Michael le Vell (Kevin Webster)

[CTID1988]

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

Any links ??

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/michael-le-vell-trial-man-5841295" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... an-5841295</a>

 

[toby]

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

Any links ??

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/michael-le-vell-trial-man-5841295" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... an-5841295</a>

Cheers for that

 

[fredmont]

If innocent until proven guilty why is it that the accuser must remain anonymous when the accused, at least in this case, has his name spread all over the media. Where is the fairness in that?

 

[PinkFinal]

If innocent until proven guilty why is it that the accuser must remain anonymous when the accused, at least in this case, has his name spread all over the media. Where is the fairness in that?

Victims of nonces are less likely to come forward if their name is going to be all over the media.

I'd imagine that the police only pursue sexual cases if they're absolutely sure they have a case, you'd need to be very determined and quite clever or crafty to accuse someone of a sexual assault if you were lying.
Wonder if the police use body language experts when considering whether to prosecute or not.

 

[Phil Meup]

If innocent until proven guilty why is it that the accuser must remain anonymous when the accused, at least in this case, has his name spread all over the media. Where is the fairness in that?

Think that in this case it's because of the psychological harm done by sexual crimes.

 

[fredmont]

If innocent until proven guilty why is it that the accuser must remain anonymous when the accused, at least in this case, has his name spread all over the media. Where is the fairness in that?

Think that in this case it's because of the psychological harm done by sexual crimes.

Not suggesting she should be identified, I believe neither should be.

 

[The Flash]

If innocent until proven guilty why is it that the accuser must remain anonymous when the accused, at least in this case, has his name spread all over the media. Where is the fairness in that?

Think that in this case it's because of the psychological harm done by sexual crimes.

Not suggesting she should be identified, I believe neither should be.

I agree. Both parties should remain anonymous until a guilty verdict has been reached. If the accused is found not guilty, then their identity remains undisclosed.

 

[nobody can eat fifty eggs]

There was a case once where the accused was all but banged to rights until one piece of physical evidence was presented and he was proved to be innocent. So let's not jump to conclusions just yet. Le Vell seems like a bloke you wouldn't have in your company but it doesn't make him guilty, we don't know whether he is a rapist or child molester. Let's wait for the verdict.

 

[tidyman]

If innocent until proven guilty why is it that the accuser must remain anonymous when the accused, at least in this case, has his name spread all over the media. Where is the fairness in that?

I understand the reasoning behind this thinking. I know from a previous thread dedicated to it, that many on here share it.

There are disadvantages to the current system. But I believe advantages far outweigh this idea.

The one thing more than anything that has come out of all these high profile abuse cases, from Savile onwards, is victims of abuse find the strength to come forward from knowing they are not alone.

Stuart Hall and many other sex offenders would not be in prison under your suggestion. They would be out, almost certainly still abusing. Is that a price worth giving up?

 

[Anonymous]

Think that in this case it's because of the psychological harm done by sexual crimes.

Not suggesting she should be identified, I believe neither should be.

I agree. Both parties should remain anonymous until a guilty verdict has been reached. If the accused is found not guilty, then their identity remains undisclosed.

Completely agree .....

nobody should be named until they're found guilty.

 

[cyberblue]

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?

No it is more than one persons word .there is a fact called evidence .if a young girl has been raped there will be evidence of that .it doesnt meen the acuser did it though .also the "time line" when was it done ? where was it done ? does he have an alibi ? where was the mother ? origanly in 2011 there was not evidence to charge him .so what new evidence is ther e& can it be trusted .glad i am not on the jury

 

[sergiokun]

When will the trail end??

 

[Phil Meup]

When will the trail end??

Probably when the trial ends and all the evidence has been presented.
Can't be more than another day or two if they are questioning him today.
I can see him getting off with it (sadly).

 

[cyberblue]

When will the trail end??

Probably when the trial ends and all the evidence has been presented.
Can't be more than another day or two if they are questioning him today.
I can see him getting off with it (sadly).

Why sadly ? do you no something the jury doesnt ? if after listening to all the evidence from both sides including doctors & police .& medical evidence ,looking at how all parties have give evidence & listening to the reason why sudenly "new evidence apeared" & if prosecution presented a very slim case the jury will take time in asseing all of this .if it comes to the conclusion he is not guilty that has to be acepted .enough inocent people have spent time behind bars ,so pure emotion is not enough to convict .it will be interesting to see if all the jury agree on the verdict which ever way it goes

 

[squirtyflower]

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?

You see you give the game away there.
And your next sentence pours petrol on the fire.

Only rational people weigh up evidence and then decide guilt.
Where as you and a few other numpties have already decided on the level of guilt.

Ironic isn't it.

 

[sergiokun]

When will the trail end??

Probably when the trial ends and all the evidence has been presented.
Can't be more than another day or two if they are questioning him today.
I can see him getting off with it (sadly).

I think he's innocent and can't see him getting jailed. Who noes what happened apart from Webster and this girl but there is no evidence at all and it's her word against his. I thought the trail lasted 5 days

 

[Phil Meup]

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?

You see you give the game away there.
And your next sentence pours petrol on the fire.

Only rational people weigh up evidence and then decide guilt.
Where as you and a few other numpties have already decided on the level of guilt.

Ironic isn't it.

Bit harsh that! It is incredibly hard to bring these type of cases to court, mainly because of victims reluctance to re-live their ordeals, often in front of very aggressive barristers. The victims that can get their cases this far do not do so lightly. It isn't likely the victim is lying is it?
le Vell will be able to afford a very good council, better than the CPS for the prosecution. This will obviously help his case.

 

[Never Mind The Pollocks]

When will the trail end??

Probably when the trial ends and all the evidence has been presented.
Can't be more than another day or two if they are questioning him today.
I can see him getting off with it (sadly).

I think he's innocent and can't see him getting jailed. Who noes what happened apart from Webster and this girl but there is no evidence at all and it's her word against his. I thought the trail lasted 5 days

How do you know that?

 

[2sheikhs]

When will the trail end??

Probably when the trial ends and all the evidence has been presented.
Can't be more than another day or two if they are questioning him today.
I can see him getting off with it (sadly).

I think he's innocent and can't see him getting jailed. Who noes what happened apart from Webster and this girl but there is no evidence at all and it's her word against his. I thought the trail lasted 5 days

It can't possibly be just her word against his. The CPS wouldn't go near the case without at least a 75% chance of conviction.

 

[squirtyflower]

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 --



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

You see you give the game away there.
And your next sentence pours petrol on the fire.

Only rational people weigh up evidence and then decide guilt.
Where as you and a few other numpties have already decided on the level of guilt.

Ironic isn't it.

Bit harsh that! It is incredibly hard to bring these type of cases to court, mainly because of victims reluctance to re-live their ordeals, often in front of very aggressive barristers. The victims that can get their cases this far do not do so lightly. It isn't likely the victim is lying is it?
le Vell will be able to afford a very good council, better than the CPS for the prosecution. This will obviously help his case.

I'm not sure if you've followed the sequence of posts but I maintain that people are innocent until proven guilty.
However johnmc doesn't believe in that principle as do a few others on here, a principal that has been the cornerstone of our freedoms in society for hundreds of years. A freedom we need to ensure continues.