Michael Le Vell (mod warning first post)

alyssum

Now i see it is gone up to 12 pints s so i was right

"He said his heavy drinking was an “illness” resulting from his working- class upbringing."

lol

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

What does this even mean?!

Deleted User wrote: »

I would like to see the girl punished if she is lying but an innocent verdict doesn't necessarily mean she is lying the same as a guilty one doesnt mean Michael is guilty.

It means If the Girl is lying she should be punished accordingly, however I should have said that a not guilty verdict isn't proof she is lying, so let me make that clear !

A guilty verdict in this case without evidence so far as I've followed IMO doesn't mean Michael is guilty either, it comes down to who the jury believes in this circumstances. Same as an not guilty verdict doesn't prove his innocence, you know the old saying "mud sticks" ?

The legal system is absolute crap and cases like this should not be allowed to come to trial at all without evidence.

I Heart Internet

Deleted User wrote: »

A guilty verdict in this case without evidence so far as I've followed IMO doesn't mean Michael is guilty either, it comes down to who the jury believes in this circumstances. Same as an not guilty verdict doesn't prove his innocence, you know the old saying "mud sticks" ?

Tell that to Le Vell when he's spending the next 5 years in the slammer.

lukesmom

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So we could have a verdict today?? Or tomorrow?

From the media coverage I've seen, it could be a quick turnaround. I am expecting a not guilty verdict.

I'm with you there

gramar

It's disturbing to think that if the allegations are untrue that she wouldn't be punished. If it's the case then the mother should have the book thrown at her too as she seems to have encouraged the daughter to do it.

alyssum

wish i had a smart phone so i could track it now as have to go out:D

I Heart Internet

gramar wrote: »

It's disturbing to think that if the allegations are untrue that she wouldn't be punished. If it's the case then the mother should have the book thrown at her too as she seems to have encouraged the daughter to do it.

It's a tough one.

People are found not guilty of crimes every day of the week. Does that mean that aleged victims or prosecution witnesses are all telling lies? I don't think so. If they are, they can be prosecuted. But, surely, they are not all telling lies. It's just that the jury believes that the weight of evidence lies elsewhere.

If Le Vell is found not guilty, that is all it means - he is not guilty.

It would require another investigation/trial, etc to find out, if necessary, if someone was telling lies.

In short, I don't think a not guilty verdict, in itself, casts any doubt on the honesty of alleged victims or wittnesses. Similarly, a guilty verdict doesn't necessarily make defence witnesses liars.

Although you do sometimes hear judges talk about, "unreliable witnesses".

Santa Cruz

Media reports certainly didn't reveal any "beyond reasonable doubt" evidence. The medical evidence which was very important was indecisive so I would say NOT GUILTY.

I have no doubt the alleged victim has a media deal ready if he is convicted

bedrock#1

road_high wrote: »

That doesn't sound right at all...we can all get drunk at times but climbing into kids beds? Seriously like...

I once got so drunk after being out with my ex I got up in the middle of the night in my ex's sisters house, walked straight past the bathroom and tried to p1ss in her wardrobe. Anything is possible.

gramar

"The complainant in the Michael Le Vell sex case has had 'plenty of opportunities' to back out if she was lying"

Very tame stuff from the prosecutors, they have nothing to go on.


The headline in the mirror is just disgusting:
Michael Le Vell denies drinking to hide the shame of being a child rapist

The gutter press.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

when will the verdict be reached? Roughly...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

gramar wrote: »

It's disturbing to think that if the allegations are untrue that she wouldn't be punished. If it's the case then the mother should have the book thrown at her too as she seems to have encouraged the daughter to do it.

Be interesting to see if he makes a complaint against her, should he be found not guilty.

gramar

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

when will the verdict be reached? Roughly...

Once the closing arguments are made then they will be sent to deliberate.
I honestly don't think they'll have much to argue about as the prosecution case seems based upon vague assumptions and not hard facts.
They could return a verdict tomorrow.

gramar

gramar wrote: »

It's disturbing to think that if the allegations are untrue that she wouldn't be punished. If it's the case then the mother should have the book thrown at her too as she seems to have encouraged the daughter to do it.

Well to be honest it's not just the Girl and her mother that are at fault, it's the entire legal system for allowing a case to go to court without evidence.

Michael would most likely sue the legal system no ? but then he would have to prove his innocence which he can't do either.

No point going after the Girl and her mother if they couldn't pay damages anyway.

It's all about showing the world that another Jimmy Savile won't be tolerated and this is all this case is about, it's not about truth or justice.

I tell you, I certainly wouldn't like to be in the same situation, if innocent it will still follow you forever, people looking as you walk past, fathers saying keep away from my children. relatives saying no you can't go to uncle Michael's again. He could never be alone with children again, be they related or not because you'd know that at the back of everyone's minds there will always be doubt !

Sad !

gramar

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Be interesting to see if he makes a complaint against her, should he be found not guilty.

He might just want to put it all behind him. As someone mentioned above him being found not guilty doesn't necessarily mean she's lying.
Maybe that would mean she couldn't be found guilty of making false accusations or wasting police time. Big of a grey area. One person is innocent of the charges but the other isn't guilty of making false charges.

gramar

"It's a strange case of rape with no blood, no semen, no injury, no trace - almost, you may think, as if it didn't happen," Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell's barrister has told court.

Alisdair Williamson,defending, is arguing that the alleged complainant has given different versions of events to different people. He told the jury, that if they were to return a guilty verdict 'you are going to take a man's life away from him, you're going to cast him into the outer darkness of being a child rapist, if you are sure.'

Speaking of the complainant's account, he added: "Where's the consistency? Not there, I suggest, simply not there....there's an agonising lack of detail from this witness. She can't give you details because it didn't happen. That is why her story varies according to who she is talking to."

2 or 3 sentences that convince a lot more than the fuzzy rubbish the prosecution came up with.

lukesmom

Not guilty

gramar

closing arguments are over:

"The barristers have now concluded their speeches and the evidence in the case is finished. Judge Michael Henshell has begun his summing up, giving directions in the law to the jury"

They could be home in time for tea.

lukesmom

gramar wrote: »

closing arguments are over:

"The barristers have now concluded their speeches and the evidence in the case is finished. Judge Michael Henshell has begun his summing up, giving directions in the law to the jury"

They could be home in time for tea.

I wonder how long they will take to return a verdict?

I Heart Internet

lukesmom wrote: »

I wonder how long they will take to return a verdict?

I suspect there'll be a result today.

@JerryLawton (Star Newspaper) has good coverage on his twitter.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/336801/LIVE-UPDATES-Coronation-Street-star-Michael-Le-Vell-s-trial-as-it-happens-

seamus

gramar wrote: »

The headline in the mirror is just disgusting:
Michael Le Vell denies drinking to hide the shame of being a child rapist

The gutter press.

The rags have defamation war chests.

They have a whole team of people whose job it is to calculate the gap between how much it will cost them if they're wrong and how much money they will make by printing the headline.

If the defamation suit arises, the rags presents their war chest in exchange for the suit being dropped. The defamed person will usually accept because it's cash and it's right there in front of them, much easier than spending the next six months recounting the details of the defamation in court. The rag then walks away happy because they still made a profit by printing lies.

Afair in the past some papers have had to fork over the entire profit they reaped from the offending headline, but like I say most people won't take it all the way through court if the paper offers up the cash straight away.

lukesmom

His computer/laptops were seized and searched but no evidence of any pornagraphic material relating to children on any of the machines.

vitani

Apparently the defence have said it's 'ridiculous' to believe that two of the attacks took place a year apart at the exact same time in the night. This is the kind of argument that annoys me because it's that sort of coincidence which adds believability to her story. If she could choose any time to back up her story, why would she choose the same time twice?

I don't have a clue whether he's innocent or not, although I suspect he'll be found not guilty. I just wish the defence wouldn't try to claim that she's obviously lying because of things like this.

lukesmom

vitani wrote: »

Apparently the defence have said it's 'ridiculous' to believe that two of the attacks took place a year apart at the exact same time in the night. This is the kind of argument that annoys me because it's that sort of coincidence which adds believability to her story. If she could choose any time to back up her story, why would she choose the same time twice?

I don't have a clue whether he's innocent or not, although I suspect he'll be found not guilty. I just wish the defence wouldn't try to claim that she's obviously lying because of things like this.

I agree with the defence I think it is hard to believe also.

vitani

lukesmom wrote: »

I agree with the defence I think it is hard to believe also.

Well that's my point - it is hard to believe, so why would she deliberately pick the same time twice? If I was making up a story, I'd make it as easy as possible for people to believe it. I wouldn't be throwing any strange coincidences into it for somebody to question.

I'm not saying I believe her - I just disagree with their argument against it.

I Heart Internet

vitani wrote: »

Well that's my point - it is hard to believe, so why would she deliberately pick the same time twice? If I was making up a story, I'd make it as easy as possible for people to believe it. I wouldn't be throwing any strange coincidences into it for somebody to question.

I'm not saying I believe her - I just disagree with their argument against it.

Mmmm ... you could continue that point and say it's a double, triple or even quadruple bluff.

vitani

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Mmmm ... you could continue that point and say it's a double, triple or even quadruple bluff.

Touché... :pac:

I Heart Internet

vitani wrote: »

Touché... :pac:

We'll know the verdict soon enough anyway...

syklops

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I suspect there'll be a result today.

Good, because if I have to read the phrase "The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster..." one more time I am going to go mad.

Howard Juneau

The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster...
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster...
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster...

alyssum

Howard Juneau wrote: »

The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster...
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster...
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster...

No i think it is
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster...
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster...
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster

syklops

Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell trial - day six
9 Sep 2013 15:53

Read the updates from Manchester Crown Court during day six of the trial - where closing speeches were heard and the jury sent out to consider - as Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell faces a series of child sex offence accusations
Share on print Share on email
Michael Le Vell being ushered into Manchester Crown Court Michael Le Vell being ushered into Manchester Crown Court
Joel Goodman

Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell is on trial charged with a series of child sex offences.

The 48-year-old actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster in the ITV soap, is facing 12 charges in all. He denies five charges of rape, three charges of indecently assaulting a child under 13, two charges of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and two charges of sexual activity with a child.

The offences alleged against Mr Le Vell, who lives in Hale and is charged under his real name of Michael Turner, relate to one complainant and are said to have taken place between September 2002 and September 2010.

Reporter Chris Osuh was in court - here are his updates from the sixth day's evidence ...
15.53

The jury in the Michael Le Vell sex case has been sent out to consider its verdicts. As the judge's summing up concluded the actor leaned forward and listened intently in the dock, a tense expression on his face.

Christ alive.

vitani

https://www.google.ie/#q=%22The+actor%2C+who+plays+car+mechanic+Kevin+Webster%22

lukesmom

The jury have been sent home for the night, they'll return tomorrow and continue deliberating

syklops

vitani wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/#q=%22The+actor%2C+who+plays+car+mechanic+Kevin+Webster%22

28,000 hits. No wonder Im going mad.

syklops

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/inconsistent-incoherent-and-unbelievable-defence-condemns-witnesss-evidence-in-closing-speech-at-michael-le-vell-trial-8805210.html

Speaking to the jury of eight women and four men,

Didnt realise the jury had so many women in it. Is that common?

everlast75

lukesmom wrote: »

The jury have been sent home for the night, they'll return tomorrow and continue deliberating

Will give them time to catch up on their soaps..

alyssum

syklops wrote: »

Christ alive.

lol but if guilty will be the actor who used to...

I Heart Internet

lukesmom wrote: »

The jury have been sent home for the night, they'll return tomorrow and continue deliberating

Back here tomorrow so for the verdict.

As I've said before, I think he'll be found not guilty. But more importantly, I sincerely hope these crimes never happened. Very serious issues at stake here.

KungPao

Who is this Michael Le Vell?

Is he the actor who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster?

alyssum

KungPao wrote: »

Who is this Michael Le Vell?

Is he the actor who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster?

thats him

dohanlon

Don't forget a lot of the evidence has not been made public to avoid the "jigsaw effect". There is a lot more to this case than is evident from the reporting. Unless the alleged victim waives her anonymity it will never be made public.

alyssum

dohanlon wrote: »

Don't forget a lot of the evidence has not been made public to avoid the "jigsaw effect". There is a lot more to this case than is evident from the reporting. Unless the alleged victim waives her anonymity it will never be made public.

?? trying to work out her id

Howard Juneau

dohanlon wrote: »

Don't forget a lot of the evidence has not been made public to avoid the "jigsaw effect". There is a lot more to this case than is evident from the reporting. Unless the alleged victim waives her anonymity it will never be made public.

Unless the claims are unfounded &....
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster...
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster....
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster...
decides to pursue the matter through the courts to exonerate his good name.

dohanlon

alyssum wrote: »

?? trying to work out her id

Lets face it I wouldn't need to be Miss Marple. The broadsheets have made it pretty clear through what has been reported!

alyssum

Howard Juneau wrote: »

Unless the claims are unfounded &....
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster...
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster....
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster...
decides to pursue the matter through the courts to exonerate his good name.

Then again
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster...
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster....
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster
may just go back to being
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster...
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster....
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster

great fun at poor oul kev's expense

dohanlon

Howard Juneau wrote: »

Unless the claims are unfounded &....
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster...
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster....
The actor, who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster...
decides to pursue the matter through the courts to exonerate his good name.

Even if he does that and he proves she is lying (very unlikely he'll go down that road) she will not be identified. She is guaranteed anonymity for life unless she choses to waive it.

Tropheus

Seemingly Le Vell (who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster in TV's Coronation Street) knows little or nothing about cars in real life. That puts him on a par with most of the Irish mechanics I've dealt with. If he gets the bullet from Corrie, we could see him working in a Dublin car dealership.

dohanlon

Sleepy wrote: »

He was cleared? I genuinely thought he'd been found guilty and served whatever his sentence was.

That rather shows the problem with naming the accused in these type of cases, doesn't it?

Think about it. He joined Coronation Street after that matter had been cleared up. Corrie would not have employed him if he was a convicted rapist. Their sponsors would not have it. He was cleared and so he should have been. There was no evidence.

Charles was remanded in custody (for racial reasons he claims) and spent 3 months in prison for a crime he didn't commit... but his career has recovered and he is associated with Red Dwarf and Corrie now more than the case.

dohanlon

Tropheus wrote: »

Seemingly Le Vell (who plays car mechanic Kevin Webster in TV's Coronation Street) knows little or nothing about cars in real life. That puts him on a par with most of the Irish mechanics I've dealt with. If he gets the bullet from Corrie, we could see him working in a Dublin car dealership.

? :rolleyes: What??