Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bedlam breakout

questions raised by the michael le vell case

59 posts in this topic

because this weeks court case has been so high profile  with mlv been found not guilty it seems to be raising the issues of anonymity for people accused of these types of things, I would also like to know what happens to the girl who has been found to be telling non truths to police and the court of a long period of time costing thousands of pounds , I have no like or dis like for the guy but is it right to be put up like this before the public for any individual , famous or not before a trial has concluded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because MLV was found innocent it doesn't automatically mean the girl told lies.  By that logic anyone who loses a court case would be tried for perjury.

 

There are issues with the fact that MLV has had to paint himself in a less than flattering light to prove innocence, and these facts are now public knowledge.  This means despite innocence he has probably had serious damage to his career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because MLV was found innocent it doesn't automatically mean the girl told lies.  By that logic anyone who loses a court case would be tried for perjury.

 

There are issues with the fact that MLV has had to paint himself in a less than flattering light to prove innocence, and these facts are now public knowledge.  This means despite innocence he has probably had serious damage to his career.

so why not both identities kept secret till a conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so why not both identities kept secret till a conclusion?

 

The counter argument is that when the name is released other potential victims come forward.

 

I don't think the current system works very well for either party but have no real idea what it could be replaced with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The counter argument is that when the name is released other potential victims come forward.

I don't think the current system works very well for either party but have no real idea what it could be replaced with.

Indeed only when it came to light what Jimmy Savle did, did more poeple come forward.

I'm glad that justice has been done in this case, but the media frenzy wouldn't have been as big if Michael Le Vell wasn't a celeb. I suppose its the price of fame that has escalated the issue here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed only when it came to light what Jimmy Savle did, did more poeple come forward.

I'm glad that justice has been done in this case, but the media frenzy wouldn't have been as big if Michael Le Vell wasn't a celeb. I suppose its the price of fame that has escalated the issue here.

so if le vell had died before the allegations would the media have convicted  him as guilty and compensation seekers come rushing forward? as he would have not had a choice in death?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Michael Le Vell's Wikipedia entry:

 

His marriage broke up in 2011.

 

He was accused of a sex offence in September 2011.

 

In 2013, he pleaded not guilty to all 19 charges.. During the trial at Manchester Crown Court, his barrister described the accuser's evidence as containing a series of inconsistencies.

 

On 10 September 2013, he was found not guilty on all counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how you could have anonymity for the accused in any open society. It would, in effect, mean secret trials and, presumably, secret arrests. Would the accused just 'disappear' on arrest if they had to be remanded in custody? How would you go about arranging witnesses for the defence if no one knew who was being tried and what the charges were?

Surely the basis of any legal system, especially one where the accused in presumed innocent until proved guilty, is that the defendant is allowed the opportunity to demonstrate his innocence in open court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if le vell had died before the allegations would the media have convicted him as guilty and compensation seekers come rushing forward? as he would have not had a choice in death?

That wasn't the principle was referring to. But in the Stuart hall case annonimity would have help his case, since other poeple would not have come forward.

Oh and I think you are nieve to think Jimmy Savle was innocent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just seen the headlines on the "metro" newspaper - cleared , now I need a drink- the now I need a drink bit has no quotes around it as this is not what mlv said, it was something like "now I might just go and have a drink" the words "self confessed alcoholic" are in the very next paragraph, its as if they are like a barking pack of dogs that has seen the fox escape but still want to bark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wasn't the principle was referring to. But in the Stuart hall case annonimity would have help his case, since other poeple would not have come forward.

Oh and I think you are nieve to think Jimmy Savle was innocent

never said I thought js was innocent or guilty, those slow motion pictures on panorama of him pushing a hospital trolley with doom laden piano music in the background in grainey black and white are all I need as evidence, just like any other tv media controlled zombie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A complicated issue for certain but I really really dislike the way that womens groups dismiss the effect on a man falsely accused of rape or sexual assault as some sort of minor inconvenience - it isn't, it csn ruin lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

never said I thought js was innocent or guilty, those slow motion pictures on panorama of him pushing a hospital trolley with doom laden piano music in the background in grainey black and white are all I need as evidence, just like any other tv media controlled zombie

Your pseudonym is very apt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are found innocent of offences all the time. That's a virtue of the justice system. The people that need to apologise, pay recompense and have a long look at themselves are the people and organisations that publicised the accused's name with such vigour and relish. I'm not going to come down to hard on the accuser, there are many reasons why people accuse others of sexual abuse, and none of them suggest a happy existence. I hope that they both get the support that they need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are found guilty of offences all the time. That's a virtue of e justice system. The people that need to apologise, pay recompense and have a long look at the,selves are the people and organisations that publicised the accused's name with such vigour and relish. I'm not going to come down to hard on the accuser, there are many reasons why people accuse others of sexual abuse, and none of them suggest a happy existence. I hope that they both get the support that they need.

Agreed. In this case the justice system worked. If it had been your average joe public in the dock, and said 'now I need a drink' there wouldn't be any headlines.

This issue here is Le Vell is a celeb and some journalists like to create a story where there isn't one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Joe Public has to live among other people. Anyone, however unknown has friends and family or a place of work. All which can be ruined by sexual misconduct claims - think of the 'no smoke without fire' stigma that lingers.

Simply bundling accusers together as some band of victims is not right. Many claims *are* malicious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Joe Public has to live among other people. Anyone, however unknown has friends and family or a place of work. All which can be ruined by sexual misconduct claims - think of the 'no smoke without fire' stigma that lingers.

Simply bundling accusers together as some band of victims is not right. Many claims *are* malicious.

I bet if he had been found guilty there would have been people in the sunday red tops claiming all sorts, not least compensation, a hand left on a knee for a bit too long is worth a couple of grand now apparently

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because MLV was found innocent it doesn't automatically mean the girl told lies. By that logic anyone who loses a court case would be tried for perjury.

There are issues with the fact that MLV has had to paint himself in a less than flattering light to prove innocence, and these facts are now public knowledge. This means despite innocence he has probably had serious damage to his career.

He wasn't "found innocent" but 'not guilty'. Similarly, he didn't have to "prove innocence", the prosecution had to prove, beyond reasonable, doubt, guilt. I'm not trying to be pedantic, these are vital principles of an adversarial trial system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely his accuser now should have her name made public?

No, but if there is any hint that this was malicious accusation, it should be investigated and, if found, prosecuted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly do they estimate there are 78000 rapes every year? And does it include male rape, which is not exactly unknown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly do they estimate there are 78000 rapes every year? And does it include male rape, which is not exactly unknown.

 

There's a stat which comes from the British Crime Survey (which often records more crime than is reported to the police).  I don't know if it comes from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a stat which comes from the British Crime Survey (which often records more crime than is reported to the police).  I don't know if it comes from there.

 

Ah, here we are ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of that.

 

I really don't get all the black/white conclusions being drawn on this.  In short, a jury found at least reasonable doubt that he did the crimes as charged, they didn't, and couldn't, find him "innocent".

 

I much prefer the Scottish system where there's a verdict of "not proven" available as well.  Historically, "not guilty" in Scotland means the jury find you innocent whereas "not proven" means that there was a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury but not enough of one to be conclusive as to the innocence of the accused.  Both are acquittals, one means that the accused cannot go around saying he was innocent though.  I think it would be a good alternative verdict for rape trials where it makes it less black and white, a "not guilty" gives innocence to the accused, a "guilty" validates the accuser and a "not proven" means the accused cannot go around calling the accuser a liar while the accuser cannot go around calling the accused a rapist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017