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.

CiderBomb

Have you reported your accuser and have they been convicted? By your own standard you are a vindictive little madam and should be named and shamed if your abuser has not been convicted.

And you do realise you are talking about a child.

Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

When the OJ Simpson trial was on I was convinced of his guilt but I could not have found him guilty because of the falsified evidence, that introduces a grain of doubt.

One of the things (of many) about the LeVell case was when asked about raping a child he said, "Why would I take the risk?", not an answer I would expect if I asked any man I know would they rape a child.

Who is saying that?

I have no idea about a lot of the case. I think some people want him to be guilty- saying he's essentially guilty and the jury are wrong (have seen hints of that on here, but outright said on a few other forums). I personally would like to follow the innocent until proven guilty rule. The man hasn't been proven guilty, he should be treated as innocent and try and move on from this horrible time. The girl in question shouldn't be accused of doing anything either, until proven so at court. It would have been horrible for him and she could well have FAS, they have both gone through a well known and doubtless terrible experience. As a rape victim, I would love to be treated as innocent of accusing my predator of rape. As the victim, I deserve to be treated as innocent- and so should the man.

The whole thing is very sad. I think the girl did think what she alleged was true but it wasn't. Personally I am surprised at his reaction. I thought the whole punching the air and have a pint thing was a bit distasteful. However how he reacts is up to him of course. If I were him I would be in a rage and very upset. I am sure ITV will find a way out of the contract, they're normally done on a short term basis.

So that's most rape cases ruled out then.

Yes, it is. Where there is no evidence to support an allegation - other than the testimony of the accuser - it is impossible to prove an allegation to the standard required by law. I would suggest that without corroborating evidence, it would be tough to prove a he said/she said allegation to the standard required for a 'balance of probabilities' decision!

No. Not guilty equals found not guilty in a court of law. It means the jury wasn't convinced of the defendant's guilt to the required degree of certainty. That's all it means. It doesn't tell you if the person was wholly innocent of any crime, if the accuser was lying, if the jury were unsure either way or if they leant towards a conviction but weren't sure enough. Any of those things could be true or none of them.

sashh - Not guilty is not the same as innocent

It is in the eyes of English Law.

Balance of probabilities is civil law.

FYI OPs. My mum didn't notice and I was 6 and repeatedly raped.

I don't get the 'surely Rolf Harris can't be charged after all these years'

Yes he can. Yes he can be found guilty

daisee
All people in the court will be looking at the way people give evidence but that doesn't mean that nerves and stress will mean that people won't believe you. The people on the jury are people like you and me and they will have enough common sense to know that giving evidence in this sort of case is very stressful.

Without commenting on the MLV case, I sat as a juror on a trial where the rape incident happened some time ago. The only evidence was the testimony of the victim and the accused, with little added by witnesses for either side. The victim provided a very convincing account and I believed her. I did not however feel the prosecution proved the case beyond ALL reasonable doubt. Without this it was impossible to consider a guilty verdict and the likelihood of a prison sentence. It was very distressing; I believed the poor girl was abused and felt so sorry for her and her family. I have no idea of the standard set by the CPS before bringing a prosecution but it is so very difficult for a jury to believe one person's word against the other without any evidence whatsoever. I really have no answers for you OP but just be as honest and open as you can and this will come across to the jury. Hope you have lots of support around you to help you through it. x

Agree Chaz

I have asked mumsnet to remove my message. Apologies for inflammatory post.

I should fucking well hope so. Disgraceful post.

There are a lot of people here who don't seem to understand the law. Nothing good has come out of this case, for everyone involved their lives have been left worse off. It's very tragic.

I want to ask a question about the Mumsnet 'we believe you' campaign. How does someone who subscribes to this act if they are put on jury duty? Do you set it aside for the duration of the trial?

I just wondered how and when he would get the chance to do this. was the girl the dd of a family friend or distant relative. have other posters thought about this or is it just me.

very difficult to know the truth.

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?

Pensandpaperclips - it's a bad idea to speculate on how they are connected, just in case that's where you are going. People have been arrested for names that have come from such speculation in this trial and twitter is awash with rumour.

Thanks ops, Whether he is found guilty or not I am still going for it.

pensandpaperclips- what about stepfathers? Long standing friends of the family?

I know of a case where it happened in the same house as the mother was and she still didn't know.

OP- I really feel for you. Putting the verdict to one side for a moment, what really upsets me about this case is the number of people in your shoes who may now be too terrified to come forward seeing what has happened to the accuser.

I would also like to say to the people who think that the accuser in this case should be prosecuted for wasting police time- shame on you!

Is it not hard enough for an alleged victim to go to court, be examined and discredited and then lose her case through lack of concrete evidence? I'm not saying that was the case here, but where do you draw the line? Prosecuting victims who couldn't prove their cases? It's abhorrent.

I know of a victim who couldn't prove her assailant did it. He even had a previous conviction for child sexual assault but this was not allowed as evidence. Sexual assault is notoriously hard to prove due to its covert nature and lack of witnesses and lack of immediate physical evidence in the aftermath.

To try and prosecute those whose cases failed would wipe out any chance of a victim coming forward.

Oh and pensandpaperclips- do you think that being a close relative stops a child abuser?

Aside from this trial, as I know very little about it.
Where have people plucked the figure of 90% from as the measure of beyond reasonable doubt?

It seems to have been repeated a number of times now and I've never heard it before at law school or the bar.

Alemci it doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out who she is. I think that's part of the reason why this case is very difficult to call, I think a lot of the evidence has been withheld from the public so as not to explicitly identify her.