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.

[worldgonecrazy]

sue, are you a juror? or just a mind reader?

I find the salacious nature of your post extremely distasteful.

[sue1806]

ahh, another one biased against the victim..

salacious ??? did i put smiley faces ? did i put lols ? Or did i put a warning that some might find my words crude and advised to scroll past. This isn't no tv licence or parking fine case.

if he was charged with those offences, then that is what the cps say he did. none of this 'but its kevin webster' crap

I agree with the OP, people are biased towards the alleged victim. I also agree with the mother and what the prosecution say about the courage of this child, who would have had to say far much worse in statements and open court I'm sure.

[EldritchCleavage]

Sigh.

[Youhaventseenme]

NOT GUILTY

[meditrina]

And a unanimous verdict, according to SKY.

[worldgonecrazy]

So the real victim is the accused. I doubt he will work again, will be left damaged, broken and empty.

But who cares, we've had our tittle tattle, of course there's no smoke without fire, justice is weighted against the "victim", yada, yada...

[meditrina]

Why would he not be able to return to Corrie?

[Upsy1981]

As I understand it, Corrie have been very supportive and have left the door open for his return in the case of a not guilty verdict. Quite right too imo.

[comingalongnicely]

They've said they're looking forward to getting him back.

His whole life & personality has been ripped to shreds & exposed for the world to see, that must take a toll on him.

I really think there should be anonymity for all involved until the guilty verdict is reached....

[ChocsAwayInMyGob]

I have mixed feelings on this. If he didn't do it and is an innocent man, then great.

However, people need to remember that victims don't go through these gruelling trials just for kicks. It's so difficult for a victim to go through the intrusive physical examinations, to have their background investigated and discussed and to be discredited in court. I wonder how the poor girl is doing now that the media is crowing about the result and calling her a liar.

My view may be coloured by the fact that as I said above, I know of a trial where the defendant had a Not Guilty verdict despite having past convictions for it, and despite the fact that I knew that he was Guilty. (NB it was not me by the way). I will never read a verdict in the same black and white way again.

[Upsy1981]

I agree coming

[ChocsAwayInMyGob]

Actually I agree too. I think that both defendant and alleged victim should be anonymous until a verdict is reached.

The reasons are twofold. Not only does it protect a man who may be innocent, but it also stops the alleged victim from being identified. i.e if it was the victim's uncle or stepfather, people would put two and two together and be able to identify the alleged victim more easily.

[Upsy1981]

Unfortunately, I think that SOME alleged victims do go through these trials 'for kicks' or attention or whatever in the same way that people with Munchausens syndrome for example will put themselves through intrusive and unnecessary investigations and treatments for various reasons. However, at the opposite end of the scale is the case you referred to. I still think we need to trust our justice system and the jury who heard all the evidence rather than just snippets in the press as, on the whole, I think they do get it right.

[hackmum]

I think the idea that someone would go through the process of having their character ripped to shreds in court for the "kicks" is very unlikely. We do know, by contrast, that thousands of victims of sexual abuse never report it precisely because they know what will happen to them in court, and because they know they will never get justice.

[Ponders]

Certainly the tone of some of what she was reported to have said in her testimony was just plain weird. eg what was with those times she gave? I can't find a report now, but she said it would happen at 2.21am (or some such time) - from when she was 6? she had a digital clock? & remembers now what time it was then?

that, & the teddy bear business, just sounded made-up. if it wasn't made-up, & she was telling the truth, then the verdict is tragic; but I interpreted the media reports (presumably written by people who were in court) as transmitting the tone of the evidence in the words they used.

(& I can't believe anybody thought "Kevin Webster wouldn't do that" - they couldn't - could they??? )

[sue1806]

Well, i return to apologize as i said i would, if my assumption of him getting off with the major charges due to lack of evidence but being found guilty of the lesser ones was wrong. So I apologize.

I would have preferred him to have been cleared because the girl retracted her story, rather than the jury working under the direction of the judge to make a decision based on the 'evidence' presented to them.

Anyway, I wonder if he will get back with his ex wife now he's been cleared .....

[ChocsAwayInMyGob]

Cogito- you are exactly right and have voiced what I was thinking.

A Not Guilty verdict is not the same as being totally cleared and acquitted.

It means that it could not be proved that the defendant was guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. i.e if you were 99% sure that the defendant was guilty but couldn't put it in concrete due to lack of witnesses, or forensic evidence, then you would have to concede a Not Guilty verdict.

Sadly it is very hard to prove such cases because evidence is sometimes taken years, not minutes, after the fact and also because the very nature of the alleged crime is such that the two people involved are alone with no witnesses.

Furthermore, the defence team will try and nail down specific times and dates of events that happened several years earlier, even if its impossible for the alleged victim to remember such specific details such as "what time did the TV programme finish?" or "what time did you eat that day?". this can then be turned round into "so you can't remember exactly what happened etc"

[BabyX]

I really wish I could speak openly about this case. This is the right verdict, I am certain of it. If you knew a few extra facts those of you being so compassionate towards the alleged victim might think a little differently. Lots and lots of evidence in court was not reported. You do not know some very key facts.

Probably best to let this one go. Very, very sad. I feel enormous sympathy for Michael Le Vell.

[ChocsAwayInMyGob]

Let's put to one side for a moment private views on the right or wrong verdict.

What has bothered me from the start is the fact that a genuine victim of sexual abuse or rape may have been following this case with interest and may have been scared off from ever reporting it.

I think rape cases should always be subject to a media news blackout out of respect for those involved. This was done so publicly that half the country has an opinion on it and the facts that were discussed in court should have been kept private.

[MrsCampbellBlack]

You are quite right in that 'not guilty' isn't the same as 'innocent' and that's what he's going to have to live with forever I guess.

The reporting seemed to change during the trial as others have said depending on whether it was a prosecution or defence day. However, like someone else said - as soon as I read the time information the complainant had cited from when she was 6 years old - well I guessed he'd be found not guilty.

I feel very sorry for him having had his life devastated like this and just assume the complainant must be a very troubled individual.

I wondered if this would have ever come to trial if it wasn't for the whole Saville/Yewtree operation.

[comingalongnicely]

Trouble is, there is no "Innocent" verdict, so anyone who enters a British Court as the accused will only ever be "Not Guilty".

By that token, everyone that walks out of those courts only does so "because there wasn't enough evidence" rather than the fact they may be innocent....

I find that sad...

[MrsCampbellBlack]

I do too comingalongnicely.

[Upsy1981]

Me too.

[GooseRocks]

Interesting post BabyX.

I really do hope this is the correct verdict.

On the presumption that it is, poor, poor man. There really isn't anything worse a person could be accused of.