Michael Le Vell cleared of rape

Frank the tank

If I were him I'd now sue the living daylights off the accuser.

Being accused of rape is bad enough, but rape of a child, FFS that is the worst. How do you come to terms with such a thing.

VTech

People dont like that sort of comment on this forum Frank.

Anyway, im glad he didnt do it, im surprised he was taken to court considering the conflicting evidence she gave but worse than that, why give out his name prior to the case ?
Innocent until proven guilty ?
Not in the UK !!!!

CambsNewbie

More weight to the argument that those accused of rape should have the same anonymity as the victims until they are proven guilty. Then let the press go to town on them!

arran77

I have no problem with what Frank is saying, totally agree, he's going o find it very hard to get back to normal life, rightly or wrongly shit sticks :roll:

Totally agree with the above for this very reason, there needs to be anonymity until found guilty.

city_boy

VTech wrote:

why give out his name prior to the case ?
Innocent until proven guilty ?
Not in the UK !!!!

Absolutely.
It seems its ok in the UK to hang people out to dry in the press before they're proven guilty, yet we spend millions of pounds of tax payers' money protecting the identities of the likes of those vile little b@st@rds Thompson and Venables, even when they are still committing crimes against kids!

A rather skewed set of priorities if you ask me.

(Sorry....rant over)

tlw1

Frank the tank wrote:

If I were him I'd now sue the living daylights off the accuser.

Being accused of rape is bad enough, but rape of a child, FFS that is the worst. How do you come to terms with such a thing.

He's thankfully come up smelling of Rosie...........

VTech

matthew h wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

If I were him I'd now sue the living daylights off the accuser.

Being accused of rape is bad enough, but rape of a child, FFS that is the worst. How do you come to terms with such a thing.

He's thankfully come up smelling of Rosie...........

That made me chuckle

tim_wand

Think the Guy. (Micheal Turner/ Le vell) now needs to go on a full P.R offensive. Rather than looking at any counter-suite against his accuser.

I remember when allegations like this came out about Matthew Kelly, they were totally destroying him with the "No Smoke without Fire" stance even though no charges were ever brought.

One appearance on Frank Skinner, were he totally faced him down restored a lot of credibility.

laurentian

I was thinking about this this morning. Regardless of any action that Le Vell may bring against his accuser, what happens to her now in the legal sense?

There has been a great deal of damaging publicity to Le Vell, I guess his pay was suspended pending the outcome of the case, he has doubtless spent thousands on his legal fees, court time has been wasted, the taxpayer has spent thousands on a trial based on what appears to be falsehoods of the accuser. Will she now be tried for attempting to pervert the course of justice or wasting police time or something?

bompington

laurentian wrote:

Will she now be tried for attempting to pervert the course of justice or wasting police time or something?

The trouble with this is that you must then logically prosecute all accusers of people who get acquitted. And you would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she maliciously lied.
Obviously if she has, then it would be a good thing, but how would you prove it? Essentially he was acquitted on a "his word against hers" defence which made it impossible to prove the case, but then it must make it quite hard to prove the converse as well.


Of course, no-one has yet mentioned his undoubted guilt of the crime against humanity that is "conspiring to foist soap operas on the public".

t4tomo

and possession of an offensive moustache.

spen666

laurentian wrote:

I.... Will she now be tried for attempting to pervert the course of justice or wasting police time or something?

Where is the evidence of these offences?

all that we can tell from the verdict is that the Prosecution did not prove beyond all reasonable doubt that LeVell was guilty.

The verdict was not that the accuser had lied.

laurentian

spen666 wrote:

laurentian wrote:

I.... Will she now be tried for attempting to pervert the course of justice or wasting police time or something?

Where is the evidence of these offences?

all that we can tell from the verdict is that the Prosecution did not prove beyond all reasonable doubt that LeVell was guilty.

The verdict was not that the accuser had lied.

Oh, there's no evidence at all as far as I know and fully understand that "absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence" I'm just wondering what happens now.

Is it that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt or that the defence succeeded in proving his innocence? If the latter, what happens to the accuser?

MichaelW

bompington wrote:

The trouble with this is that you must then logically prosecute all accusers of people who get acquitted. And you would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she maliciously lied.

In many trials there are witnesses who lie on oath and are proven to be lying, yet hardly anyone is ever tried for perjury for giving false witness. Lying under oath seems to be std practice amongst professional crimms.
Can anyone think of a criminal (rather than civil) case where someone (other than the accused) has been done for perjury

spen666

laurentian wrote:

....
Is it that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt or that the defence succeeded in proving his innocence? If the latter, what happens to the accuser?

no one is ever proved innocent in an English criminal case.

The options are GUILTY or NOT GUILTY.

Not Guilty simply means the prosecution has not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the offence(s) alleged

VTech

spen666 wrote:

laurentian wrote:

....
Is it that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt or that the defence succeeded in proving his innocence? If the latter, what happens to the accuser?

no one is ever proved innocent in an English criminal case.

The options are GUILTY or NOT GUILTY.

Not Guilty simply means the prosecution has not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the offence(s) alleged

Ahhh, that makes sense then

And you would argue about my earlier comments with you in a different thread about law ?

Graham K

spen666 wrote:

laurentian wrote:

....
Is it that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt or that the defence succeeded in proving his innocence? If the latter, what happens to the accuser?

no one is ever proved innocent in an English criminal case.

The options are GUILTY or NOT GUILTY.

Not Guilty simply means the prosecution has not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the offence(s) alleged

And that is where the CPS has a serious case to answer.

Why was Kev the tash allowed to be named but the victim not? Surely name them both or neither.

Serious serious issues surrounding this case, and I leave you with a question,
Why did the victims mother give evidence in court against the character of Kev the tash but the father, whom was also present could not

Mikey23

And of course his private life has been laid out in public as well... Alcoholic and serial adulterer by his own admission. But innocent of the charges brought against him

Pross

Graham K wrote:

spen666 wrote:

laurentian wrote:

....
Is it that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt or that the defence succeeded in proving his innocence? If the latter, what happens to the accuser?

no one is ever proved innocent in an English criminal case.

The options are GUILTY or NOT GUILTY.

Not Guilty simply means the prosecution has not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the offence(s) alleged

And that is where the CPS has a serious case to answer.

Why was Kev the tash allowed to be named but the victim not? Surely name them both or neither.

Serious serious issues surrounding this case, and I leave you with a question,
Why did the victims mother give evidence in court against the character of Kev the tash but the father, whom was also present could not

Why is the law that protects (alleged) victims ID but not the accused the fault of the CPS? They may be guilty of bringing a case to court with insufficient evidence but even that isn't certain, I haven't heard any of the evidence but it may well be they had something that was reasonably strong but just failed to convince the jury. What is worse, the CPS being scared to bring a case without 100% certainty of winning resulting in criminals not facing trial or presenting everything that is known to the jury and letting them decide (even at the expense of an innocent person being dragged through it all)? I certainly can't answer that.

I suspect there are quite a few of the 'Yew Tree' celebrities who will subsequently go through the whole process and be found not guilty. The worry is whether they get found guilty or not guilty on the basis of their popularity.

VTech

Pross wrote:

Graham K wrote:

spen666 wrote:

laurentian wrote:

....
Is it that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt or that the defence succeeded in proving his innocence? If the latter, what happens to the accuser?

no one is ever proved innocent in an English criminal case.

The options are GUILTY or NOT GUILTY.

Not Guilty simply means the prosecution has not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the offence(s) alleged

And that is where the CPS has a serious case to answer.

Why was Kev the tash allowed to be named but the victim not? Surely name them both or neither.

Serious serious issues surrounding this case, and I leave you with a question,
Why did the victims mother give evidence in court against the character of Kev the tash but the father, whom was also present could not

Why is the law that protects (alleged) victims ID but not the accused the fault of the CPS? They may be guilty of bringing a case to court with insufficient evidence but even that isn't certain, I haven't heard any of the evidence but it may well be they had something that was reasonably strong but just failed to convince the jury. What is worse, the CPS being scared to bring a case without 100% certainty of winning resulting in criminals not facing trial or presenting everything that is known to the jury and letting them decide (even at the expense of an innocent person being dragged through it all)? I certainly can't answer that.

I suspect there are quite a few of the 'Yew Tree' celebrities who will subsequently go through the whole process and be found not guilty. The worry is whether they get found guilty or not guilty on the basis of their popularity.

With all due respect, you dont get more popular than Rolf and he doesnt have public support now !

I believe that the general publice does not need to know until guilt is proven, that seems the fairest method.

Pross

But the jurors are members of the public and with someone like Rolf no matter how hard they try some of their decision making will involve the opinion they have formed over years of seeing him on TV either as a personable and harmless old duffer or as an annoying Aussie twunt who makes stupid noises. I'm convinced being a well liked sportsman / film actor was a bigger part of OJ getting acquitted than a clever lawyer.

ben@31

Pross wrote:

But the jurors are members of the public and with someone like Rolf no matter how hard they try some of their decision making will involve the opinion they have formed over years of seeing him on TV either as a personable and harmless old duffer or as an annoying Aussie twunt who makes stupid noises. I'm convinced being a well liked sportsman / film actor was a bigger part of OJ getting acquitted than a clever lawyer.

That is the problem with trial by jury. They are not legal professionals and you could get anyone. You may have an immature 18 year old youth who can't look after himself be responsible for the future of a man accused of murder. Or you can have a jury of racists for an ethnic minority defendant, the racist jury could have already reached a verdict based on their preconceived racist views before they even see any evidence.

VTech

There is no good way I think.

I was found guilty of driving without insurance 2 years ago and was banned in my absence.
I called the court to let them know I was out of the country and I told them that the car was a loan car from a manufacturer covered by their blanket policy (I also had my own global cover) and yet I am guilty !

It took me 12 months to clear that up and I was entitled to ZERO compensation for my lost time and effort.

spen666

VTech wrote:

There is no good way I think.

I was found guilty of driving without insurance 2 years ago and was banned in my absence.
I called the court to let them know I was out of the country and I told them that the car was a loan car from a manufacturer covered by their blanket policy (I also had my own global cover) and yet I am guilty !

It took me 12 months to clear that up and I was entitled to ZERO compensation for my lost time and effort.

Why should you be entitled to any compensation?

a) You failed to comply with the summons and either attend court or instruct lawyers to represent you.
b) a telephone to the court does not constitute appearing before court and presenting evidence
c) The crown proved its case - they proved that on x date you drove a motor vehicle on the road. It is for you to show you had insurance. If you do not attend court and give evidence, then you are going to be found guilty.

In no insurance cases it is not for the Crown to prove you were covered by insurance.

If you had got confirmation from the manufacturer that you were covered and produced the same to the police, the case would have been dropped before trial

I'm afraid you are a victim of your own incompetence/ laziness/ ignorance/ stupidity


It is up to you to know the law relating to driving if you are driving a motor vehicle. Ignorance of the law is no defence


If you had instructed solicitors from the outset , then you would have been reimbursed costs from central funds when case was dropped

If you choose to ignore the process or not to take part, then you can't really complain about the consequences

VTech

spen666 wrote:

VTech wrote:

There is no good way I think.

I was found guilty of driving without insurance 2 years ago and was banned in my absence.
I called the court to let them know I was out of the country and I told them that the car was a loan car from a manufacturer covered by their blanket policy (I also had my own global cover) and yet I am guilty !

It took me 12 months to clear that up and I was entitled to ZERO compensation for my lost time and effort.

Why should you be entitled to any compensation?

a) You failed to comply with the summons and either attend court or instruct lawyers to represent you.
b) a telephone to the court does not constitute appearing before court and presenting evidence
c) The crown proved its case - they proved that on x date you drove a motor vehicle on the road. It is for you to show you had insurance. If you do not attend court and give evidence, then you are going to be found guilty.

In no insurance cases it is not for the Crown to prove you were covered by insurance.

If you had got confirmation from the manufacturer that you were covered and produced the same to the police, the case would have been dropped before trial

I'm afraid you are a victim of your own incompetence/ laziness/ ignorance/ stupidity


It is up to you to know the law relating to driving if you are driving a motor vehicle. Ignorance of the law is no defence


If you had instructed solicitors from the outset , then you would have been reimbursed costs from central funds when case was dropped

If you choose to ignore the process or not to take part, then you can't really complain about the consequences

I would of expected nothing else from you judging on past posts but here goes.

I gave witness to an incident on the M42 motorway, I was driving home from the dealer who was taking in my own car for service and there was a very severe accident on the way, I reported what I had seen to the police at the local station. They then issued me with a notice to product documents as I was classed as "involved in a road accident"

I took in my details and gave them to the person at the front desk, my policy is whats called a "global" policy, it covers me for ANY car inclusive of GP20+ and the person could not understand why it didnt have the reg of the loan car, I explained and she told me she would inform the officer.

Next thing I know I get a summons.
I am in the USA at the time and call the courts to inform them and they tell me to write in to the court.
I did this and gave the details of the dealer in stratford to confirm my insurance on the loan car and for the business insurers to confirm im covered for ANY car (they already had a copy of the insurance).

Again, a week later im now guilty and fined and am banned from driving for various offences and so the fight starts.

To cut an incredibly long and tedious case short, after a long time I get in front of a CPS guy who simply calls the insurer to confirm I was covered and the case was dropped.


I was not incompetent, lazy, ignorant or stupid, I tried to help the police and was punished for it.
The incompetence was of the officer who didn't understand a global (blanket) policy and before you say they would know about this, I have had similar cases when pulled over for nothing more than wanting to have a look inside whatever car I am driving and asked about insurance.

I didnt use a solicitor as I find most of them to be like you.

spen666

Sorry VTech, but you failed to comply with the rules.

the criminal justice system is not a telephone up and say you'll turn up when you can.

You made a conscious decision not to abide by the rules of the system/ failed to acquaint yourself with the rules.

The prosecution turn up at the trial and can prove you drove a car on the relevant date and lovcation.

In the absence of any evidence from yourself, the court quite rightly convicted you (based on the evidence before the court)

You gave details of the dealer to the court and expect them to do what with it? It is not for the court or the prosecution to provide a defence for you or to go to obtain the evidence. The burden is on you to prove you were insured.


The person at the police station may well have been incompetent or misunderstood the document you produced.

However, you were equally incompetent by failing to defend the summons. You may well have had a full defence to the case, but if you fail to comply with the court process, it is your own fault.

You could have avoided any of these problems if you had complied with the court process and or instructed a solicitor to represent you.

You are the author of your own misfortune

VTech

It was quite difficult to do anything else as at the time I was working in the USA.

btw, on reflection, the above post is quite rude, I was referring to the fact that I am not a fan of the legal side of laws for various reasons but that doesnt mean I should be rude so please accept my apologies for that.

Graham K

Pross wrote:

Graham K wrote:

spen666 wrote:

laurentian wrote:

....
Is it that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt or that the defence succeeded in proving his innocence? If the latter, what happens to the accuser?

no one is ever proved innocent in an English criminal case.

The options are GUILTY or NOT GUILTY.

Not Guilty simply means the prosecution has not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the offence(s) alleged

And that is where the CPS has a serious case to answer.

Why was Kev the tash allowed to be named but the victim not? Surely name them both or neither.

Serious serious issues surrounding this case, and I leave you with a question,
Why did the victims mother give evidence in court against the character of Kev the tash but the father, whom was also present could not

Why is the law that protects (alleged) victims ID but not the accused the fault of the CPS? They may be guilty of bringing a case to court with insufficient evidence but even that isn't certain, I haven't heard any of the evidence but it may well be they had something that was reasonably strong but just failed to convince the jury. What is worse, the CPS being scared to bring a case without 100% certainty of winning resulting in criminals not facing trial or presenting everything that is known to the jury and letting them decide (even at the expense of an innocent person being dragged through it all)? I certainly can't answer that.

The case brought against Kev the tash had more holes than a culinder, it was a shocking accusation that IMO the CPS should not have carried forward as the evidence simply was not there.

His marriage was over before the charges were brought up, but due to him not given anonimity his personal life has been brought up and dragged through the sewers, and he will live the rest of his life a tarnished man whilst the accuser can carry on life knowing that very very few people know who they are.

Mikey23

Or forgotten within minutes... So this guy is some kind of celeb because he's had a bit part in corrie since 1983, is that right? Which makes his life in some way relevant or important? I've never ever ever seen the above mentioned prog and have no intention of doing so in the future. So his sordid little life is of no consequence to me or millions of others like me. Shame he was outed but that's the celebrity system crap we all buy into. Shame the CPS took a case based on perhaps dodgy evidence which surprises me. If it had been you or me god forbid then you wouldn't have seen a line in the paper and the world would have continued to turn...
(Time for my medication)

ballysmate

Mikey23 wrote:

Or forgotten within minutes... So this guy is some kind of celeb because he's had a bit part in corrie since 1983, is that right? Which makes his life in some way relevant or important? I've never ever ever seen the above mentioned prog and have no intention of doing so in the future. So his sordid little life is of no consequence to me or millions of others like me. Shame he was outed but that's the celebrity system crap we all buy into. Shame the CPS took a case based on perhaps dodgy evidence which surprises me. If it had been you or me god forbid then you wouldn't have seen a line in the paper and the world would have continued to turn...
(Time for my medication)

I doubt anyone on here detests the celebrity culture any more than I do, but there is a feeling that the fact that the alleged perpetrator was a well known figure, had a bearing on this case going forward.
BTW, who is this bloke doing all the forbidding?

spen666

VTech wrote:

It was quite difficult to do anything else as at the time I was working in the USA.

Instruct a solicitor perhaps?

btw, on reflection, the above post is quite rude, I was referring to the fact that I am not a fan of the legal side of laws for various reasons but that doesnt mean I should be rude so please accept my apologies for that.

No offence taken,


BTW what is the non legal side of laws?