Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 8 9 10 11 12 13

Original poster

To worry about the Judges attitude in Levelle Verdict.

305 replies

daiseehope · 10/09/2013 15:24

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.

OP posts:

friday16 · 10/09/2013 18:43

"He even had a previous conviction for child sexual assault but this was not allowed as evidence."

And properly so. The police spent the 1970s and 1980s banging up wrong'uns, mostly on the rather circular argument that they had previously been convicted on equal flimsy evidence. They arrested people with form, extracted verbal confessions in unrecorded interviews, obtained statements that were essentially confessions, and juries (in a less cynical age) tended to believe the police. There's a reason why most miscarriage cases of late have been historic in the sense of being prior to PACE.

By the way, at risk of lighting a firework and tossing it into a pile of petrol-drenched rags, while the MN legal eagles are muttering that not even an acquittal is proof that they didn't do it, let me just say "Sally Clarke: Discuss". Not only was she not acquitted, she was actually convicted, on wholly spurious evidence: anyone with an ounce of statistical training would know that the evidence against her was bogus. The conviction was upheld at appeal, too, and she was only cleared on second appeal. Guilty, presumably?

PlentyOfPubeGardens · 10/09/2013 18:43

daisee

I believe you x

SubliminalMassaging · 10/09/2013 18:48

SeaSickSal I have absoutely no idea who she is, or how he is connected to him at all. To be fair I have read very little about it, but why do you say 'it doesn't take a brain surgeon...etc' ?

Without saying anything that will directly identify her can someone please give me a clue as to what the connection is?

I would be inclined to agree that unless you are a teacher a relative or a carer, it would be pretty difficult to arrange to be left alone with such a young child, so many times without arousing suspicion.

Misspixietrix · 10/09/2013 18:52

Coming I agree.

Misspixietrix · 10/09/2013 18:54

Good luck for your upcoming Case OP

OhTheDrama · 10/09/2013 19:00

I'm finding this thread and some of the views really distressing. I have a family member who was abused by her father. The age that she was at the time of the allegations and the detail in her statement left me in no doubt that she was a victim of this vile excuse of a man. Medical evidence was inconclusive and the judge at trial directed the jury to find him not guilty whilst in the next breath admitting that he believed the childs evidence! WTAF!

That man went round telling everyone who would listen that he was innocent as a judge and jury had said so. Seven years later he was found guilty of sexually assaulting his girlfriends two daughters, crimes that would have been very probably prevented had he been convicted first time around. God I'm shaking with anger typing this! Not guilty does definitely not mean innocent in my eyes! Why would she make all those sorrid details up?

AgentProvocateur · 10/09/2013 19:02

Subliminal, it would be very risky for anyone to give you a clue. People have been arrested for leaking that information on twitter.

FlapJackFlossie · 10/09/2013 19:02

So, according to you OhTheDrama he is probably still guilty??

Original poster

daiseehope · 10/09/2013 19:04

Thank you misspixie and plenty, that means a lot.

OP posts:

OhTheDrama · 10/09/2013 19:06

FlapJack I really don't know, I would truly hope not seeing as he's been found not guilty and will most likely be back on TV in the coming months .

SubliminalMassaging · 10/09/2013 19:07

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

TidyDancer · 10/09/2013 19:15

I figured it out from a newspaper article which said enough for it to be obvious as to the connection between MVL and the accuser. And as Agent says, there are some scumbags who have leaked rumours on twitter.

Like I said, I think there's more than one victim in this and absolutely no winners.

ExcuseTypos · 10/09/2013 19:16

I've always thought you don't need to think somone is 100% guilty. I assume that as long as your doubts are "reasonable" then it's ok to find them guilty. Ie a few small doubts in your mind, but on the whole feel the case has been proved.

Am I totally wrong here?

comingalongnicely · 10/09/2013 19:16

So we're all agreed then, anyone who enters the British Justice System as an "Accused" is not Innocent, ever - they're only Not Guilty.

Fair enough, now apply that to every single case that goes through court.

I find it worrying that the "baying mob" (that's most of you by the way) - feel that the fact that the CPS decide to bring a case against someone means "they must have done it, there just wasn't enough evidence to put it beyond reasonable doubt".

He's Not Guilty - it's actually a pleasant surprise to find that an allegation of rape/abuse doesn't automatically mean jail for a man, it might give a bit of hope to those that have been accused by nasty, vindictive people for no good reason - it does happen, and more than you'd like to think.

SaucyJack · 10/09/2013 19:19

OP, I don't really think this was an appropriate case for you to reference in order for you to discuss your own situation.

Nothing r eleased in the media suggests that this was anything other than a false accusation. Obviously this will be reflected in the judge's speech and the verdict.

Good luck with your own trial.

alemci · 10/09/2013 19:20

seasick sal I don't know and I am not a brain surgeon but I must be missing something. I must lead a sheltered life.

OhTheDrama · 10/09/2013 19:20

Tidy Yes I think I figured out what the connection may be from the Daily Fail this afternoon.

BeCool · 10/09/2013 19:21

Excuse - in the criminal system you must believe the case against the accused has been proved "beyond reasonable doubt".

Bowlersarm · 10/09/2013 19:22

we know who she is?

TheLightPassenger · 10/09/2013 19:30

OP, hope you are OK, and not too troubled by the outcome of this particular trial. Best wishes.

ifyourehoppyandyouknowit · 10/09/2013 19:30

So how do you design a system that protects the potential victim, while also protecting potentially wrongly accused people? How can we protect victims of rape and offer them justice, without relying on 'he said, she said'? when there is no physical evidence?

Where is the balance?

duchessandscruffy · 10/09/2013 19:31

I think I figured out who the victim was today and now the whole thing, including the not guilty verdict, makes a lot more sense. I don't think this was a 'regular' rape case and it is very sad for everyone involved.

sarahtigh · 10/09/2013 19:35

in criminal cases it must be "beyond reasonable doubt" in a civil case it is merely on the balance of probabilities so if you think about 51% he did it he would be guilty in civil case but not guilty in criminal case

rape is a criminal offence so it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he offended so if you are only 50-60-70% sure you would have to find not guilty

a not guilty verdict means counted as innocent under laws of double jeopardy can not be re-tried for same offence normally ( occasionally this can be revoked with substantial new evidence etc)

so while he may pr may not be innocent morally in legal terms he is innocent and can not be referred to as the alleged rapist etc anymore

only in a very few cases would a witnesses be charged with perjury wasting police time etc because again it would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that they made it up with malicious intent to harm or pervert the cause of justice not just that they may have made it up

as someone upthread said about her own experience on rape trial she thought victim was telling the truth but it could not be proved so she found not guilty even though on balance of probabilities she thought the accused was probably guilty

serious crimes with serious consequences for the accused have to be tried fairly and proved beyond doubt as if not that would not be justice for the accused

asmallandnoisymonkey · 10/09/2013 19:36

People saying that the alleged victim should be prosecuted for "falsely accusing" someone of rape need to take a step back and think before they type.

He was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, after a trial in which evidence was presented.

That the evidence was not enough to convince a jury of his guilt does not make him innocent, it makes him not guilty in the eyes of the law. It doesn't mean he didn't do it - it means that in the jury's opinion there were reasonable doubts.

To start saying that people who make an allegation that is supported by the CPS should start being prosecuted and charged after a not guilty verdict is returned is an incredibly foolish thing.

People that are found, after evidence has been presented to support the opinion that they are flinging false allegations should of course be subjected to the full force of the law, but to prosecute someone for alleging a crime is quite frankly, idiotic.

AmberLeaf · 10/09/2013 19:40

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

YANBU and I understand why this worries you.

Good luck with your upcoming case x

Flip

1 2 ··· 8 9 10 11 12 13

Swipe left for the next trending thread