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]

You have to balance rules for a fair trial with looking after victims. I don't think you can have completely different rules and procedures for trials of sexual offences, as opposed to other crimes, either.

People saying we should have anonymity for the accused and no reporting: that amounts to secret trials, which is constitutionally a very risky road to go down. Witnesses and other victims wouldn't come forward, there would be no scrutiny of whether trials were fair and sentences were fair.

The real problems are still cultural, you can't blame the legal system completely for how victims are regarded and all the failures to convict, including the way newspapers choose to report this stuff. I think they'd be even worse after every not guilty verdict in a secret trial and we wouldn't have the same idea of how the evidence unfolded and whether the coverage was fair or not.

[EnjoyEverySandwich]

Accusations of rape and other sexual offences are different from other crimes though. There is usually no doubt that a murder, say, or a robbery has occurred, and there will be physical evidence. But people can and do make false accusations of sexual offences and there may be no evidence, especially if the alleged offences are not recent. I don't agree that such cases shouldn't be reported, but I do think that the accused should not be publicly named unless and until found guilty.

[Clawdy]

Hate the way he came out of court smirking and laughing and brandishing a pint of beer. That looked awful.

[EnjoyEverySandwich]

"Smirking" - such a loaded word. Let the poor guy enjoy the moment a huge weight was lifted from his shoulders. He's entitled to feel happy for the first time in two years. The baggage surrounding this will continue to cause him pain.

[Clawdy]

All that gloating and rejoicing looked really inappropriate to me.

[EnjoyEverySandwich]

Not if you consider the likelihood that someone has deliberately and maliciously tried to destroy his life.

[Havea0]

Thats th trouble isnt it. A man or woman can be tried for rape, and some people will still think they are guilty. And they can be as innocent as you or I.

[lemonmuffin]

Interesting comment here:

'In 2010, an official enquiry report led by Baroness Stern - a prison reform campaigner - ordered Harriet Harman to stop misleading the public about rape statistics. For years she’d been pumping misinformation that only six per cent of rapists are brought to justice, when the reality is very different. It is much higher'

[cumfy]

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.

Well, the CPS could consider bringing perjury charges.

Personally, in cases like this I think jurors should be able to consider charges both ways in one trial.
But I'm aware it doesn't work like that legally.

[ThisIsntOver]

In fact, I'm sure when he's alone, he feels utterly bereft at how this situation ever got this far. I'm sure he will question his actions in recent times which may be connected to it. And he will know with absolute certainty that one part of his personal life is destroyed forever.

Drinking with his friends may be all he has left.

[Clawdy]

Surely the destruction of that part of his life would leave him unable to show anything but immense sadness even with the relief? Not laughing and boozing....

[LillianGish]

I can't believe there are people on here saying not guilty is not the same as innocent. He has been cleared by a jury who were in full possession of all the facts - unlike anyone else who wasn't in court who had to rely on what was allowed to be reported. Reporting restrictions exist to protect the identity of the so-called victim - it means newspapers can't report the full facts (which might persuade you he is innocent).

[Havea0]

happyhev. Someone has accused your partner of commiting rape. Made up all sorts. Oh well.

[StitchingMoss]

Happy, so every man accused of rape is guilty?

Why bother with a trial then?

[Viviennemary]

There was no evidence against him. Apart from the testimony of the witness. That was what has been widely reported.

[JuliaScurr]

www.bpp.com/carbon-content-1.0-SNAPSHOT/resources/ECMDocument?contentName=Rape_myths_Dec_2012

this might be useful on juries on rape trials

[Havea0]

Interesting. Havent got time to read that all in one sitting. Will read some more later.

[zatyaballerina]

I think it's wrong that all the evidence shouldn't be open to the public, there was a lot of information that convinced the jury of his innocence that the public doesn't know, the same people who think that's' right are the same ones saying he's likely guilty, females don't lie etc...

He has the right to prove his innocence, not just to be found 'not guilty', now the trial is over, he should be entitled to release as many facts as necessary to clear his name. Mud sticks unfortunately, it's wrong not to let the falsely accused wash it off.

[Lazyjaney]

What VivienMary said. I'm one of those who was surprised it ever went to court.

[Leopoldina]

A gang rape trial in which 9 men have each spent 6 months in prison awaiting trial has just been withdrawn by the prosecution - the prosecution barristers uncovered evidence by simply googling which showed that no gang rape had taken place. 6 months in jail for that. their lives will have been ruined.