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.

[EnjoyEverySandwich]

That's more like it. This case should never have come to court.

[confuddledDOTcom]

I don't think I've had so many deleted posts before!

I'm not sure even why lol

[EnjoyEverySandwich]

That's my first! I only said that I thought that what I thought you were hinting at was wrong ....

[mewkins]

This may have already been said but I thought that this was a really interesting case to read about. Having worked in related fields, what you have to remember is that those reporting know a lot more about the case 'off the record' than they are allowed to report. Eg. They would probably have been briefed by police/cps and all media would have come to an agreement to ensure there couldn't be jigsaw identification of the victim. Because regardless of outcome, they couldn't be identified due to current law. However, the iD of the victim was I guess pertinent to the case

Therefore we are left with really quite confusing reports with lots of gaps and not the full version of events.