Advanced search

To worry about the Judges attitude in Levelle Verdict.

(306 Posts)
daiseehope Tue 10-Sep-13 15:24:01

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.hmm hmm

HavantGuard Tue 10-Sep-13 16:12:49

I'm not assuming he's guilty, I'm just not so naive as to assume a verdict of innocence in a court is the same as actual innocence.

comingalongnicely Tue 10-Sep-13 16:13:16

I thought the media cover of this was shocking & tantamount to whipping up a mob. I hope Corro take him back on soon. His life will have been hell for the past god knows how long and, looking at some of the "still guilty" comments on here, will be for the forseeable future.

This is why I don't think names should be publicised until after the guilty verdict....

FingerPicker Tue 10-Sep-13 16:14:02

Lots of people on here still assuming Le Vell is guilty despite the verdict sad

My best friend was falsely accused and it completely ruined his life. He died just after the accuser admitted it was all lies.

SubliminalMassaging Tue 10-Sep-13 16:14:02

I am more concerned that the Jury should not be directed to take demeanour , appearance etc into account. Lots of people come across strangely under pressure.

Yes I am sure they do - but we all look towards the demeanor of a person when we are considering whether or not they are telling the truth. Body language can be a very good indicator of guilt or innocence and I imagine it is unlikely that a person of her tender years would be capable of completely fooling people by adapting her body language so expertly in such a serious and pressurised environment as a court of law.

When there is nothing to go on but his word against hers I don't see what else the jury could do but consider the demeanor of both the defendant and the alleged victim. By 'appearance' I am sure the judge meant body language, not actual appearance. I would hope so anyway - if she went in there looking anything other than virginal then she was very badly advised.

FingerPicker Tue 10-Sep-13 16:14:48

What comingalong said.

FingerPicker Tue 10-Sep-13 16:14:50

What comingalong said.

MrsTerryPratchett Tue 10-Sep-13 16:15:04

We do have 'not proven' in British law, just not in English law.

They have not found him innocent but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury could well have believed the alleged victim but not thought that it was not possible to say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she wasn't lying or having false memories.

Honestly, not talking about this case because I don't want MN to get sued, I think it is entirely possible that most of the people that are found not guilty of rape and sexual assault are guilty. It is just when you set the bar at 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and it is one persons word against another, you won't get convictions in a lot of cases.

cantspel Tue 10-Sep-13 16:17:07

This is were the law is unfair as it protects the identity of the accuser whilst the accused is thrown to the dogs.

Either way no one will forget he has been tried for child rape so even if he is truly 100% innocent there will always be doubt in some peoples minds. His life is destroyed either way.

MarmaladeTwatkins Tue 10-Sep-13 16:17:30

There are no winners here.

Either a young girl has just seen her abuser walk free from court or an innocent man is going to have the mud of accused rapist sticking to him for the rest of his life.

It is not nice at all.

MinesAPintOfTea Tue 10-Sep-13 16:18:02

OK: I'd like to clarify: this is why I haven't gone to the police about something that happened to me. I know "normal people" commit crimes including rape, and that such crimes should be taken to the police and brought before a jury.

But for all crimes we need evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt, and where those aren't there then the accused is found not guilty.

It would be better if we could determine who is telling the truth absolutely and I would like to see him behind bars, but I don't want to live under a system where people end up in jail for years from a single witness.

SmiteYouWithThunderbolts Tue 10-Sep-13 16:18:23

This is a difficult case for me to comment on because I was sexually abused as a child but only told my mother about it as a teenager. Had the matter ended up in court, I very much doubt that a conviction could have been secured because there was zero physical evidence anymore and by that point I had a history of mental illness, so my credibility would have been under question. It wouldn't have made the perpetrator any less guilty but I cannot for the life of me see how a jury would have found him so.

For the sake of the whole "I believe you" campaign, I really need to say that I don't think the girl who accused LeVell was lying. I know that flies in the face of innocent until proven guilty, especially as he has actually been found Not Guilty but... ohhh I don't know. Either way, lives have been ruined by the whole ordeal.

thebody Tue 10-Sep-13 16:18:57

if I was found not guilty by a jury I would expect Taff to be a declaration of innocence to the world.

anything else, unless other evidence comes to light later, would be very very unfair.

she's still very young. I wonder if any other adult will be re interviewed.

Leopoldina Tue 10-Sep-13 16:19:09

Gives ITV a right headache in terms of taking him back on the programme precisely because sh*t sticks like this.

From what was reported (which is a drop in the ocean against what was put to the jury, & let's not forget someone has already been prosecuted for identifying the victim), seems to me to be the correct verdict in this case.

limitedperiodonly Tue 10-Sep-13 16:19:30

Havant yes it was a serious, but sarcastic question. (Should have used sarcastic font.)

becool I didn't realise. Sorry. It's just that I hear that call to prosecute complainants all the time and I always bite.

I make no judgement on him, or what the jury had to decide, btw, because I don't know.

But someone can believe they were raped, and the man can believe it was with consent, and both could be telling the truth.

Usually that's confined to adults, though.

squoosh Tue 10-Sep-13 16:19:42

ITV have no option but to take him back.

intitgrand Tue 10-Sep-13 16:19:48

That poor poor man.He and his loved ones must have been to hell andI do hope he can now rebuild his life and I hope karma serves the acuser what she deserves.

limitedperiodonly Tue 10-Sep-13 16:21:37

ITV don't have to do anything they don't want to.

squoosh Tue 10-Sep-13 16:22:01

'That poor poor man.He and his loved ones must have been to hell andI do hope he can now rebuild his life and I hope karma serves the acuser what she deserves.'

I wish people would stop automatically assuming that the accuser was some lying, scheming vixen.

CiderBomb Tue 10-Sep-13 16:22:08

It makes me sick that people lie about things like this. I was sexually assaulted as a teenager, it's something that I still think about to this day and its made it hard for me to have relationships with men as a result. To think that someone could make that they've been raped or abused makes me so angry me want to explode.

I'd quite to see the vindictive little madam named and shamed for dragging an innocent mans name through the mud.

Leopoldina Tue 10-Sep-13 16:22:23

of course they do squoosh, but look at how many people here still consider him guilty.
With the benefit of years past, I genuinely can't remember whether / what eg Michael Barrymore or John Leslie were charged with / convicted of. Lack of mutual anonymity is very unfair.

HavantGuard Tue 10-Sep-13 16:22:46

So you don't believe any men should be convicted of rape MinesAPint? As in the majority of cases that's one person's word against anothers and consent is what's disputed?

limitedperiodonly Tue 10-Sep-13 16:23:43

I'd quite to see the vindictive little madam named and shamed for dragging an innocent mans name through the mud

That's quite vindictive in itself ciderbomb

Onesleeptillwembley Tue 10-Sep-13 16:23:53

Whoever that may actually be, initgrand.

MarmaladeTwatkins Tue 10-Sep-13 16:23:59

intitgrand, what an attitude you have there. Guilty people walk free all the time. And I am NOT saying that he is guilty, I wasn't sat on the jury, but you cannot presume that the accuser is lying. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think that not guilty actually means innocent.

Bowlersarm Tue 10-Sep-13 16:24:12

squoosh presumably if she wasn't lying and scheming, then he'd be off to prison. So we would be right to assume she was.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now