurys !

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-21442107" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-be ... s-21442107</a>

 

[jimharri]

If (repeat, if) he's acquitted, there's going to be a lot of people on here with egg on their faces.

Court proves whether or not there is enough evidence not whether the person is guilty or not unless you have 100% faith in the courts?? In cases where it is one persons word against the other it's especially difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

So even if he is not guilty in court you cannot say he is innocent of all charges either for definite.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense but in some cases a not guilty verdict does not make the person innocent necessarily just that there wasn't enough evidence.

I get where you're coming from. There was a couple of VERY high profile cases in the States where two celebrities were acquitted of the charges they faced. Were they innocent? Doubtful. However; legally, they were acquitted of the charges they faced by a jury of their peers and therefore, in the eyes of the law (like it or not), they did not (without reasonable doubt) commit the offences with which they were charged. As may end up being the scenario with Le Vell. People on here have come to a pretty swift conclusion without hearing both sides of the argument. Is he guilty? Only he and his alleged victim know that for sure.

 

[squirtyflower]

If (repeat, if) he's acquitted, there's going to be a lot of people on here with egg on their faces.

Court proves whether or not there is enough evidence not whether the person is guilty or not unless you have 100% faith in the courts?? In cases where it is one persons word against the other it's especially difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

So even if he is not guilty in court you cannot say he is innocent of all charges either for definite.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense but in some cases a not guilty verdict does not make the person innocent necessarily just that there wasn't enough evidence.

Probably why the saying goes 'innocent till proven guilty'

 

[johnmc]

If (repeat, if) he's acquitted, there's going to be a lot of people on here with egg on their faces.

Court proves whether or not there is enough evidence not whether the person is guilty or not unless you have 100% faith in the courts?? In cases where it is one persons word against the other it's especially difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

So even if he is not guilty in court you cannot say he is innocent of all charges either for definite.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense but in some cases a not guilty verdict does not make the person innocent necessarily just that there wasn't enough evidence.

I get where you're coming from. There was a couple of VERY high profile cases in the States where two celebrities were acquitted of the charges they faced. Were they innocent? Doubtful. However; legally, they were acquitted of the charges they faced by a jury of their peers and therefore, in the eyes of the law (like it or not), they did not (without reasonable doubt) commit the offences with which they were charged. As may end up being the scenario with Le Vell. People on here have come to a pretty swift conclusion without hearing both sides of the argument. Is he guilty? Only he and his alleged victim know that for sure.

Yes exactly. Acquitted doesn't necessarily mean innocent. You make the point clearly than I did.

And as said in a case of one persons word against another how can a jury say absolute that one person is lying but the other isn't. It's virtually impossible. You can't say well person A lied about being at work when they were in the pub so they have a history of being a liar as its just in no way connected. So previous indiscretions to that degree can't be used. And there are no previous crime or allegations either so you can't say he has history so its more than likely. You can't say that body language is a clue. That stuttering gives the game away etc.

It really is one persons word against another here so how can you ever believe one person over another in court beyond reasonable doubt.

But, my opinion, which is worth diddly squat here by the way is that he should be found guilty. I can't comprehend any other verdict. Whether that is the opinion of the court is their decision. If other people think different I do respect that also. My opinion that's all.<br /><br />-- Wed Sep 04, 2013 9:31 pm --<br /><br />

Probably why the saying goes 'innocent till proven guilty'

Indeed. Not that I agree with that. Nor would any rational person really. Unless you think everyone acquitted is innocent?

 

[jimharri]

Court proves whether or not there is enough evidence not whether the person is guilty or not unless you have 100% faith in the courts?? In cases where it is one persons word against the other it's especially difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

So even if he is not guilty in court you cannot say he is innocent of all charges either for definite.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense but in some cases a not guilty verdict does not make the person innocent necessarily just that there wasn't enough evidence.

I get where you're coming from. There was a couple of VERY high profile cases in the States where two celebrities were acquitted of the charges they faced. Were they innocent? Doubtful. However; legally, they were acquitted of the charges they faced by a jury of their peers and therefore, in the eyes of the law (like it or not), they did not (without reasonable doubt) commit the offences with which they were charged. As may end up being the scenario with Le Vell. People on here have come to a pretty swift conclusion without hearing both sides of the argument. Is he guilty? Only he and his alleged victim know that for sure.

Yes exactly. Acquitted doesn't necessarily mean innocent. You make the point clearly than I did.

And as said in a case of one persons word against another how can a jury say absolute that one person is lying but the other isn't. It's virtually impossible. You can't say well person A lied about being at work when they were in the pub so they have a history of being a liar as its just in no way connected. So previous indiscretions to that degree can't be used. And there are no previous crime or allegations either so you can't say he has history so its more than likely. You can't say that body language is a clue. That stuttering gives the game away etc.

It really is one persons word against another here so how can you ever believe one person over another in court beyond reasonable doubt.

But, my opinion, which is worth diddly squat here by the way is that he should be found guilty. I can't comprehend any other verdict. Whether that is the opinion of the court is their decision. If other people think different I do respect that also. My opinion that's all.

-- Wed Sep 04, 2013 9:31 pm --

Probably why the saying goes 'innocent till proven guilty'

Indeed. Not that I agree with that. Nor would any rational person really. Unless you think everyone acquitted is innocent?

Or that every person convicted is indeed guilty.

 

[stonerblue]

I've not read about any of this but have found it impossible to avoid the headlines. Seems the media have him bang to rights.

 

[Duvet Rosler]

 

[Anonymous]

If (repeat, if) he's acquitted, there's going to be a lot of people on here with egg on their faces.

Court proves whether or not there is enough evidence not whether the person is guilty or not unless you have 100% faith in the courts?? In cases where it is one persons word against the other it's especially difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

So even if he is not guilty in court you cannot say he is innocent of all charges either for definite.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense but in some cases a not guilty verdict does not make the person innocent necessarily just that there wasn't enough evidence.

I'll bet the bloke who was wrongly jailed for this crime doesn't think all that much of jurys !

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-21442107" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-be ... s-21442107</a>

what a poor fucker he was, loses his girlfriend and does the time for her murder when he was innocent and looking for her at the time.

 

[mackenzie]

I've not read about any of this but have found it impossible to avoid the headlines. Seems the media have him bang to rights.

It definitely seems that way. I don't put my tele on either.

 

[CTID1988]

Someone's been arrested for revealing the victims name on twitter

 

[pominoz]

Court proves whether or not there is enough evidence not whether the person is guilty or not unless you have 100% faith in the courts?? In cases where it is one persons word against the other it's especially difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

So even if he is not guilty in court you cannot say he is innocent of all charges either for definite.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense but in some cases a not guilty verdict does not make the person innocent necessarily just that there wasn't enough evidence.

I'll bet the bloke who was wrongly jailed for this crime doesn't think all that much of jurys !

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-21442107" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-be ... s-21442107</a>

what a poor fucker he was, loses his girlfriend and does the time for her murder when he was innocent and looking for her at the time.

Minimum of 17 years is a joke.

 

[toby]

Someone's been arrested for revealing the victims name on twitter

Any links ??