I'm finding the coverage of the Michael Le Vell case really biased against the alleged victim

[ChocsAwayInMyGob]

I'm really shocked. This poor girl, who can't currently be more than 13, is not only having her case all over the media, but the headlines seem terribly pro LeVell before the verdict is even being considered.

Despite the paediatric expert saying that there was no evidence EITHER WAY two years after the last alleged attack ( i.e it neither confirmed NOR negated abuse), the Sun and other gutter press are headlining that she never had sex at all.

Sexual abuse cases are notoriously hard to prove due to the quintessentially secretive nature of the act. This coverage will surely discourage victims to come forward?

IMO, people are mistaking LeVell for the affable character he plays and demonising the victim, who is still only a 13 year old girl.

[EldritchCleavage]

But I wondered too about access. Six year olds are not normally left quite alone with males who are not relatives

Don't go there-last thing we all want to do is identify her or start speculation about that, surely?

[ChocsAwayInMyGob]

Who's to say they are safe with relatives? And it's not just men who are paedophiles.

The fact is children are rarely 100% safe, a parent can only do their best and use their best judgement and common sense at the time.

Despite vast media coverage of sexual assault, we also need to remember that the majority of children ARE safe and the majority of adults are NOT paedophiles.

I heard from a Detective who specialised in sexual assault and rape cases that the defendants in this category almost NEVER plead guilty. They deny it til they're blue in the face, even when there is clear proof.

[NotInTheMood]

I know who it is too I really hope they come to the right verdict

[Barbarashop]

I think the whole thing should have had a news blackout - you either have an innocent man whose life has been ruined or a victim whose identity has been extremely thinly veiled.

[ChocsAwayInMyGob]

I agree actually Barbara. Both defendant and victim should be protected until the verdict.

[ChocsAwayInMyGob]

sorry alleged victim, just to be correct.

[scaevola]

At least two arrests already for posting online speculation about protected identities.

[bamboostalks]

Totally destroyed lives here.....whatever the outcome. Just awful reporting, I thought the Helen Flanagan interview was very inappropriate.

[hackmum]

EldritchCleavage: "How else do you cross-examine though? He says she's lying. She says he's lying. How does a court, in an adversarial system of law, challenge the evidence and arrive at a decision about what happened?"

One of the problems in these kinds of trials is that the defence can say anything at all about the victim to blacken her name - that she's promiscuous, she's a liar, she has a history of making things up. But the prosecution can't say anything to blacken the name of the defendant, and they certainly can't mention previous criminal convictions. It's completely unbalanced. I'm still shocked that in the Joanna Yates murder trial, the prosecution weren't allowed to mention the fact that the defendant enjoyed watching videos of women being strangled, as that might "prejudice" the case.

[worldgonecrazy]

I agree with barbarashop - there should definitely also have been less reporting, because that would be the decent thing to do.

Instead, whichever way the verdict goes, two lives have been ruined. Him, because even if he is not guilty of the alleged crimes, he will always have the horror, shame and ego-destroying memories of this time. (in the true sense of the word "ego" - knowing men who have been through similar, though less publicly, they were left empty shells of who they used to be)

The alleged victim, because she is either a victim of abuse, or will be known forever as a woman who tried to destroy a man.

[ChocsAwayInMyGob]

hackmum- I totally agree. I know of a case where the defendant had a previous conviction for sexual abuse of a child but they weren't allowed to mention it. Meanwhile, his 13 year old victim was questioned about boyfriends, sex and whether she watched porn. He was found not guilty. She was left to put her life back together.

[hackmum]

That's heartbreaking, Chocs.

[ChocsAwayInMyGob]

It really was, hackmum. I reckon the result might have been very different if the Jury had been allowed to know his track record.

[jmdad]

I agree, and clearly a great deal of the evidence, such as motive for example, has been supressed from publication in papers and TV due to the fact that it would could identify the alleged victim.

[ZeroTolerance]

Virtually no evidence has been reported so I don't see how there can be bias one way or the other.

[EldritchCleavage]

Really distasteful level of detail in that post, sue.

[sue1806]

Distasteful to who EldritchCleavage? I did give a warning for my choice of words at the beginning..... and I am pretty damn sure it was tame compared to the actual alleged victims detailed statements that were read out in court but subject to a media block.. etc.

Apologies if I caused offense tho....

[boschy]

The jury is out, as far as I am aware.

[EldritchCleavage]

Distasteful to me, for starters. Really weird post in fact.

[BabyX]

Pindora, on what are you basing her shredded reputation? There's been hardly any reporting of this case. There's hardly anything they can print!! I would argue Le Vell is the one with the shredded reputation, whatever the outcome. He hasn't been given anonymity, has he? We all now know he is an alcoholic - in fact, his drinking seems to be the only thing the papers have been able to report freely.

She has been treated with absolute protection and fairness by the legal system. The fact that the defence has offered reasons why they don't believe her is how trials work. I'm not sure what else you expect.

[EldritchCleavage]

Odder and odder.

[sue1806]

EldritchCleavage , you are on a thread about a child abuse court case. If it offends you, please go back to the birthday ideas, nappy cakes and school run threads!