Kevin Webster not a paedo

Burnsy2023 · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:16

robgmun said:
This +1

It's a ignorant, utterly stupid and bigoted point of view. So i'm not surprised that the knuckle draggers of society that perpetuate this myth.

It's not ignorant or stupid, it's simply correct.

Suarez7 · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:18

Burnsy2023 said:
It's not ignorant or stupid, it's simply correct.

You should have taken a look at the username before replying to that post.

Sneaky Peaky · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:18

Did anyone pick up on what was the nature of the relationship between him and this girl?

By that I mean how did he know her and the mother and what the hell was she thinking of letting him have unsupervised access to her from the age of 6?

As others have said though why on earth did it get this far if there was a lack of any evidence and an unreliable testimony from the alleged victim, and undoubtedly he will struggle to shake off the stigma for a long time..

MooMoo444 · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:20

robgmun said:
This +1

It's a ignorant, utterly stupid and bigoted point of view. So i'm not surprised that the knuckle draggers of society that perpetuate this myth.

Would you want your kids near someone whos even been suspected of child abuse/sex charges? I doubt it.

Danthus · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:21

Admiral Huddy said:
.

LOL didn't he claim he had a drink problem?

Yeah he did, but he wouldn't be telling lies would he.

K-2 · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:22

I find it difficult to understand why the girl in question would invent an allegation like this against a man such as La Vell.

If we are to assume that Le Vell is actually innocent as opposed to merely being found innocent by this jury, why did she lie? I can only assume she was after some sort of financial compensation and given the Jimmy Savile saga, the timing makes sense. However, you stick your neck on the line to go after a lowly TV character actor? Surely if you're going to take such a risk and lie to the police, courts etc, potentially have your name and reputation tarnished forever, you'd at least go for the big bucks and accuse someone with a few more quid in the bank? I won't mention any names as I wouldn't want to cast aspersions but I'm sure you can guess at the grade of celebrity to which I'm referring.

I'm not privy to ITVs salary scale, but I seriously doubt Le Vell is particularly wealthy in the grand scheme of things. Makes no sense to me...so yeah, unfortunately (assuming he IS truly innocent) his name will probably remain synonymous with paedophelia for a long time to come.

arctine · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:25

It's a shame that so many people can't grasp the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

bitslice · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:26

Burnsy2023 said:
I think it also needs to be made clear that we don't know if she is indeed lying or not.

Yes of course, I was just speculating that there isn't a good reason for her to lie.
Almost no rape cases get to court as it is and of those, few are actually convicted. If she failed to convince in court then I'm not entirely surprised, I wouldn't want to be cross examined over something that traumatic either.
AFAIK if you are investigating someone's sexual background, then the defence can rip into yours and make you look awful.

Danthus · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:28

nick.lidgett said:
OMG some of you guys do really miss the point,

"Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power.
They can only find them "not guilty." A verdict of "not guilty" can mean two entirely different things.
It can, of course, mean that you believe the defendant is innocent. However, it can mean something entirely different.
A verdict of "not guilty" can mean a verdict of "not proven." Even if you are very sure the defendant is guilty, but the prosecution has not proven it "beyond a reasonable doubt," then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict of "not guilty.""

"The jury's job has very little to do with the concept of "innocence."
Its job is not a bipolar one of convicting the guilty and vindicating the innocent.
It is one of analyzing what evidence the prosectution has presented and determining whether it is enough to satisfy the jury that there is no reason to doubt the defendant's guilt. It is the jury's job to sniff out the reasonable possibility that the defendant may not be guilty.""

Its the same for when somebody is acquitted, it doesn't mean they are innocent.

So if you didn't commit the crime and the jury finds you not guilty in your opinion you are not innocent?

BunnyKillBot · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:28

nick.lidgett said:
Even if you are very sure the defendant is guilty, but the prosecution has not proven it "beyond a reasonable doubt," then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict of "not guilty.""

Logic does not follow. How exactly can you be 'very sure the defendant did it' without conclusive evidence? You don't like the look of the accused? They just seem a bit shifty? Some suggested they did it so they probably did?

robgmun · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:29

nick.lidgett said:
OMG some of you guys do really miss the point,

"Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power.
They can only find them "not guilty." A verdict of "not guilty" can mean two entirely different things.
It can, of course, mean that you believe the defendant is innocent. However, it can mean something entirely different.
A verdict of "not guilty" can mean a verdict of "not proven." Even if you are very sure the defendant is guilty, but the prosecution has not proven it "beyond a reasonable doubt," then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict of "not guilty.""

"The jury's job has very little to do with the concept of "innocence."
Its job is not a bipolar one of convicting the guilty and vindicating the innocent.
It is one of analyzing what evidence the prosectution has presented and determining whether it is enough to satisfy the jury that there is no reason to doubt the defendant's guilt. It is the jury's job to sniff out the reasonable possibility that the defendant may not be guilty.""

Its the same for when somebody is acquitted, it doesn't mean they are innocent.

That's why he is innocent until proven guilty. And that's why that concept is so so important

If he is found not guilty, he is still innocent and innocence has not been taken away from him until the time he is found guilty

QED

foster grant · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:32

OldCoals said:
Yeah he did, but he wouldn't be telling lies would he.

An alcoholic tell lies ? Oh please

nick.lidgett · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:34

OldCoals said:
So if you didn't commit the crime and the jury finds you not guilty in your opinion you are not innocent?

but only you as the accused would know that and the victim, if there was one for the alleged crime, not anybody else, not the jury, the judge, the media.

I cant see how supposedly intelligent people cant see a differences between Innocent and Not guilty

Mucky_Pup · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:38

K-2 said:
I find it difficult to understand why the girl in question would invent an allegation like this against a man such as La Vell.

If we are to assume that Le Vell is actually innocent as opposed to merely being found innocent by this jury, why did she lie? I can only assume she was after some sort of financial compensation and given the Jimmy Savile saga, the timing makes sense. However, you stick your neck on the line to go after a lowly TV character actor? Surely if you're going to take such a risk and lie to the police, courts etc, potentially have your name and reputation tarnished forever, you'd at least go for the big bucks and accuse someone with a few more quid in the bank? I won't mention any names as I wouldn't want to cast aspersions but I'm sure you can guess at the grade of celebrity to which I'm referring.

I'm not privy to ITVs salary scale, but I seriously doubt Le Vell is particularly wealthy in the grand scheme of things. Makes no sense to me...so yeah, unfortunately (assuming he IS truly innocent) his name will probably remain synonymous with paedophelia for a long time to come.

Well she can't just go accusing anyone as that clearly wouldn't work, assumption is he must be a close friend of the parents to have had access to the child from age six for many years after, so it's logical for her to name him, if a payout is what she's after. It's not as if she could name Warren Buffett or someone in the hope of getting a hold of a stake of their billion dollar fortune, as their have no known relationship.

The way the world works is, people can be vindictive ***** for any number of reasons, some totally petty reasons, I dunno, maybe le vell promised the kid that he'd get them a part in coronation street and that never materialised, and this escapade is the payback? we'll never know.

Burnsy2023 · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:39

arctine said:
It's a shame that so many people can't grasp the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

You missed the first bit: it's the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

The definition of which is: An idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas, although it is not known for certain.

arctine · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:43

nick.lidgett said:
but only you as the accused would know that and the victim, if there was one for the alleged crime, not anybody else, not the jury, the judge, the media.

I cant see how supposedly intelligent people cant see a differences between Innocent and Not guilty

Lol.

nick.lidgett · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:51

ok so presume I was charged for beating a granny and taking her pension, also presume im "innocent until provenguilty", the case went to trail, you guys are all sat on the jury, even though youre 99.9% sure I did it you are bound by the constraints of the justice system, for whatever reason to return a "not guilty" verdict.
That does not make me innocent, not in the slightest, that is the point im trying to make.

arctine · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:53

Burnsy2023 said:
You missed the first bit: it's the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

The definition of which is: An idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas, although it is not known for certain.

Doesn't change the concept.

The accused should be regarded as innocent in the eyes of the court unless proven guilty.

He was found not guilty and therefore assumed innocent.

Danthus · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:53

nick.lidgett said:
ok so presume I was charged for beating a granny and taking her pension, also presume im "innocent until provenguilty", the case went to trail, you guys are all sat on the jury, even though youre 99.9% sure I did it you are bound by the constraints of the justice system, for whatever reason to return a "not guilty" verdict.
That does not make me innocent, not in the slightest, that is the point im trying to make.

If everyone knew you did it you would be found guilty. :confused:

arctine · 10 Sep 2013 at 17:55

nick.lidgett said:
ok so presume I was charged for beating a granny and taking her pension, also presume im "innocent until provenguilty", the case went to trail, you guys are all sat on the jury, even though youre 99.9% sure I did it you are bound by the constraints of the justice system, for whatever reason to return a "not guilty" verdict.
That does not make me innocent, not in the slightest, that is the point im trying to make.

Being sure is an absolute stance. It can't be broken down into percentages.

Without hard standing evidence we can't be sure of anything and with it, you will be found guilty.