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.

 

[CITYBOY1000]

It does seem an unusual one. Apparently the memories of the rape only came to her much later - I think years after but I don't know as I've only caught snippets of it. He's also alleged to have raped her whilst she was hugging her teddy bear. Either he is indeed an evil gentleman, or she is a nutjob. The mother is convinced he raped her over a number of years as well. The only question I have to ask is : "Why didn't you say/do something ?"

I have my doubts. Anyway, whether they get it right or wrong, the jury will call it in the next day or so.

 

[Phil Meup]

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.

Fair enough mate.

 

[malg]

Looks 'the sort' though doesn't he.......

 

[ponyntrap]

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.

Your stupidity is tragic. I suggest you watch 'Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory' in order to understand how your absurd naivety could effect others. To obtain the truth you have to look at every case objectively. In cases as sensitive as this I personally believe even the accused should have the right to anonymity until proven guilty. Trial by media is extremely dangerous because a large percentage of narrow minded individuals are easily influenced and accept accusations as the truth, as proven by this clown.

I'm expecting that if he is found guilty you will be right back on here patting yourself on the back and rubbing your balls with a picture of yourself.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

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.

There's normally a great deal information that enters the public domain once a verdict is reached.
Journos silenced (on certain evidence)until the end of the trial etc.

 

[jimharri]

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.

Fair enough mate.

Two things;
1. I wasn't having a pop at you personally, more the ''hang em high'' mentality on here. You're only one of many on here who share the same point of view. Apologies if it seemed I was having a dig at you; I wasn't.
2. I'm not saying I think Le Vell is innocent. As I said in my earlier post, I have no idea if he is or not.

 

[mackenzie]

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.

There's normally a great deal information that enters the public domain once a verdict is reached.
Journos silenced (on certain evidence)until the end of the trial etc.

I have a feeling that this is what may happen in this case.

 

[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.

Your stupidity is tragic. I suggest you watch 'Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory' in order to understand how your absurd naivety could effect others. To obtain the truth you have to look at every case objectively. In cases as sensitive as this I personally believe even the accused should have the right to anonymity until proven guilty. Trial by media is extremely dangerous because a large percentage of narrow minded individuals are easily influenced and accept accusations as the truth, as proven by this clown.

I'm expecting that if he is found guilty you will be right back on here patting yourself on the back and rubbing your balls with a picture of yourself.

I would, but I find it very difficult to take a good picture when I'm doing that...

 

[worsleyweb]

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.

There's normally a great deal information that enters the public domain once a verdict is reached.
Journos silenced (on certain evidence)until the end of the trial etc.

I have a feeling that this is what may happen in this case.

A lot has been spoken about at the trial that is not in the press. For what it is worth I think he is genuinely innocent and hope he is found not guilty tomorrow. I have been on trial for something I genuinely did not do which was the word of one person against another. ( it was assault nothing sexual). When I went to trial as i knew I hadn't done it I was calm as I knew the accuser was that thick they would get caught out which eventually they did. I was on bail for 12 months on the back of someone making a story up - it can happen.

 

[Malty]

IF he's innocent he will be back in the cobbles by next month.