Coronation Street actor found not guilty of child sex offences

Coronation Street actor found not guilty of child sex offences

77
SHARE

Michael Le Vell, best known as Coronation Street character Kevin Webster, has been found not guilty of child sex offences following a trial at Manchester Crown Court.

Photo: PA Wire

Le Vell, tried under his real name of Michael Turner, was acquitted of all twelve charges, including five counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault, two counts of sexual activity with a child and two counts of causing a child to engage in sexual activity. The jury took just over 4 hours to find him not guilty of all charges.

The complainant, now aged 17, told the jury that Le Vell put a teddy bear over her mouth whilst he raped her telling her he was “just getting rid of all the evil and bad inside me”. Her account was labelled inconsistent, unbelievable and lacking detail by defence barrister Alisdair Williamson. Reportedly there was no physical injuries to the complainant.

During the trial the jury heard personal details of Le Vell’s private life, including Le Vell’s alcohol addiction, one-night-stands and an affair.

Le Vell gave evidence during the trial and has always denied the allegations. He told the jury he was “fighting for his life”. Eleanor Laws QC, prosecuting, cross-examined Le Vell on his need to be persuasive in giving evidence, and compared it to an acting job. Le Vell replied:

“It’s nothing like an acting job. You never get put in a position like this. They never teach you to be here and face what I have been faced with for the last two years. No one can teach you that.

I’m fighting for my life.”

Of course it was not up to Le Vell to persuade the jury of his innocence. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution; it is up to them to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, so that the jury are sure of guilt. If the jury are not sure, they will acquit, as they have done in Le Vell’s case.

Le Vell is expected to return to ITV later this year.

77 COMMENTS

  1. What victim? If you mean the complainant, she will have had to state her name in court.

    If you mean the man who may well be the victim (of a false accusation) – weren’t we all?

    • As he rightly should have been arrested for disclosing such information.

      I don’t buy the “accuser is lying because of the acquittal” That’s a poor argument. Sadly, some of the misled public will run with the press and their scandalous headlines.

      Le Vell was acquitted – based on the evidence presented in his defence. The result was not guilty on all 12 counts. In four hours – I’m no expert but that seems conclusive to me.

      Acquittal or guilt is based on evidence presented and should be – not on the person.

      There are only ever two people in this who know what happened. The complainant and the accused.

  2. Given the mass outcry in media outlets for the name of this complainant, I’m confused.

    Complainants are only not allowed to be named by the press for legal reasons? Andrew?

    Is this anonymity issue and mass outcry for the naming of complainants a media issue as opposed to a law issue? Is the acquitted person also banned from naming the complainant?

    Doesn’t cases like this raise questions about media coverage of such cases?

    Questions,questions..

  3. To be precise, he was acquitted because after hearing all the evidence the jury were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. Tracey’s last sentence is spot on.

    I see no reason why anonymity should not apply to all defendants unless convicted -it does in France where the press reports are about Monsieur A or Mme B or even Mlle C. That would have given Mr Le Vell his privacy without spreading the idea that rape complainants are all liars.

  4. Tell me why they deserve anonymity, more than any other defendant, let’s not forget that rapists walk free from court all the time to rape again and again and again – yes it’s the law but as we know the law isn’t always right. It is a rapist’s world out there. I’m going to bed and before I sleep I will need to decide whether to lock all the windows or whether “I ask for it” by leaving a bedroom window open a tiny little bit… Check your privilege Andrew.

    • With all due Sisterhood, aren’t you being a little dramatic? Locking doors & windows each night is a normal part of protecting one’s home and loved ones. That’s a weak statement in terms of this discussion. You’re giving yourself victim status there.

      By your theory, all who are accused, accused, not found guilty, should have their lives blasted into the public domain?

      Le Vell was acquitted of the crimes based on the evidence presented to the court and to the jury. There was no evidence that could convict him in a court of law and we do have a justice system. That’s because we live in a civilised country that protects its citizens.

      You’re not in a position to declare Le Vell guilty just as I am not in a position to declare him innocent of those crimes. The jury acquitted him and we, as a nation either have faith in the justice system or we don’t. I still do even though I’ve been on the other side of it.

      • You know what Tracey we’ve not really debated before however before you decide whether I am conferring victim status on myself can I suggest you don’t speak out of ignorance.

        Moving on as to whether I should have faith in a justice system that acquitted Ian Huntley of rape once and left him without any charges of sex with underage girls numerous times, which allowed Kirk Reid to be acquitted once and allowed him to continue to rape 100+ times. Becky Godden’s killer (by his own confession), will never face trial. John Worboy’s victims were not believed until at least 70+ victims later, same for Brian Witty’s they were not believed. As far as rape and violence against women is concerned and faith in our justice system I have none not even a shred and while that’s happening and while two women per week in the UK are being murdered by men all passing without much comment and little outrage forgive me if shed not one tear for Le Vell

  5. Sisterhood: I don’t want rape defendants given special treatment. I want all defendants given anonymity unless and until they are convicted. Rape defendants don’t deserve anonymity moe than others. Or less.

    I know that some acquitted rape defendants are guilty and do it again. Ditto thieves, robbers, burglars, and all other defendants. Just what do you want the system to do when there has been an acquittal?

    • I want the law changed in this once instance (rape) I want the burden of proof on the accused guilty until proven innocent and I want the victim to have their own defence team in court not just the CPS who represent the crown.

      • If the jury found that the Defendant had proven himself innocent would you then want the (necessarily) untruthful complainant prosecuted for the perjury she would have had to have committed?

        Not so easy, is it?

  6. How come rapists who lie and are found guilty are not also tried for perjury Andrew. They should be and the sentence should run consecutively not concurrently.

    • What if the second jury acquitted him, Sisterhood? First conviction quasjed?

      And you still don’t tell us what is it happen to her if he establishes on the balance of probability that he is not guilty of the rape.

      I suppose you agree that if in spite of the change in the presumption and her having her own lawyers he is acquitted he should be released . . . or do you?

      • Andrew suppose I see you steal my car I actually witness it (you and I know this for a fact but no-one else does). It goes to court I have no evidence or shaky evidence fuzzy mobile phone footage where I’m chasing you up the street trying to catch you. In court, you bring in your mum, partner and or a best friend who swear blind that you were with them all night. It goes to court twice and twice you are acquitted. Should I be tried for perjury because you have been acquitted twice on balance of probabilities does that equal innocent?

  7. Burden of proof – balance of probabilities will do. I know what goes on behind closed doors, alleyways, car parks and unlocked bedroom windows, and god knows I know what it’s like to be a child in the laser beam of the paedo rapist “friend” of the family but I can’t prove it so I must be lying right.

    • I suppose you could say that everyone who pleads not guilty of anything and is convicted is guilty of perjury.

      Fortunately it takes two witnesses to convict of perjury so it’s not going to happen either way.

  8. Sisterhood,

    It’s not ignorance, my comments are based on what you have written. Locking windows & doors at night is an act of securing possessions, safety and protection of homes and loved ones. For most people, it’s instinct based on the act of protection. Let’s keep things in perspective here.

    It’s a system, there are flaws. The cases you have highlighted are examples of huge mistakes. Just as there were mistakes made with the Guildford Four. The Birmingham Six and Paul Blackburn. For every mistake in a wrong acquittal, there’s a miscarriage of justice where someone’s life has also been destroyed.

    The examples you have raised are dreadful travesties, but those are not the fault of one man, are they? You’re not being asked to shed a tear for him. You’ve stated that he and all men accused of sexual crimes should not be given anonymity.

    I know only too well what it’s like to go to the police with a complaint and for that not to be charged based on a lack of evidence. I knew there wasn’t enough evidence for a conviction as I was delivering my statement.

    It doesn’t work for everyone, the justice system, but it’s the only one we have right now. You want to change it? Then go right ahead, you’ll have a lot of support. I cannot see it happening in my lifetime or that of my children’s though. It’s been around for a few years, the current system. I do wish you well in your fight.

    • Here is some perspective for you men lock and check windows and doors against burglars as do I, in addition I make a judgement about whether some rapey bloke who fancies his chances he might happen on a sleeping woman might is out and about. Men don’t have to consider that. It’s called male privilege. If in doubt as recently as this week I had an experience in the middle of the night, washing my hands in the bathroom and half asleep, that made sent me locking all the windows and checking them continuously through a thereafter restless night after I suddenly became aware that there was a man staring at me from the next door garden, who when I locked on him retreated into the shadows. I have no idea who it was it was too dark to tell. So If I seem a “little dramatic” that is because my drama is based in reality.

      • Perspective is in the eye of the beholder – I prefer the word ‘security’ and ‘instinct’ rather than leading my life thinking I’m to be burgled each night.

        I’m sorry you’ve had that experience. You’re talking about men as though they’re all animals. You’re making sweeping generalisations with comments such as “rapey blokes” It’s hardly conducive to a balanced discussion.

        There are no winners in any trial and least of all this one, there are no liars here, because it wasn’t a trial to find out who has lied, it was a trial to ascertain whether Michael Le Vell committed the acts that were brought before the court. The complainant wasn’t on trial and those who have condemned her for lying have very little idea of how the justice system of this country works just as those who say he’s “got away with it” have very little idea of what goes on in what is known as the justice system. Justice was carried out, justice has been done.

        Justice has to remain dispassionate for the course of action which needs to take place. It can never be run on emotions and nor will it ever be. You’re basing your statements and what you want to happen on your experiences and whatever it is that you have been exposed to or in your own words “Your reality” Reality is also in the eye of the beholder and my reality is very different to yours which is why I disagree with what your thought process around this case. I’m not right and you’re not wrong, Sisterhood, but I can see very clearly that you’re someone who is running high on emotions.

        Andrew? Exactly.

  9. No, Sisterhood, you should not be tried for perjury. Nor should the man who is convicted of rape. Nor the woman if he is acquitted. A perjury trial is not a sort of appeal against – or a reinforcement of – the original verdict

    • Why is there always an outcry and demand for a perjury trial for the victim whenever some bloke gets off a rape charge. Why does it require two witnesses (back to an earlier point)?

      • 1. There is not. I did not suggest it, not seriously; it was you who raised the question of perjury.

        2. Because the Perjury Act says so.

        Seriously – if a man who had been convicted of rape were then tried for perjury and acquitted where would that leave the conviction?

        Doreen Laurence called for the parents of the men convicted of murdering her son to be charged with perjury for giving them false alibis. Quite apart from the two-witness rule, the result if they were acquitted does not bear thinking about. And you know what: to many jurors giving false evidence to protect your close family would not sound like perjury – it would sound like part of the job description.

        In the end, the eight women and four men who heard this case were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. They may have thought he was more likely guilty than not, but not beyond reasonable doubt; or they may been quite sure he was innocent – we shall never know. But there it is and a legal process, unlike a witch-hunt, comes to an end.

  10. Looking back, Sisterhood, I think I am wrong and that it was I who first mentioned perjury – my apologies.

    It remains my position that neither a conviction nor an acquittal in a rape trial should trigger a perjury prosecution – and not just because of the (wise and salutary) two-witnesses rule.

  11. I’m wrong again, Sisterhood, you were the first to mention perjury. You have not bothered to explain why every defendant (not just in rape) who pleads NG and is acquitted should not be tried for perjury if a rape defendant should. Nor whether an acquitted rape defendant should be released.

    Or indeed one who is convicted and has served his time.

  12. Well I have no reason to doubt you so I hold my hand up as guilty to the charge of mentioning perjury first. I take it the apology is withdrawn and I was enjoying it…

    Whenever some bloke gets off of a rape charge other men (and sadly some women) start to chirrup about having her (or him) charged with perjury. As though an acquittal means the accused is innocent. My view is most of them (99%) of rape did it and they just got away with because it is a man’s world. “I believed she was consenting” being the ULTIMATE get out of jail free card. One (I) only has to watch the behaviour of men as they make the way through the world 80,000 male prisoners c/f with 4,500 female to know that men are the problem and they have a problem. Let alone the figures for violent crime, sexual assault and rape which are entirely male dominated by a country mile. So in the case of rape where there are seldom any witnesses I say err on the side of caution, a not so fast approach is needed, let that bloke earn his freedom next time he won’t be so cavalier one hopes.

    As to whether I would allow acquitted rape defendants to go free… very difficult one for me. If I ruled the world only if it was proved beyond all doubt that he didn’t do it and couldn’t possibly have done it.

    • You cannot know what proportion are guilty; neither can I; neither can anyone.

      Earlier on you spoke of making the defendant prove on the balance that he was innocent. Now apparently he is to be locked up unless he proves beyond all doubt – not even all reasonable doubt – that he didn’t do it and couldn’t possibly have done it. Next you’ll be saying that even then he should stay locked up in case does it next time . . .

      A man’s world? Perhaps. But the actor with whom this thread started was acquitted by eight women and four men.

  13. Andrew, I believe I gave you a reasoned rationale for arriving at my point of view, much of which you have disregarded, perhaps you would be kind enough to address those in the same way as I paid you the courtesy of addressing yours.

    Yes the jury was made up of eight men and eight women, hard though it may be for you to believe, if I was on a jury that was hearing a rape case, I would stamp down on my natural inclinations, and base my decision on the evidence presented to me rather than my prejudices. So there!

    • Rape is a loathsome and unforgivable offence and I have no time of sympathy for the men who commit it.

      All defendants – in any offence – are in the eyes of the criminal law to be treated as innocent until proved beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a jury.

      A defendant who has been in custody and is acquitted of all charges is entitled to be released – whatever the nature of the charge of which he has been acquitted – forthwith.

      After an acquittal the defendant must for legal purposes be treated as not guilty of the offence.

      Perjury – whichever of us mentioned it first – is a red herring.

      And I don’t think there is much I can add to that!

  14. Hi,
    I am a victim of being accused of Rape, I could fill pages of what this has done to myself and my family (The often used term that it has destroyed our lives is True. After 4/5 days at court The Jury was sent to Lunch and after 1hr + a few minutes returned with a unanimous Not Guilty verdict. I would say that was conclusive enough. It also strongly points to the fact that the Accuser did lie and committed perjury. (Which she did), It also proves how ineffectual the CPS and Police are in properly interrogating Witness’s. Months after the Trial we are still afraid of another knock on the door as there just recently has been for divulging the name of the Accuser. Yes I NOW know that ignorance of the law will not be a defence. But how can a ‘Victim’ be a Victim if she has in actual fact lied? It has already been proved that Lifelong Anonymity for the Accused only does not bring forth further Witnesses.
    Dan

    • Hi Dan,

      I’m sorry to hear of your travails and one can only begin to imagine what you’ve been through. I’ve been the subject of a false allegation, nothing of what you mention but it is shocking that nothing is ever done about these. As you’re only too aware, it is devastating and upsetting.

      I’d like to highlight your point about the word “victim” as you have made a really good point in your post. I’m totally against the word in more ways than one and have written about it on many occasions. It’s a word that’s weighted with doubt. Twenty years ago we rarely heard the word mentioned – now it’s simply everywhere. The CPS makes people into victims before the wheels of justice have even begun their journey. It’s an unfair advantage that a “victim” has anonymity yet an accused doesn’t. While we defend the likes of Le Vell and the scandalous headlines that were discussed on every level, there is little room for fairness in the case of a defendant.

      Sadly, we live in a country that in a modern-day society loves to have the nation in uproar over such matters in order to continually dumb down the brains and prevent people from seeing the bigger picture. Hardly any wonder other European countries think we’re prehistoric here.

      • I’m only a humble JP – but when I am in the Chair on the hearing of a d.v. case I pull up any prosecutor who uses the V word and insist on Complainant.

    • Dan, Are you saying there was no physical activity of a sexual nature between yourself and the Complainant and despite all of this the CPS decided there was sufficient evidence for a case to come to trial? In which case what was the relationship was the Complainant to you and who are the family you refer above. Can I also refer you to the cases of Kirk Reid, Colin Blake and Fabio Moniz, all three have at some point in their lives been acquitted of rape, in the case of Blake he was acquitted twice. All now serving sentences for rape in the case of Moniz a life sentence. Did the victims lie in these cases?

      • Dan was accused of rape, a conviction for which requires more than physical activity of a sexual nature between the complainant and the defendant; it requires the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was without the complainant’s consent. In any event it is no appropriate for you to try to continue here the professional cross-examination to which he was subjected at his trial. As for the other cases you mention in every case the defendant and the complainant knows whether the complainant lied – you don’t and I don’t.

  15. Andrew, spare me. I am sick to death of seeing rapists walk free and proclaiming the victim to be a liar, I am not saying this is so in the case of Dan, I asked the question to better understand why his case was brought to trial in the first place considering he proclaims the Complainant to be shown to be liar. Surely the CPS and Police therefore royally screwed up. As we have discussed before not guilty is not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Also my questions were not a cross examination I wanted some context to understand how he ended up being accused of rape? As for the case of Colin Blake the judge as the trial where he was eventually convicted said… I have no doubt you raped those other women and I have no idea how you persuaded a jury to believe you… And you just bet those guys proclaimed their innocence to all and anyone gullible enough to listen. It wouldn’t wash with me.

    And if I’d been a lawyer who’d got a rapist off a rape charge and left him free to rape other women (or men) then shame on me. That would make me part of the problem.

    • Perhaps the CPS and the police did indeed screw up royally in believing the complainant in Dan’s case. Stranger things have happened.

      Are you suggesting that men accused of rape should not be allowed lawyers or that lawyers should not defend men accused of rape in case they set a man free to rape another woman? Would you apply that to murder which is even more serious than rape? If not, why not? There have been men and women acquitted of one murder who went on to be convicted of another. Were their lawyers at the first trial complicit in the second?

      Sister, you’ll never be accused of rape but who knows, one day you might be accused of the big M, be you never so innocent. You will then want lawyers, who will act on your instructions and ignore any private opinions they may have about your innocence or guilt and not worry about “setting you free to do it again” – and you read it here first.

      • Rapists walk free all the time to carry on with their chosen career path. It doesn’t matter because women are expendable in this man’s world – one female rape victim, two, three, one hundred is negligible, shit happens. Further, in the case of murder there is a dead body or a person whose body is never found. Rape is different and therefore it is not a fair comparison. Dan said the Complainant is proven to be a liar because he was acquitted. I am asking him to explain the context for how he ended up in court to understand how and why he was falsely accused of rape and why she would lie. All that stuff you mentioned about lawyers blah de blah. Smokescreen.

  16. You’re dead right that rape is different from murder, sisterhood: it is – and you know this – just that bit less grievous – it is sometimes called “second only to murder” and so it may be. I said earlier in this dialogue that “rape is a loathsome and unforgivable offence and I have no time or sympathy for the men who commit it” and I stand by that remark.

    I know nothing of Dan’s case. But there have been cases where complainants have started crying during the trial and admitted it was not true.

    “All that stuff you mentioned about lawyers blah de blah. Smokescreen.”

    It was you who mentioned the position of lawyers who act for men accused of rape, sisterhood, not me, and I’d still like to know whether you think such men should be allowed lawyers.

    You are of course aware that if you are at the criminal Bar you can’t pick and choose your clients; you are in the cab-rank and you have to take them.

  17. Point 1 To clarify – it was your response to my comments about lawyers that I found to be a smokescreen.

    So there have been cases where victims have started crying during trial and admitted their allegations were untrue. What does that have to do with rape and the fact that rapists get away with it all the time to the nth degree.

    Why don’t rape victims have lawyers, defence counsel, the CPS do not act for them, why instead do they get thrown to the wolves. I would like to watch that conviction rate soar when the “innocent, falsely accused, defendant” undergoes anything like the x examination the victim is put through carried out on her (or his) behalf by her (or his) own defence counsel. When there is equality of arms in rape cases I’ll give a XXXX about the rights of the male defendant in rape cases to legal representation until then, to answer your question, I honestly couldn’t give a toss.

    • The complainant is not a party; she is a witness. Complainants in g.b.h. or attempted murder cases don’t have their own counsel either. Nor do the family of the deceased in murder cases.

      So your position is that unless that is changed and there are two lots of lawyers against him the defendant should not be allowed representation. OK: just repeal the HRA and we could no doubt manage that.

      You don’t answer my other question about the position of defence counsel: is s/he, and in fact it is more often she than he, complicit if the verdict is not guilty and the defendant is alter convicted in another case? I don’t suppose you will answer. You will know that acquitted defendants in such career-crimes as robbery commonly commit the same offence as that of which they were acquitted on another occasion, or as you would say “do it again”, and it really is difficult to see how you would allow any defendant legal representation.

      Once upon a time, you know, defendants in felony were not allowed counsel (except to argue points of law) because it was said that only guilty people needed a lawyer, and until modern times people questioned in the nick were not allowed legal advice for the same reason. I don’t want to go back to that in rape or any other offence.

      • My view is there should be equality of arms in rape cases and there is not. A fact which is often ignored and in rape cases the victim is put on trial without a doubt. In response to whether the defence counsel is complicit when a guilty person walks free. Of course they are, “I was just doing my job”, they were doing their job and they did it so well they let a serial rapist (or one off) out on the street unpunished to continue. Don’t tell me that is a successful or a right result even if it is a job well done. The who CJS is complicit in allowing that.

  18. Sisterhood.
    I personally do not care what your issues are.
    That stupid law anonymity for life was completely due to what looks like typical female so called ‘do gooders’,
    You have no conception whatsoever of what my family and I and other falsely mainly men accused like me have gone through, and still go through. I disclosed my own name, without shame because a vindictive neighbour blabbed to other neighbours about my families and my problems and forthcoming court case. How do I show even with proven Innocence, how do I stop the ‘nudge, nudge wink winks’. How did he get to know? I Believe through a uniformed Police Officer who actually called me in Public an xxxxxxxxxx This made it all part of the public domain which it was not even to a year after the Trial, Being found not guilty unanimously in less than an hour which included lunch break of 8 filthy charges including Buggery and you name it, it was included.. If you do not think that says it all then you obviously are not the same as the rest of the Human Race.
    The Police and CPS take some blame for this and so does the Home Secretary, Not one person bothered to investigate properly before going to Court. My Wife who was with me during the whole untrue 8 filthy charges period was never interviewed and by association therefore also stands accused.. A relation to the accuser who was present at every meeting was never interviewed.
    I am a hoarder – thank goodness and had Hundreds of snaps and Bills and letters dating back 35 years which show the meetings with the Accuser and my Wife, all they show even to visits 3/4 years later than the lies they told without a shadow of doubt is at every meeting everything was normal and happy and jocular.
    I did make official complains against a Police Sergeant, The above mentioned female Officer, Another Police Officer who tried his hardest to have me banned from driving. 8 official complaints I made to the Police who had them all blanked by the IPCC because they have an ADVISORY Rule that any complaint that is more than 1 year old can be set aside unless for good reason. I contend that having to concentrate on a 4/5 days Trial, talks about Suicide and no we do not say we would not have done it. Yes we may be weak but also take into account through stress my Wife was taking morphine pills. I was taking the happy pill which did not keep me happy. We were terrified that the neighbour would find out, as I already said it was never part of the Public domain till Blabber mouth across the road.
    Is that not reason enough to delay making these official complaints, or is it also the reason that I was complaining about the Police themselves.
    On top of all that A Court Officer who interviewed the Jury who was going to reach a verdict on me was a prosecution witness and stated I told her I was Guilty?? The Trial was stopped and moved a 100 miles away, with further 3/4 months agonising wait and pain.
    Because it is the Total Truth.
    I did have a Website with all the proof and snaps and Bills etc etc. If I go to Prison for 6 months as could be likely, it would be just the Icing on the cake. (Sarcasm) Then I may look at putting it back up there I would take great pleasure in telling you the Site and will see what you have to say then…..
    You wanted to know the circumstances?? what have you to say about that lot????
    Dan

    • I asked you two simple questions what was the context for the Complainant accusing you or rape and secondly you referred to your family I wondered whether this was parents or your wife. You answer question two indirectly you haven’t answered question one.

      If there was no intercourse between yourself and the Complainant then clearly this was a miscarriage of justice. If there was intercourse which listening to your version was consensual why did the Complainant believe it was non consensual and why did the CPS believe there was sufficient evidence to take to trial.

      Finally “female do gooders” says a lot about you and your attitude to women. The legal system is male dominated by the way.

      • Sisterhood,
        There was never never never intercourse.
        There was never any medical evidence or any Witnesses to the Accused’s accusations, There are Witnesses that the events did not happen or there would have been if the xxxxxxx ridden authorities had done the job they are paid to do.
        Again if you had the vaguest conception of what my Wife and family have gone through you would also realise why I NOW say what I say about phony ‘do gooders,’, my Attitude to my Wife and any other Woman that i know, has never changed.I do not give a hoot what you personally think, as far as I am concerned you are a non entity in our problems.
        Of course there was not enough evidence, it is very easy for a wicked woman to have a friend say she was told of this abuse. I have friends who would lie for me in court if I asked them. Apart from giving these filthy accusers lifetime anonymity they ensure that any girl/woman/boy/man can make up a story purely out of vindictiveness and/or financial gain and just not be held to Account. My own neighbours as I have said now know about the Trial. I already notice after living here for 35 years+ certain people do not acknowledge us any more.
        2 months before I was Arrested the Accuser’s mother was charged with a Section 47 serious assault. That came to nothing and was presumably washed away. On my Website I had a signed and sworn statement from the Accuser that the person who accompanied her on all our meetings together also abused her just like I had allegedly done. Nothing happened to him. The Police never even looked at my Computers, although maybe they did through there alleged illegal monitoring abilities. Let us not forget Hillsborough and many, many other incidents.
        This was the first time I have ever been arrested,the second time was for divulging the filthy names. Just to make it all feel really nice my Wife now prefers to live in a home we purchased in another Town purely to be away from any further knocks on the door and certain looks from neighbours, where now and again I visit her or she visits me. She was never accused of anything but bears the same accusations as I do and agrees with me to make it Public, as do the rest of my Family. I say again You have no conception of what we have gone and are going through. The fact that someone can accuse you of such horrific acts and not be brought to book defies any question of logic.
        Just to add to the Trauma of the pre Trial waiting, a Barrister and part time Judge told me that if I was found guilty I could face ‘double figures’ in Jail – a probable Death Sentence for me.
        European Convention on Human rights article 8 states that when found not Guilty all finger prints and DNA and private information will be removed from Police Computers, after 5 letters from me copied to the Home Secretary over nearly 2 years they still have that information. So much for Human rights. If I was a millionaire I would take them to Court if you can find Solicitors that would handle the case. I believe the xxxxxxx are rife through that part of the Justice system as well. Just to top it all off I was refused some of my legal expenses, but better not say too much for that as apparently I can still be ‘done’ for contempt of court.
        Yes I did attempt to ask the Accusers why they had done this to us, all i received back is the arrest and a threat from the person who accompanied the False Accuser on our meetings “That he will come up here and have my legs”
        There is much much more to this story, which would take to long to tell on here. But you can now get back on your soapbox as much as you care to. You may be in denial that Females always get the thick end of the stick. In my opinion any person who commits such foul acts to women or children should quite simply have it cut off. Forget the chemical crap – Cut it off then physically that would cure them.

        Dan

  19. Andrew – I answered your question if you don’t like my response regrettably you have two options live with it or not.

    Should rapists be set free to rape again? Yes or no.

    • I will answer your question. If a man is acquitted of rape he should be released.

      If he is convicted he should serve his sentence and then be released. How long the sentence is depends on many factors – but there are some cases which are even worse than others, so the sentence has to be even longer in those cases, and therefore shorter in the others. Multiple rape, gang rape, rape of a child, rape accompanied by more violence than that without which the rapist could not have carried out the rape or by further violence after the rape, rape where there has been a position of trust; they all make the right sentence longer. But whatever the sentence, at the end he must be released.

      As indeed in armed robbery, g.b.h. and all other serious offences. The second part is different in murder because the sentence is life and release depends on the Parole Board; and in a few cases it will never be safe.

      Why you think I or other male non-rapists have the slightest sympathy for rapists I cannot understand. Belief in a fair trial and proper legal representation is not sympathy for rapists.

      Which brings me back to the point: you still haven’t said whether the defendant should be allowed counsel. I wish you would.

      • Do I believe male non rapists have sympathy for rapists, when I listen to most men talk about rape trials it is in the manner of a game something with complex and bizarre rules (I don’t play chess) so I’ll say monopoly. Regardless of what happens during it, or the facts of the matter, as long as you manage to pass Go without being sent to jail you collect £200 and continue on your way and this can happen as many times as the roll of the dice and or chance allows it. There appears to be an observer’s appreciation by male non-rapists of the game in itself irrespective of the object and subject of that game.

        Should defendants be allowed Counsel. Fair trials are not happening in rape cases/sexual offences trials therefore an acquittal means nothing. The Brighton and Hove footballers told a court that they lifted the dress of an unconscious female and took pictures of her exposed breasts, posed for pictures with their exposed penises beside her unconscious body and confirmed that one of them wrote his initials on her upper thigh/buttock in shaving foam and took pictures of that. They admitted they did this. She was cross examined by five, yes five, separate sets of defence counsel. They were tried and acquitted twice of voyeurism and sexual assault. Is that a fair trial.

        And yes she admitted she lied to the police about the initial assault but the dickheads couldn’t keep quiet about their behaviour they kept taunting her and telling others about it, sharing photo’s until she broke and went back and told what had actually happened.

        My point is these guys ADMITTED what they did (but claimed it was only “boy banter” ha bloody ha) and walked twice from court. And they were awarded costs.

        That’s neither a fair nor a right outcome. And no amount of words is going to tell me differently. These guys are still out there playing football and enjoying their liberty whilst having carried out a sexual offence on an unconscious 19 year old girl.

        And when I see things like that I don’t believe rapists or sexual offenders deserve defence Counsel either that justice is just a joke and all of those involved from Defence Counsel down (or up) are complicit in creating a system like this.

  20. Thank you for answering a very simple question although why there would be a witness to an alleged rape which by it’s nature being about sex would make this very unlikely. If what you say is true then I am sorry for what you went through although as you’ve told me you don’t give two hoots what I think…

    One point however you posted your comments on this blog I didn’t seek you out surely you were prepared that someone might reply and might not necessarily share you viewpoint?

    • Sisterhood,
      All you have shown throughout all your comments is a lack of understanding excepting your own bigoted and biased views.
      I do not care that you do not share my view point I seem to have done more than you to give my Truthful and valid reasons for my view point in my own particular case.
      I have a moral right to answer any allegations made about me and my family. Of course there is revenge involved but I also have a right that the Truth will Out.
      Your attitude suggests that any Accused in these matters is entitled to nothing, But the Accuser is entitled to everything.
      For your crass comment of witnesses to the actual rapes, they had to happen at a day and place I had witnesses and proof that I was never alone with this Liar, be it in a Camper Van or any House we have owned which they could not even describe correctly.
      Dan

      • My bigoted views based on the fact that: two women per week in the UK are murdered by their partner or ex partner, that 93% of all violent crime is committed by men, 98%+ of all rapes and sexual offences and that the prison population is predominantly male. These are the facts any female who disregards this does so at her peril. Men should come with a government health warning and if you have a problem with that take it up with your fellow men who are both the problem and the cause.

  21. Sisterhood?

    Can I just verify something with you?

    You believe that all “rapists” should not have the right to legal counsel before & during a trial?

    I’ve read that correctly?

    If so, then how do you know they’re rapists?

    Then did I read somewhere in this thread that you’re in the legal profession? Could you perhaps clarify that one for me? I am basing this on Andrew’s comment regarding your position.

    • Tracey I’m not in the legal profession please credit me with more integrity than that (that was a joke campers). And no you haven’t read me correctly on the other points I suggest you read it again but if not I’ll be happy to outline it again. Just let me know.

      • Sisterhood,

        Thanks for clearing that up. Although I have to say that my own experience with men and women in the legal profession is that they have all displayed integrity and I’ve learned much from them including my own defence handlers in my case. Despite the “crim bashing” that goes on in this country, I’ve been treated with nothing other than respect by many in the legal profession.

        Oh I can read, Sisterhood. I did have to go back and read it all again to completely grasp your various points and one other point is:

        What is a non-rapist? I’ve also seen where you say “rapists walk free all the time” I’m completed fascinated with your thought process. Do you describe all men who you know haven’t committed the act of rape as non-rapists? I’m pretty switched on when it comes to languages and although I don’t know much about legal vocabulary, I’m curious about the term “non-rapist” Can you please educate me on this term as it’s not one I’ve heard before in any language and I can speak, read & write a few. This is a genuine request.

        You have little trust in the justice system don’t you?

  22. Hi Tracey, The term “male non-rapists” was first used by Andrew in his post at 09:44 am this morning and I continued to use it in order to address his points. I presume by this, and Andrew may wish to correct me, that he meant men who do not rape, would never rape and condemn it. A contradiction in terms some (me) might say.

    I did say rapists walk free all the time, men who have raped or sexually assaulted but who escape conviction, do just that it doesn’t make them any less of a rapist. In the same way that getting away with murder doesn’t make the perp not a murderer.

    I have little or no faith in the way the justice system deals with rape and sexual offences and the way the victim aka as the Complainant is put on trial even though those in the legal system would deny this. For a successful rape case, unless the guy is a serial rapist, and you are in the bizarrely but true both fortunate and unfortunate position to be the victim who means the numbers complaining about this person are so high that it can no longer be ignored, or you suffer moderate to severe injuries or maybe no injuries but the monster will have recorded it for posterity and his crime is uncovered. Otherwise no physical injuries and or some history with the accused then forget it he walks.

    Lawyers who get clients off of a rape charge will say they were only doing their job and they were but look at the end result a rapist is free that cannot be described as justice.

    • Sisterhood: I use “male non-rapist” in exactly the sense you suggest and as I am a male non-rapist I know that that is not a contradiction in terms. I have never raped anyone; I have expressed my opinion of the low-lifes who do twice in this thread and I won’t say it again, and while there are some crimes I can imagine myself committing rape is not one of them.

      You are of course right that in the absence of physical injury – or somebody walking in on the act – rape is hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt; even if it were the balance of probabilities the jury would still have to decide whom they believed and there is no guarantee they would always get it right. It is alas the truth that many murderers (and I repeat that murder is worse than rape) are never brought to trial, never charged, never even seriously suspected – goodness knows how many murders are not even suspected to be murders but assumed to be death by natural causes – but all that is inherent in a criminal justice system which allows defendants to defend themselves.

      Which is why, if I have got it right, you think rape defendants (and murder defendants? Do tell) should not be so allowed. And your view of the lawyers who take their cases seems to be ambivalent. You probably know that more rape defendants are defended by female than by male counsel: how do you feel about that?

      I have been around the purlieus of the law for almost forty years, and I have throughout that time and indeed before believed, and I still believe, that the conviction of one innocent defendant is a worse evil than the acquittal of a thousand who are as guilty as sin. And I know that the complainant in a rape trial may feel that she is on trial – although much less so than within my memory when cross-examination was allowed of a sort which would not now be – so that if the defendant is acquitted she feels that she has been metaphorically “convicted” and maybe wrongly. There is however nothing metaphorical about the prison to which he will be taken if he is convicted, and therein lies the difference.

    • I appreciate your response Sisterhood, thank you.

      All you’re saying in that response is valid and I agree for the most part. However, in terms of a lawyer representing a defendant who is on trial for rape does not get the person “off” the charge. I don’t see that each and every person who has been accused of a crime in the UK who has a defence team working for them, is about getting off with the charge. If I thought that, then I would not be supporting the right for a balanced justice system. Which is what we have. I know you do not agree this is the case in cases of rape or abuse (please do correct me if I’m wrong in that comment) however, the rights of a defendant stand, the justice system we have places the onus of proof on the accuser. That is what we have and I don’t think it’s going anywhere soon.

      Rape is a heinous crime, of that there is no doubt. For a person to be convicted of that crime, then it does have to be proven that the event happened. You know this, so my apologies in that I’m teaching a granny to suck eggs, but in that sense, there can be no separate rules for rape crimes in the onus of proof shifting. If the onus of proof sits with the defendant in rape cases, then I do think the balance of power is shifting even further. At the moment, the defence can only respond to the accusation placed before him/her by way of submissions. Look at this with a wider peripheral eye, the onus of proof is placed on the accused, then there is every possibility that a defence will counter-act allegations and the whole case is blown apart. Hum?

      I know you feel strongly about this and I applaud your conviction to your cause, I truly do and what you say makes sense. But victims are not victims until a case has been proven in the eyes of the law, no matter how much you look at it. Rape is a criminal offence – it’s one of the hardest crimes to prove and more so in the absence of forensic evidence.

  23. I’m not comfortable with innocent people languishing in jail for crimes they didn’t commit but I do not find it any more palatable that the guilty are walking around at liberty either. It seems to be a common tactic that female counsel are used in rape cases, it is as if to say well the accused has a female lawyer and she wouldn’t be defending a rapist because she’s a woman therefore already there is doubt in the mind of jury… in reality it’s all in a day’s work for her.

  24. Hi Tracey I haven’t heard the entire case Le Vell case and it appeared to be heavily censored but based on someone breaking the law and revealing the name of the victim it is my belief he is guilty. I’ve also heard Turner referring to the girl’s mother as vindictive which to me is another indication of guilt, in my view. Abusive men, spurned men and rapists frequently throw this allegation around. There are far better and far more inventive ways if one wanted to be vindictive.

    • If it wasn’t Mr Le Vell who revealed the complainant’s name (or anyone acting at his request) then it proves nothing either way, does it? If it was some fool, male or female, in the gallery who heard it and revealed it, what’s that to do with him?

      As for “vindictive” – if the girl was lying at her mother’s urging – and it is not physically impossible – then the word is dead right. In any case, sisterhood, whatever Mr Le Vell said you would regard it as proof of guilt. If he took a vow of silence you would regard that s proof of guilt too.

      Still, I have one piece of good news for you. Earlier on you said that men who plead not guilty and are convicted should be charged with perjury and get a consecutive sentence. I pointed out the two-witness rule and also the risk of inconsistent verdicts – but it occurs to me that in a sense you get what you want. If a rape defendant or any other defendant pleads guilty s/he gets a third off. Which means that s/he pleads not guilty and is convicted s/he gets half as much again. Effectively, it’s punishment for denying the original offence, which is what you were arguing for, just without the P-word.

    • But even if we are not legally allowed to address the specifics of the accusation and the circumstances, it is not very hard to figure out who the accuser is simply by reading between the lines of what was left unreported. Given the actual circumstances of the complaint, it is fair to say that allegations of the man physically or sexually abusing one or more children or the mother is not entirely unknown in that kind of situation for a variety of motives which one can also figure out.

      One can also use Google to find links to articles discussing that kind of situation and the probability of allegations of sexual abuse of children being true.

      • Indeed; but articles are not evidence, Google is not in the witness box, and jurors are concerned with the individuals before them and nobody else.

      • @Andrew. Yes, I understand your point, but since for the purposes of this discussion it is impossible to discuss the actual constellation of factors of this case, obvious though they may be to all but the most casual reader, without running foul of reporting restrictions, I was just trying to point readers to the fact that a great deal of work has been done, especially in the US, on evaluating the relatively common accusations of this kind that occur in similar circumstances or hen the relationship between the accuser and defendant is similar, and what factors suggest whether the allegations are made up or factual. For example I was recently reading a lengthy and detailed article by a pair of clinical psychologists who had personal experience of evaluating about 500 similar cases plus a fairly comprehensive review of the academic literature. One could find this on Google, but I hesitate to give a link in case that invalidates this post.

        OF COURSE juries would not be knowledgeable of such things or have access to Google (though they might have it at home), nor would it be legal for them to research the subject matter of the case out of court, but that doesn’t mean that the CPS lawyers and defending lawyers are not aware of the published academic literature. Actually it would be a surprise if they were not. Under the circumstances it seems odd to me that the CPS thought the allegations credible. The alcoholism might be a plus factor for the prosecution, but everything else one knows about the case, despite reporting restrictions on almost all the evidence, points to a case that not only had very little chance to win, but very little chance of being true.

        I’m not sure whether the CPS really believed the allegations were true, or just believed that the public interest was best served by showing the accuser by means of the experience of a trial by jury that continually escalating the charges and coming back with more recollections of sexual abuse just won’t work if the case is basically not sound.

    • HI Sisterhood,

      Now in the name of women, Sisterhood, we have a Sisterhood right? I like your fighting spirit.

      However, because Turner called the complainant’s mother “vindictive” you state that Turner is guilty? One word and he’s guilty? Now come on girlfriend, that’s not balanced or making a balanced judgement is it?

      As for your comment about some silly fool naming the complainant on some social media site or wherever the silly prick thought it might be a good idea, that simply tells me that some jerk behind a keyboard thinks he’s being “smart” when in fact it’s people like him who do no favours towards what is already a sinking opinion of the British public and their constant whining. He was arrested right – I hope he was bloody charged.

      Both of those incidents are in no way indicative of Turner’s guilt.

      I’m not a great fan of some of the laws we have in place. I’m not a great fan of how some of the areas of the CJS are simply a mess – I’m not a great believer in much of it and constant balls up of some within the law, but it’s the law we have and one in which a man was found not guilty a jury of his peers of all 12 counts of serious sex charges. That’s justice whether we liked it or not.

      I also hope that complainant is receiving the support she might well need.

  25. Andrew, as I said so called male non-rapists enjoy the game for itself even if they don’t commit rape. Two women a week are murdered by their partner or ex partner. The reverse is not true. If you want to see vindictiveness then that’s the stat which proves it, but of course women are expendable, but what’s two dead women per week in the scheme of things. In other words the “vindictive woman” is a myth created by men to hide their dark deeds.

    And no it wasn’t Le Vell who revealed the victim’s identity it was some MRA’s on twitter who objected to men, who are accused or raped, being denied anonymity to prove his point he chose to name the victim.

    And you say the identity of the victim is not important how do you know this? Suddenly things slotted into place but I don’t want to say anymore I do respect the law I just don’t always agree with it.

    • What I said is that it is not physically impossible that Mr Le Vell is right. What other men do is not to the point. I am not answerable for the actions of others because they and I are of the same gender any more than you are for the actions of everyone who is of the same ethnic origin as you. We are responsible for our own actions.

      I don’t know what MRA means, please enlighten me. But if the revealer of the name was not Mr Le Vell then the name being revealed proves nothing about him.

      Finally “you say the identity of the victim is not important how do you know this?” Where and when did I say anything of the sort?

      • You appeared satisfied to allow the term “vindictive women” as well as the concept of it not “physically impossible”. When the real truth is it men who are the vindictive ones, murderously so, as well as a truth that is seldom acknowledged. We are responsible for our own actions but the myth of the vindictive woman, “buyer’s remorse” all that rubbish, pure myth created by men to allow themselves to rape, abuse and then plead set up and the juries fall for it because while the reverse is clearly the case it is not palatable that it is not just monsters who rape but normal men do too: husbands, boyfriends, male friends & fathers gender being the only common denominator. That’s why people shy away from this uncomfortable truth.

        MRA = (Men’s Rights Activists) need I say more in this man’s world.

        I don’t want to dwell on the name of the victim I believe you will agree that the person who revealed it should not have done so. However it did further complete, for me, a somewhat incomplete picture about this case. In an earlier conversation I thought you said the ID of the victim was not important if this was said by someone else my apologies.

      • Thank you for the information and I accept the apology. Of course it was wrong to reveal the name of the complainant and I have no time for the person who did so.

        I stand by the position that it is physically possible for a woman to be vindictive. And what makes men rape is not vindicitiveness: it is – I would have to guess; being male does not tell me – a mixture of violence and lust. Probably in different proportions in different individuals.

        Once more and I hope for the last time: I am NOT making excuses for those of my gender who commit or attempt rape. But I AM insisting that those accused are entitled to a fair trial, not a kangaroo court. I don’t think you and I are ever going to agree about what constitutes a fair trial; I am concerned with process and you with outcome.

  26. Andrew – I wanted to be clear about one point. I did not mean that man who rape do so out of vindictiveness. I really don’t know what makes a man want to have non consensual sex at all. My point was that abusive men, rapists, sexual offenders often blame their fate when they end up in court on vindictive woman or the more irritating ‘buyer’s remorse’ however the truth of the matter is that men, who are responsible for killing two women per week in the UK, are demonstrably more vindictive but the myth has been created and perpetrated that women are the vindictive ones when the truth is that men are murderously vindictive and the reverse is not the case.

    • The sort of pure evil, call it vindictiveness or not, that leads to serious crime against the person is much commoner among men than among women, and I obviously don’t deny that and can’t deny that; but any individual man may not be vindictive, at least not in the way of being inclined to rape or murder; any individual woman may be, in one way or another. There are men who go through life with nothing known or suspected against them, and not because they have got away with it; there are also a few of the Rose West type, or that woman in Wales who burnt her neighbours alive in their home – and that was vindictive.

      To say that “men are murderously vindictive” is, in short, a stereotype. Most men don’t commit murder. Or rape. And you don’t judge individuals on stereotypes; not if you are a magistrate who understands the job or a juror following proper directions; like the twelve who acquitted Mr Le Vell.

LEAVE A REPLY