Michael le Vell (Kevin Webster)

[Paul Lake's Left Knee]

Clarkied.

You cant claim a clarkie just because you made a mistake.

Oh, OK then.

I didn't realise you were in charge of handing out clarkies.

I do apologise.

Glad you have apologised or i wouldnt have slept tonight with worry.

 

[Techno]

I wonder if he'll have more luck than Len Fairclough after all this.

Allegation

On 24 April 1983, a Sunday newspaper reported that Adamson had been arrested for indecently assaulting two eight-year old girls in a public swimming pool in Haslingden where he had assisted as a part-time instructor. One was allegedly assaulted the day before, the other on 16 April. The police complaint alleged that Adamson's hands had strayed while giving the girls swimming lessons.[2]

He was represented by the barrister George Carman QC, who had a prominent career defending celebrities. On 26 July 1983, a Crown Court jury found Adamson not guilty. The following year, after his wife's death and still suffering financial woes and drinking problems, he was allegedly persuaded by freelance Sun reporter Dan Slater to change his story following several bottles of whisky. Adamson was alleged to have told Slater "I am totally guilty of everything the police said"...."But what I hope you will print - there was no sexual intent."[2]

As a result, Lincolnshire Police interviewed Adamson who categorically denied the confession.
Sacking

In February 1983, Adamson was suspended from Coronation Street after selling stories about the show and cast to a tabloid newspaper. Following his arrest for alleged indecent assault in April 1983, Granada Television decided not to support him financially through his legal problems. Although he was cleared of the charge, he was sacked from Coronation Street by producer Bill Podmore in September 1983 for breach of contract when it was discovered Adamson had sold his memoirs for £70,000 after the previous warning, in order to pay the £120,000 legal debts from his trial.[2]

Although his last actual appearance in the series was shown in May 1983 (which had been filmed before his suspension), Len Fairclough was killed off-screen in a motorway crash in December 1983. To demonise the character, it was revealed that he had been returning home from an affair, cheating on wife Rita (Barbara Knox).[2]

Adamson celebrated the character's death by delivering an obituary on TV-am dressed as an undertaker.

 

[tidyman]

He cheated in his English exam apparently..

And you mention this now?

Where the fuck were you last week when the prosecution were crying out for a bit of damning evidence
to swing things in their favour?

 

[mcmanus]

I'm gutted. I thought the rag kunt was guilty.

 

[sergiokun]

Back on the street Kevin goes

 

[Aphex]

He cheated in his English exam apparently..

And you mention this now?

Where the fuck were you last week when the prosecution were crying out for a bit of damning evidence
to swing things in their favour?

I wish I would have bothered now. I had him down as guilty. Hang him anyway, have you seen him getting pissed up in Manchester? It's surreal stuff<br /><br />-- Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:09 pm --<br /><br />

You cant claim a clarkie just because you made a mistake.

Oh, OK then.

I didn't realise you were in charge of handing out clarkies.

I do apologise.

Glad you have apologised or i wouldnt have slept tonight with worry.

You cheeky so and so.

 

[stony]

I once called him a dirty red twat to his face if that makes anyone feel better.

 

[fredmont]

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.

Don't think you are getting it. The prosecution didn't have a case to present.

The CPS obviously thought they did have a case or they wouldn't have taken it to court and wasted thousands of tax payers money.

And that's never been done before !

 

[Eccles Blue]

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.

He could have been going for a cup of tea? I say I am off for a drink when I am going for a cuppa!! ;-)

 

[mammutly]

Shocking damage to his life and reputation which, notwithstanding the verdict, can never be fully repaired.

From what I know of the girl's testimony, it lacked credibility. Having spoken to many victims of abuse, I know there is usually more corroborating detail in genuine accounts - time, context, environment etc. During trauma the mind fixes on small details.

As has been suggested previously, the verdict is not proof of innocence, rather that there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt. There will be many people who still believe that he did it. That's a blatant injustice of the system - the accused gets a a reputational sentence even if they're innocent.