To worry about the Judges attitude in Levelle Verdict.

[daiseehope]

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.

Bowlersarm. The grey area is that you can't seem to understand that the girl could really believe it happened even if it didn't. That it may really have happened but the jury have not been convinced.

Life's a fucking grey area.

That wasn't somebody else, that was also me.

I believe him.

So did the jury and that's good enough for me, like it was in the Ched Evans case.

Being found innocent doesn't mean you are. It means there was a lack of evidence to convict without reasonable doubt.

If you charge her with wasting police time you are potentially charging a rape victim with reporting the crime against them

Do you not have to have corroboration in English Law? This case wouldn't have got off the starting blocks in Scotland.

He could attack her family as part of his defence a vendetta or a blackmail allegation would probably be hard for the cps to disprove.

There is no way to know that "false memory syndrome" or anything else is behind this because unless you were in the courtroom you can only know a tiny fraction of what was said in evidence.

Thanks, flapjack you saved me looking it up. I felt he probably couldn't be convicted of theft.

fanny lie detector tests have never been applicable in British courts. They are reliable only on TV shows.

Waffly why are you angry with me?

nobody has suggested they "know". "looks very much like" isn't knowledge. As I've repeatedly said, what has actually been reported (which not many appear to have bothered to read) and what did not form any line of questioning was very revealing and that is why I believe (not "know") that this seems like the correct verdict.

Cases like this are why I firmly believe that there ought to be anonymity on both sides until the point of conviction, Le Vell might be not guilty in the eyes of the law but his reputation is in pieces (and his personal issues have been splattered across the media). I find it very difficult to defend the price he has had to pay in the process of (legally) clearing his name.

I'm not, bowlers. Although I do find people who think in such simplistic black and white terms annoying.

Legally people are not 'proven innocent'. They are found 'not guilty' ie the prosecution failed to convince the jury that they had committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

I guess the only time one could claim being 'proved innocent' is if the judge dismissed the case after compelling evidence was provided. EG the accused was on live national tv talking to the queen at the time.

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

You really think that all people who accuse men of rape are lying! No wonder more people don't come forward.

madam is not an acceptable word to use for a potential victim

I don't think that I could say the same for myself if I was in court for something I hadn't done. I'd be discrediting like mad

And you would be advised by your barrister not to do that marmalade. The jury's impression of you might hinge on whether you managed not to do that or not.

Why is no one addressing the point raised by the op? She's going through a really difficult experience and has come here for some sensible ideas.

There are 2 verdicts in English Law: Guilty and Not Guilty.

In Scotland there are 3: and Not Proven.

Bollocks all this 'not guilty' doesn't mean he is innocent. It makes it sound as though you WANT him to be guilty and do not trust the Jury in their decision !!

We'll try him in Court, but if MNers don't like the verdict they will try him again !!!

There are 2 verdicts in English Law: Guilty and Not Guilty.

In Scotland there are 3: and Not Proven.

Bollocks all this 'not guilty' doesn't mean he is innocent. It makes it sound as though you WANT him to be guilty and do not trust the Jury in their decision !!

We'll try him in Court, but if MNers don't like the verdict they will try him again !!!

Why do we have to have an adversarial justice system? Are there not better alternatives than seeking to reduce people to a blubbering mess?

what ideas can be given though colour all cases are different.

"And you would be advised by your barrister not to do that marmalade"

Oh I know. But honestly, I think frustration and anger would take over and I'd start shouting bad things. I'd go dahn for contempt of court, I know I would.

colourmehappytheresasofainhere - because without reading all the instructions given to the jury (and having an understanding of judicial process/limits/responsibilities), it's impossible to comment on the validity of the statement.

anyone who is accused of rape is therefore guilty, according to many mumsnet posters

Yes. There are two verdicts in law. Being found not guilty in court doesn't mean a person didn't commit the crime they were accused of. As I said, if a member of the jury is 90% sure someone is guilty they have to vote not guilty. A not guilty verdict does not automatically mean a false allegation.