Michael le Vell (Kevin Webster)

foxy said:
Pigeonho said:
strongbowholic said:
To refer to a previous post (breath easy, I'm not talking about that one) I also found it a bit odd given what he had just been through that he'd be bigging it up with the "...going for a drink..." comment.

I am by no way saying this proves any form of guilt or anything ridiculous like that before anyone attempts to put words into my mouth, I just would have thought his legal team or some such would have given him a bit of advice on what to say afterwards and that such a comment might be somewhat ill advised.
Click to expand...
Hopefully it was a sly dig at the whole sorry affair. For all we know he might be in the nearest Starbucks.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking. His whole personal life has been exposed to the public.
Click to expand...
Me too
He has had his personal life dragged through the courts
Especially the bit abt drinking 6 or 7 pints every night for 20/30 years
I'm sure it was a reference to that.
 
strongbowholic said:
Danny - verb - to inappropriately reveal information not for public consumption; eg "the interrogation lasted for what seemed like days, however he was not about to Danny the secret plans they had hatched for the escape."
Click to expand...

tumblr_mfnjb68lip1s14h9co1_400.gif
 
Hi Guys,

Just got back to my desk after a long meeting, my screen was open on this site so god knows whos been on.

whats happened then? has he got off?
 
dannyboy29 said:
Hi Guys,

Just got back to my desk after a long meeting, my screen was open on this site so god knows whos been on.

whats happened then? has he got off?
Click to expand...

Hahahaha nice one
 
He should be at least indicted on impersonating a mechanic for the last 20 years.

What a waste of tax payers money.
 
Some of you seem to struggle with the concept that the girl might have been telling the truth but that the jury didn't feel they could convict him beyond reasonable doubt. There's a huge difference between telling a barefaced, vindictive lie about a rape that demonstrably never took place and a situation where it's one person's word against another. Le Vell might have lied through his teeth for all we know. Only he and the girl know what really happened.

But the prosecution failed to make a strong enough case. That's the outcome here. To me, that's one of the weaknesses of a jury based system. Cases aren't necessarily decided on the pure facts but on how the two sides present their case.

My dad was on a jury for a fraud case and he said that there was little doubt in the jurors' minds that the defendants had done it but the prosecution case was poorly presented & failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore they returned a not guilty verdict.
 
dannyboy29 said:
Hi Guys,

Just got back to my desk after a long meeting, my screen was open on this site so god knows whos been on.

whats happened then? has he got off?
Click to expand...


 
Now lets see if if the "Victim" try s to get on with her life out of the public eye, or sells her story to the Sunday rags, in which case he should sue till she is penniless.
 
I met him socially on more than one occasion in the late 80 's

They reckon first impressions mean a lot.

Mine of him , Tosser.

However , still feel sorry for all involved.

Very deep this one , it would appear.
 
blueonblue said:
Now lets see if if the "Victim" try s to get on with her life out of the public eye, or sells her story to the Sunday rags, in which case he should sue till she is penniless.
Click to expand...

Most children are penniless.
Unless. Oh never mind.


Don't wanna go all Danny here but I doubt he will be sueing her.
 
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