ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
To worry about the Judges attitude in Levelle Verdict.(306 Posts)
I believe I need to state that this man has been found not guilty of all charges etc. I am an abuse victim who is taking a case to court. AIBU as apparently the Judge stated to the Jury prior to deciding that the sic "manner and appearance of the alleged victim and how she appears to you is vital". I don't think that's right.
Le Vell is his mother's maiden name I think. People often choose a family name if they have to change.
If you are an Equity member you cannot have the same name as any other existing member. Fact. It has no bearing whatsoever on someone's character.
and more that someone would actually spout such shit over an actor having to use a different name.
Its quite true. If there is an actor with yours -you change it. Equity law.
How one earth does that make one an abuser?
I had to change mine. I've done nothing dramatic since.
I work with several people who use their middle name not their first name are they all less trustworthy because of it? None of them are actors either.
So when women change their name when they get married does it make them child molesters?
I think in the UK, when actors register with Equity they will only accept actors with a unique name. So, if there was already an actor called Michael Turner he would have no choice but to use a different name.
I have heard actors complaining about this before and having to use their middle name or mother's name for acting purposes.
I do get the point that someone who is an actor and used to performing in public may make a better court witness than someone who is not but I don't think it necessarily means anything. Some actors tend to over act and come across as insincere too.
I think Craig Charles, another Coronation Street actor was found not guilty of rape a few years back. It seems the producers are willing to move past these things.
"Relevance....he is capable of telling untruths, whether that is classed as a 'lie' or not, obviously many actors change their names and can be easily identified with their 'real' names but speaks to me as though he is capable of lying, or at least telling untruths."
This is bonkers
Blimey if we are going to find him guilty on account having a stage name then there is no hope for most actors, is there?
Toysintheattic fuck off with your patronising. I was quoting verbatim what I read the medical expert said as quoted in the Guardian reporting.
A medical examination found no apparent damage to the girl's hymen. But Laws said: "It is important to understand that a substantial proportion of sexually abused children have no abnormal signs. Children can be confused as to what full sexual intercourse really involves."
It was common for a child to misinterpret simulated or attempted intercourse for full penetration. "That is what the Crown suggest has happened in this case," Laws said.
So despite all the posturing on here regarding the hymen in fact in this case even the prosectution accepted that judging from the state of the hymen there had been no full intercourse as did the medical experts.
I wasn't posting misinformed rubbish, in fact I had bothered to research the exact facts relating to this issue in this case before I posted, unlike some people obviously.
So with respect, get your fucking facts right before you lecture me.
I don't think changing you name is an indication or trustworthiness.
Repeated prolific cheating on your spouse, blaming your 'class' for why you go out and get pissed every night, being a committed alcoholic/addict - all these are huge indicators of potential untrustworthiness.
I don't think changing your name to a better stage name is an untruth or has any bearing on his trustworthiness, that's daft. So is saying he's an actor, he's been playing the same part remarkably similar to his own character for a long time, he's hardly a consummate actor, I don't think that has any relevance either otherwise all evidence in court by actors would be invalid on this basis.
Relevance....he is capable of telling untruths, whether that is classed as a 'lie' or not, obviously many actors change their names and can be easily identified with their 'real' names but speaks to me as though he is capable of lying, or at least telling untruths.
I'm not so much bleating on about him as trying to dispel the hymen myth that is still perpetuated, sadly to extremes in some countries.
And credibility? Le Vell is not even his real last name.
How is that relevant?
Arart from anything else, he was charged and appeared in court under his birth name.
Well unfortunately for you toys He has been acquitted of any wrongdoing and in the eyes of our law he is INNOCENT.
It's been covered up thread in detail but a verdict of "not guilty" is never a verdict of or declaration of "innocence".
If you did an act, and are found not guilty in court, the act you committed doesn't become reversed. it doesn't disappear. It just means there is insufficient evidence presented in the court to find you guilty "beyond reasonable doubt".
I imagine this is all too often the case WRT sex crime prosecutions, where physical indisputable evidence can be very hard to come by.
I'm not saying this is the case here, but a not guilty verdict is never a declaration by our courts of innocence.
Well unfortunately for you toys He has been acquitted of any wrongdoing and in the eyes of our law he is INNOCENT.
Wrap that around your head and bleating on and on about him is not going to change that.
seasicksal get your facts straight before you post myths like "her hymen was intact so she could not have had intercourse". Until you have a medical degree and have worked on a child abuse team you have absolutely no basis to say things like this despite what the media may be spouting to you and what the (well-paid) defence attorneys would like the jury to believe. Lay people seem to believe that a hymen is like a covering over the entrance to the vagina that is 'broken' and is therefore proof of intercourse having occurred. It is in fact a ring of tissue that is different sizes in different people so to say it is intact just says that there is some tissue there, no bearing on whether or not that person has had intercourse. IME there are very rarely physical injuries or evidence in cases of child abuse; when there is child abuse teams tend to (unfortunately) be very happy as much more likely to get a conviction. Most of the time evidence is gathered from the victim undergoing interviews conducted by well trained people using dolls, etc.
One thing that I think has been glossed over is that this guy is an ACTOR, it is in fact his JOB to play a role and make people believe what he is telling them. Imagine being up against that as the victim giving evidence. And credibility? Le Vell is not even his real last name.
And we do it quite often thankfully
We can't send someone to jail on the word of one person, whatever they are accused of.
I completely disagree with this. We can, do and should.
How do you know she wasn't a relative?
We don't know who the victim is but her mother believed her.
MLV and the child most likely were never even alone together. Would you leave your six year old alone with a man who wasn't a close relative?
If there was no chance of him ever being alone with the girl the case would not have gone to court.
It isn't about physical appearance as such. It's more about body language and demeanour. Deciding whether or not someone is telling the truth involves looking not just at what they say but at how they're saying it - the way they come across. We all exercise those judgments all the time when we're evaluating what people say to us and juries do it when they hear cases.
One thing to bear in mind is that in England and Wales the jury has to be sure (satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt) to convict. An acquittal doesn't always mean that the jury thinks the prosecution witnesses are lying. It can mean that the jury thinks that they are probably telling the truth but doesn't feel sure enough to feel comfortable about convicting.
OP, The judge's summing up hasn't been transcribed anywhere so you don't know the context of what was said. Try not to take it to heart or apply it to your own case. I'm not surprised you're anxious - taking a case to court is stressful and you should ask for support if you need it. I'm assuming you've been given the number of the officer in your case. Give them a ring and talk your concerns through with them. Good luck.
Lurcio that's far too sober and thoughtful.
Hymen alert : about why what we were taught about the hymen is wrong http://www.rfsu.se/Bildbank/Dokument/Praktikor/praktika-Vaginal_corona2009.pdf?epslanguage=en
Re. the issue of whether the "we believe you" campaign would leave people unfit for jury service. For me, at any rate, it's an issue of what your prior belief set is and how you update it in the light of evidence.
(Bayesian theories of belief point out that everyone starts out with an initial set of prior likelihoods - probabilities - that they adjust in the light of further evidence. For instance, if you were betting on a horse race, and had no evidence other than that there were five horses in the field, you might start out by giving all of them a probability of 20% of winning. Then if someone told you Lightning Flash had won its last 4 races, while Three Legged Nag had fallen at the first in its last 4 races, you might up your assessment of LF's chances to 50% and downgrade TLN's chances to 1%).
So that's what I'd do in a rape case - I'd start from the belief (based on my understanding of Home Office and Police Stats) that only about 5% of rape accusations are maliciously false. I'd also factor in the chance that it was a genuine misunderstanding - she didn't consent, but he genuinely thought she did (so rape from her personal perspective, but not rape in the eyes of the law). Then I'd listen to the evidence.
And in this respect I'd be no different from anyone else - because we all go into situations with a set of prior probabilities (even if we've never thought them through explicitly). So someone who's experienced a relative or friend being falsely accused might quite understandably start with a prior where they believed the rate of false accusations to be higher than 5%.
But regardless of our priors, I trust that we'd both take jury service very seriously - and I'd be prepared to acquit if there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and the person who'd come across cases of false accusation in the past would be prepared to convict if the evidence dispelled all reasonable doubt.
The bottom line is no one comes to jury service in a vacuum - we all have prior beliefs which may be correct, may be erroneous. But the jury system rests on (I think) three principles: (1) the jurors are decent people who really want to get to the most truthful outcome they can; (2) that it's better to live in a society where the occasional (or even quite a few) guilty person walks than one where innocent people are routinely convicted; (3) not guilty can mean "innocent" or can mean "we weren't convinced beyond reasonable doubt", and because on the basis of newspaper reports none of us outside the jury room can know which is the case, you should not be pillorying either the accused ("they got away with murder") or the plaintiff("they should be tried for perjury for making false accusations").
The Sun (yes, I know, but I saw it in Waitrose and was drawn in by the headline) has a lengthy story today about the mother of the alleged victim, who is said to have a major interest in Satanism and the paranormal. You need to treat such stories with caution, for a whole host of reasons I'm sure we can all rattle off, and even if there's a basis of truth The Sun is hardly the best filter to read it through. However, if there is a whiff of recovered memory, satanism, and so on to the story it will set child protection back by decades, just as the damage done by the Satanic Abuse stupidity of the 1980s was starting finally to recede from child protection workers' memory.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.