[Closed] Michael Le Vell's accuser

What purpose would be served by naming her.

Yes, she should. Whether or defendants in such cases should be named prior to conviction is another matter altogether.

Surprised the CPS took this one forward. Couldn't see any realistic prospect of conviction based on the evidence presented to court.

Bit difficult to say without knowing the facts. Has he been found innocent of the crime or could they not prove he was guilty?

His life and career are in tatters. if she had no real grounds for the case then she should be named and shamed in my humble opinion!

...no need to name her....

....should he have even been named. Innocent but tainted by the case for ever?

who would benefit by knowing her name? we could have a tabloid witch hunt if you like but I for one have no interest, either way she is likely to be a pretty damaged and vulnerable person

His life and career are in tatters

But the accuser should remain anonymous. If further evidence appears and leads to a conviction, she should retain the right to anonymity, given the alleged crime.

What purpose would be served by naming her.

Neither party should be named unless there is guilt, or unless either party chooses to be named.

Simple, really.

[i]To discourage others from making up lies like this?[/i]

We don't know that they're lies.

Only that a jury wasn't convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he did what she alleged.

[edit] I would agree CF but the number of times that further victims come forward when sex criminals in particular are named and charged makes me wonder if there is a wider public good served in naming them? Often convictions only occur because of these other victims finding out they weren't the only ones.

It's a hugely complex area though.

so, when does the mini series of this start, will he play the lead and will he write his own biography or use a ghost writer?

will Max clifford be his publicisor.....oh, wait 😕

she was under 14 when she made the allegations I dont see how naming her now will help anyone

The trouble is, it may not be lies, even though the evidence was clearly insufficient to convict him in the eyes of the law. There is a small risk that your witch-hunt will be persecuting a victim of a child sex attack.

As I said, there is a strong case IMV for anonymity for both parties.

I'm just delighted he's been found not guilty. From the start it never added up.....there was never an explanation of when or how he was alone with this girl from the age of six onwards. Now you look at the summing up of the case, the Prosection were asking the Jury to believe this girl because she was well brought up and polite and therefore believable.

This despite the fact that not a shred of credible evidence had been produced and her story had varied depending on who she spoke to!

Just outrageous that the CPS can drag a person through such a life changing hideous experience on such a flimsy story!

I know of someone who lost everything on the say-so of an 8yr old who, a year later, casually admitted they had made it all up. 😐

Stringing up the child up isnt the answer for sure. You have to look to the system thats let it get that far...

From the start it never added up.....there was never an explanation of when or how he was alone with this girl from the age of six onwards.

he admitted in court to accidently falling asleep in her bed when drunk though?

[i]he admitted in court to accidently falling asleep in her bed when drunk though?[/i]

True, which was a bit odd for sure....and you wonder if it was all based on that memory, perhaps helped by the Mother sensing a financial opportunity?

His life and career are in tatters

but if he's innocent, they shouldn't be.
But the accuser should remain anonymous. If further evidence appears and leads to a conviction, she should retain the right to anonymity, given the alleged crime.

The sad thing for him is that shit sticks. Just like with Jim Davidson, they've both been found innocent or the CPS have not proceeded with the prosecution but both people will always be 'the guys who were arrested for kiddie fiddling'

Reading some of the responses here that are pretty much along the lines of he's been found innocent but still might be guilty, it seems that some people still think that where there's smoke, there's fire.

I think that in cases of sex crimes, and especially in the case of sex crimes against children the CPS seem to feel that they must put the allegations before a court, even if given the same evidence in the case of another sort of crime they wouldn't see the case as viable. That may well come down to the nature of the evidence in these cases which can often be of the "he said/she said" nature due to a lack of independent witnesses and partly due to the seriousness that society rightly ascribes to sex crimes.

The consequences of publicly even just _alleging_ that sort of crime can be huge and life-long, so I can see a lot of fairness in anonymity for both alleged victim and alleged perpetrator, with the identity of the perpetrator only being released on conviction, or even after conviction and appeal.

[i]pretty much along the lines of he's been found innocent but still might be guilty[/i]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear;

It's not been proven that the accuser is guilty of lying and for that reason naming them would not be reasonable.

Question is what does it do the credibility of the other cases? Guilty or not this could cause them to fall apart.

We don't know that they're lies.

Only that a jury wasn't convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he did what she alleged.

What the judge said in his summing up indicated to me that he didn't believe the girl either. In fact, when I read the judge's summing up I even told my partner that Le Vell would be found not-guilty.

Doesn't always work that way unfortunately (Sion Jenkins?).

I know of someone who lost everything on the say-so of an 8yr old who, a year later, casually admitted they had made it all up.

I know of a teacher who was marched off school premises after a maladjusted female pupil (13-16) accused him of touching her inappropriately. It eventually transpired she'd lied, but by the time that had happened he had already committed suicide - teaching was his life.

In Jim Davidsons defence, he wasn't accused of kiddie fiddling, his alleged victims were over 18?

In Jim Davidsons defence, he wasn't accused of kiddie fiddling, his alleged victims were over 18?

But they were children once weren't they? Pervert! HANG HIM!

And the age of consent in Madagascar is 21, so for the uneducated that think paedophiles have something to do with age of consent, he's a paedophile.

It's not been proven that the accuser is guilty of lying and for that reason naming them would not be reasonable.

So you're saying we should prosecute her for perjury?

...I'd been looking forward all my life to the experience

Really !? That's a bit odd.

Also seems odd that you wouldn't know your not allowed to talk about the case to anyone then.

Don't personally give a monkey, sick of all the celebrity trials, not enough reporting of the nonces that live amongst but because it wasn't salicious news for the mass media, they go relatively unnoticed.

No. Ever.

Say I've been abused from the age of 6-14. Im told if the man isnt found guilty (have you SEEN the rape conviction rates) then I'll be named and shamed...

I wouldnt go ahead. I'd refuse. Why climb two mountains, dig up the grief in triple and risk him winning again?

Anyone who names her should get 10yrs.

O.J got off his murder charge. If you saw the bodies/crime scene and where the victims were attacked. But thats slightly OT

A very good friend of mine who I was house sharing with at the time was working as a teacher in a secondary school and got accused inappropriate behaviour with a 14 girl whilst on a trip. The school and police took her side straight. It was his word against hers. Turned his whole world upside down put a massive strain on his marriage only for her to turn round later and say she made it up. I wouldn't ever wish the way he was treated on anybody

To discourage others from making up lies like this? It ranks pretty highly on the list of shitty things you can do to a person. I'd prefer she was prosecuted herself (even anonymously), but failing that the mob justice of social media/tabloids would do.

You really are mind expanding stupid, well done.

If he's not guilty, she lied in court. I thought that was an offence?

If he's not guilty, she lied in court. I thought that was an offence?

you keep thinking!!!

Scotsroutes. They have to convict the acussed beyond reasonable doubt.

The doubt seems to be 'no DNA evidence'

If he's not guilty, she lied in court. I thought that was an offence?

Have a wee think why we don't have perjury cases after [i]every[/i] court case where it's one person's word against another.

Google what happened when they retro-DNA tested lots of (mainly black) men in American jails for rape. It turned out that many were innocent and that the rapes had been committed by quite a small number of men. Hope that makes you think, Globalti. Frankly you succumbed to peer pressure and it's 50 : 50 you put an innocent man in jail.

It depends where the jury is.

I'm just astonished that you admit that anything other than your own assessment of the evidence influenced your vote. I hope the defendant finds this thread, in fact it's tempting to send it the papers to denounce an unsafe prosecution, as Emile Zola did.

I'm just astonished that you admit that anything other than your own assessment of the evidence influenced your vote.

Why do you think jurors go into a room to discuss things ?

So they can all sit in silence and stick with what they already thought.

Yup, juries are about as scientific/evidence based as homoeopathy. Unfortunately most people are affected by confirmation bias.

This despite the fact that not a shred of credible evidence had been produced and her story had varied depending on who she spoke to!

These trials aren't supposed to be death matches in which whoever "loses" gets their life and reputation destroyed. "Naming and shaming" or mob justice would only discourage victims of sexual assault from reporting their assaults to police. If there is a legitimate case for perjury, the CPS should consider it, but just because the defendant was acquitted it doesn't mean the complainant or any other witness lied.

it's tempting to send it the papers to denounce an unsafe prosecution, as Emile Zola did.

Did I name the Crown Court or even what end of the country?

Your profile gives your name and where in the country you are. A quick search of the voter register would probably find a whole lot more. As the Mods nicely to remove your post.

</ stalker>

What is the time limit where you can talk about a trial? Is there a time limit or does it depend on the verdict?

CaptainFlashheart - Member
Neither party should be named unless there is guilt, or unless either party chooses to be named.

Simple, really.

I disagree. If a name is public, other (alleged!) victims may realise that they're not alone and may come forward, eg Jimmy Savile and that taxi driver (can't remember his name).

It's a very, very difficult one.

the teaboy sums it up quite well. Thing is, each case is supposed to be judged on its merits. That's why we don't have a list of previous convictions read out in court. Having a backlog of other alleged victims should make no difference to a trial in progress.

Police/CPS evidence wouldn't be based on "He had sex with me" without colloborative evidence.

Who was prosecuting, if it was a HCA (pseudo-Barrister) they consider it as an "Ah well, better luck next time" case especially as he would employ a top-notch defence barrister who specializes in this sort of work.

[cynic]Quite an achievement to find 12 people who don't watch Coronation St/know who the accused is in Manchester[/cynic]

And the guilty tend to thank the jury.....

Thing is, each case is supposed to be judged on its merits. That's why we don't have a list of previous convictions read out in court. Having a backlog of other alleged victims should make no difference to a trial in progress.

Possibly but what's the prosecution and sentencing based on?

If it was one victim, Stuart Hall would not have been prosecuted and, even if he had, would not have received a custodial sentence.

the teaboy sums it up quite well. Thing is, each case is supposed to be judged on its merits. That's why we don't have a list of previous convictions read out in court.

You can, in certain cases, have bad character evidence including previous cons addmitted as evidence

No, she shouldn't be named. Many good reasons are given already in this thread.

However I do think there should be the possibility of charging an accuser - providing that thay can be shown beyond reasonable doubt (etc), to have lied and fabricated a case for their own ends. Whether of not that's the case here, I have no idea, and it would be for the police/CPS to decide. A case where the defendant is acquitted through weak evidence, i.e. not beyond reasonable doubt, doesn't automatically mean the accuser should be banged up for perjury or blackmail or libel or whatever.

Its a really difficult balancing act here as you have to weigh up conflicting rights

Often the accused is named to attract other victims into the open - none came forward in this case.
Also , as this thread shows,some will think it was lack of evidence rather than lack of doing the act so , in some peoples eyes, he will always be an accused sex offender rather than an innocent man.
Not sure how we prevent this damage tbh

As for naming the "victim" I cannot see what good will come of this tbh

If she is making up stories like this [ or it actually happened an no one believed here] she has enough issues to deal with without having her character publicly eviscerated by the media.
I worked with someone accused of abuse by his ex wife during a bitter divorce case. Despite being found innocent some staff would still not work with him or talk to him 3 years later. He was certainly a victim of crime and oad a huge price for a false allegation.

It very tough to make rules that cover it all as we all want the innocent protected and the guilty sent down
I dont have an answer as to how we balance these conflicting rights/responsibilities

personally im impressed that this thread hasnt descended into mud slinging chaos, been heavily moderated and ultimately locked.

very well done STW.

*schools are back?*

His life and career are in tatters.

Corronationenders is welcoming him back with open arms so not correct to say career in tatters.

So is his dad better now? Or is Ken going to stay there to help for a little while?

And the age of consent in Madagascar is 21, so for the uneducated that think paedophiles have something to do with age of consent, he's a paedophile.

I think the CPS prosecuted this case knowing evidence was weak, to provide the public with evidence that they are effective in these type of cases. The reality is that the recent Rochdale et al abuse cases, showed that in more complex cases they have been found wanting. Excellent recent 'file on 4' programme on this very subject.

A girl that lived two doors down from me when I was growing up decided to phone up childline one day and tell them a teacher was abusing her. She didn't give her name but they (childline) somehow worked out who she was. They alerted the police, teacher was arrested and suspended and an investigation took place. She eventually admitted it was complete nonsense but by that point the damage was done. The guy's reputation was in tatters. He was a bit eccentric so the knee jerk reaction was to assume he was guilty just because he was a bit odd. He had to leave the school and relocate his family elsewhere to try and start again.

CPS depending on area will run these cases on next to no evidence with out supporting evidence. historically we had a problem with these cases not being prosecuted because they are often difficult to win CPS and the police were criticised for this mow the pendulum has swung the other way.
Like many other public services CPS now are proactively managed by targets and imposed criteria more suitable to selling insurance or washing machines. Losing a case in court or convicting an innocent man is a better outcome for cps management than withdrawing a case which does not count as "an offence brought to justice."
On the original point if the victim can be shown to have lied she may well be prosecuted but that is unlikely to be the scenario . We presume innocence and require the prosecution to prove their case so the jury are sure of all elements of the offence . All we know in this matter is that 12 people could not be sure that she was telling the truth , if they thought she was probably telling the truth then their verdict would have to be not guilty.

That is why we don't name shame and humiliate her because to do so may well penalise some one who has done no wrong.

What right minded victim of crime would ever speak up if they knew that unless they could convince 12 strangers beyond reasonable doubt then they would be the one punished.

All we know in this matter is that 12 people could not be sure that she was telling the truth , if they thought she was probably telling the truth then their verdict would have to be not guilty.

junkyard it's not my version it is our system . He started presumed to be innocent his guilt has not been proven so he remains innocent. The criminal law involves an after the event assessment by people who were not there at the time ,of actions based on witness narrative and forensic deduction it will rarely achieve any accurate conclusion as to all the facts. So we are left in the end with saying we will not penalise someone unless the evidence makes us sure of guilt and if we cannot be sure we acquit.

We don't ask the jurors what they really thought as that simply unpicks the whole debate again and leads to endless rehashes also the sanctity of the jury room allows them to deal with the issues honestly to express their views openly within the group and then be protected afterwards.

He started presumed to be innocent his guilt has not been proven so he remains innocent.

For sure many will think no smoke without fire hence why it such a difficult balancing act.

" All we know in this matter is that 12 people could not be sure that she was telling the truth" means what it says " all we know " is a key part of the statement. We do not know where the jurors fell on the range of belief from sure of innocence to strongly believing in guilt but entering a reasonable doubt . Nor do we know if the jurors all were at the same point . All we can ever know with a not guilty verdict is that the jury were not sure of guilt as that is the question the law asks them. It is not my interpretation it is the law. I do not seek to imply any no smoke without fire guilt by accusation . The point is you cannot prosecute a witness for perjury off the back of a not guilty verdict because that verdict does not mean the witness was in fact not telling the truth.

I have just remembered IANAL and you are, puts tail between legs and retreats trying to save face
I still think there is a difference between not enough evidence to convict and innocent.

Being a lawyer just makes me look a bigger Richard when I get the law wrong on here . You could always move to Scotland I believe they give their juries three verdicts to chose from guilty, not guilty and not proven.