Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell found not guilty

[Terpe]

Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell has been cleared of raping a child.

Source:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ester-24032449

[johncar54]

I think that many posters probably thought there would be a conviction in this case.

As I said in posts about the two women arrested in Peru with drugs. Arrest does not mean guilty.

[gWaPito]

I've no recollection the above being found with a trunk full of underage girls .

[SimonH]

So he wasn't working on a 13 year old escort in that garage of his.

[hawk]

even now he,s found not guilty the ss will hang this over him wenever he comes in contact with children again as far as ss are concered he,s done it regared less what the jury said the way all those that dont know ss means social services but the way they act towards famileys there more like hitlers ss i dont like them at all

[gWaPito]

So he wasn't working on a 13 year old escort in that garage of his.

[bigmarco]

His trial is based on the evidence put before the jury and as there was no forensic evidence it became really a case of his word versus the Girl and The Jury decided in his favour. Personally I thought it was very hard to get a guilty on the basis of what I've read of the case.
However that said there's a lot that hasn't been printed and in particular the reasons why his wife left him last year.

[stevewool]

having not read anything about this, i cannot comment

[mickcant]

With him having been accused and found not guilty by a jury, what happens to or should happen should his accuser ?
Mick.

[les_taxi]

With him having been accused and found not guilty by a jury, what happens to or should happen should his accuser ?
Mick.

Fair point Mick
I think he should be allowed to get on with his life now but no-doubt press will hound him.
He was found not guilty so that should be end of it.

[grahamw48]

I think Len Fairclough (RIP) started the ball rolling many years ago when he was accused of kiddy fiddling in a public swimming baths.

Anyone remember the case ?

There does seem to be a lot of this celebrity pedo type stuff about now.

Everybody deserves a fair trial, but I disagree with either party being named in such cases, as whatever the outcome, there is bound to be a media feeding frenzy and lives ruined.

As far as I'm concerned, our media are pure muck-raking scum.

[marksroomspain]

With him having been accused and found not guilty by a jury, what happens to or should happen should his accuser ?
Mick.

Its funny Mick how the law works in this country I totally agree with Graham that no parties should be named in this and when the suspected perpetrator is found guilty then by all means make it public.

Bit sensitive regarding the alleged victim but by all accounts their anonymity should be paramount in this but if allegations were made maliciously then by all means name and shame them also but as in the cases of children then obviously we must protect them no matter what.

[hawk]

as i said this doesent end with the trial he will be lucky to see his kids without ss been there if i said what i think about uk justice and ss i would be banned so

[Dedworth]

having not read anything about this, i cannot comment

Agree never heard of this fella up till now - all I know is Coronation St is a puerile soap opera I've kept clear of all my life

[johncar54]

Mick, With him having been accused and found not guilty by a jury, what happens to or should happen should his accuser ?

A jury finding does not prove that a person is innocent, but that there was insufficient evidence to prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the accused was guilty. As such, in law, they are presumed to be innocent.

That does not necessarily mean that the accused is innocent, which was shown very clearly in the case of O J Simpson, who was acquitted by the ‘only twelve people in the USA who thought he was not guilty’. He was subsequently found to be responsible for their ‘wrongful deaths’ and damages were awarded in the civil court.

The same situation exists when a person is acquitted on appeal, i.e. that the conviction was unsafe. That quite often happens when information comes to light after the conviction, which if known at the time might have influenced the jury to acquit.

The ‘complainant’ is not necessarily lying when a person is found not found, guilty.

[mickcant]

Mick, With him having been accused and found not guilty by a jury, what happens to or should happen should his accuser ?

A jury finding does not prove that a person is innocent, but that there was insufficient evidence to prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the accused was guilty. As such, in law, they are presumed to be innocent.

That does not necessarily mean that the accused is innocent, which was shown very clearly in the case of O J Simpson, who was acquitted by the ‘only twelve people in the USA who thought he was not guilty’. He was subsequently found to be responsible for their ‘wrongful deaths’ and damages were awarded in the civil court.

The same situation exists when a person is acquitted on appeal, i.e. that the conviction was unsafe. That quite often happens when information comes to light after the conviction, which if known at the time might have influenced the jury to acquit.

The ‘complainant’ is not necessarily lying when a person is found not found, guilty.

It sounds a nightmare when it is happening to anyone, but for the people involed beyond belief

I do think that Someone who has brought what seem to be false accusations should be named if the person they accuse is found not guilty if only to stop people thinking they can accuse and remain nameless?
Mick.

[joebloggs]

Mick, With him having been accused and found not guilty by a jury, what happens to or should happen should his accuser ?

A jury finding does not prove that a person is innocent, but that there was insufficient evidence to prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the accused was guilty. As such, in law, they are presumed to be innocent.

That does not necessarily mean that the accused is innocent, which was shown very clearly in the case of O J Simpson, who was acquitted by the ‘only twelve people in the USA who thought he was not guilty’. He was subsequently found to be responsible for their ‘wrongful deaths’ and damages were awarded in the civil court.

The same situation exists when a person is acquitted on appeal, i.e. that the conviction was unsafe. That quite often happens when information comes to light after the conviction, which if known at the time might have influenced the jury to acquit.

The ‘complainant’ is not necessarily lying when a person is found not found, guilty.

without any phsyical evidence how can a jury find him gulity ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ then?

[bigmarco]

without any phsyical evidence how can a jury find him gulity ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ then?

Spot on Joe. It was one persons word against another there was no forensic evidence and there was no evidence from a computer that would suggest he had any interest in under age sex. It had to be a not guilty.
I understand that the North West CPS initially decided against prosecuting this case but were overruled once the mother complained and the girl suddenly remembered further instances of serious assault.

[johncar54]

Joe. without any phsyical evidence how can a jury find him gulity ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ then?

(At the risk of being abused for being a former Police Officer).

Like everyone else here I do not know what evidence was available in that case. However, the CPS (of whom I have little experience, as I retired just after they were 'invented' and of whom I even less respect) decided, I am sure on advice from a QC, that there was enough evidence upon which a jury could convict and it was for that reason they prosecuted.

That's the ‘official answer'. However I have a gut feeling that they will probably prosecute in similar cases where they have practically no evidence so show they are not biased ! They do the same when a police officer is accused. “Give it a run” as they say. The officer who pushed the paper seller, who then died of a heart attack (natural causes) was a case in point. He was acquitted and probably would not have been prosecuted if he had been anybody but a police officer.

In the case in which the broadcaster pleaded guilty. I suspect there might have been evidence of similar acts using the same MO, by girls who were unconnected with each other. A jury could in such a case might decide that a number of girls would be unable to tell the same story if it wasn’t true. That might mean 'no reasonable doubt'. Just an opinion, based on experience not facts.

[joebloggs]

(At the risk of being abused for being a former Police Officer).

.

i might (wrongly) not agree with your opinion based on years of experience John, but i hope i never abuse anyone on here

thanks again for your valuable opinion

[bigmarco]

The officer who pushed the paper seller, who then died of a heart attack (natural causes) was a case in point. He was acquitted and probably would not have been prosecuted if he had been anybody but a police officer.

I'll assume you're talking about Ian Tomlinson who an inquest ruled was unlawfully killed by PC Simon Harwood. The coward who attacked a man walking away from police lines with his back to PC Harwood. The man who disgraced coroner Dr Freddy Patel said died of Natural Causes but 2 subsequent post mortems stated he died from internal bleeding caused by a blow.
Although found not guilty of manslaughter by a jury his own employers considered him guilty enough to sack him and offer an unreserved apology and a substantial out of court settlement to the family of Ian Tomlinson.
I've attached a link so you can see the video of the cowardly attack and the fact that no police officer offered any help to him when he was on the floor.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/a...20-death-video

IMO PC Harwood was a lucky man.

[johncar54]

Bigmarco, sorry your prejudice is showing. I said “He was acquitted and probably would not have been prosecuted if he had been anybody but a police officer”. That is fact.

My post was in answer to Joe, who asked why ‘Kevin’ was prosecuted.

Joe, I might (wrongly) not agree with your opinion based on years of experience John, but i hope i never abuse anyone on here

In the post I explained what happens and almost certainly the reason why the prosecution was brought. I cannot see why you would disagree. Especially as you ‘seem’ to saying he should not have been prosecuted Which is what I am saying too. We agree I think.


PS Of course the jury finding does not prevent the complainant taking action for damages in the civil court, where the degree of proof is on balance of probability, if her 'legal team' believe there is reliable evidence, albeit not sufficient to convince a jury 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. (as in O.J. Simpson case).

[Dedworth]

A mate told me that soon after the Saville scandal broke the CPS website was urging people to report celebrity "sex offenders" from years back and even had a web form to make the task easier

[johncar54]

Mick "With him having been accused and found not guilty by a jury, what happens to or should happen should his accuser ? "

PS. Of course the jury finding does not prevent the complainant taking action for damages in the civil court (where the degree of proof is on balance of probability) if her 'legal team' believe there is reliable evidence, albeit not sufficient to convince a jury 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. (as in O.J. Simpson case).