Kevin Webster not a paedo

estebanrey · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:29

Michael Le Vell Cleared of all charges....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-24032449

So, do you reckon he'll be back on Corrie soon? Also, will the girl now face contempt of court charges given the not guilty verdict means by definition they thought she was making false claims against him?

tom_e · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:31

He'll still always be regarded as that guy off corrie who was a pedo and she'll get off scott free.

AtreuS · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:34

Who knows.... only the jury had the evidence and clearly they didnt see a clear cut case against him.

I did jury duty in january and before then i was the sort who would have said no smoke without fire, but it opened my eyes and in all honesty unless you are on the jury then you cannot ever say anything as what at first seems a clear cut case can soon become very different.

Spektor · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:34

It was her word against his and her word changed depending on who asked her about it. No evidence at all.

Suarez7 · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:35

Name is still tarnished, that's what I can't stand about the media, they always portray people to be guilty before trial.

nick.lidgett · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:39

Just because somebody has been found not guilty does not mean he didnt do it, it just means the prosecution didnt do a good enough job convincing the jury.

tom_e · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:40

nick.lidgett said:
Just because somebody has been found not guilty does not mean he didnt do it, it just means the prosecution didnt do a good enough job convincing the jury.

Then where do you draw the line?

Suarez7 · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:41

nick.lidgett said:
Just because somebody has been found not guilty does not mean he didnt do it, it just means the prosecution didnt do a good enough job convincing the jury.

Considering the other big name TV stars who've been found guilty over the past year or so I'd say it's more than likely he isn't guilty.

No1newts · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:43

tom_e said:
He'll still always be regarded as that guy off corrie who was a pedo and she'll get off scott free.

+1

Peados should be named and shamed but for this level of offence it should be behind closed doors under the innocent until guilty mantra this county pretends to follow.

Guilty he can be "outed" a he deserves, not guilty he isn't tainted forever with such horrible accusations which he will now undoubtedly be.

schumi84 · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:43

nick.lidgett said:
Just because somebody has been found not guilty does not mean he didnt do it, it just means the prosecution didnt do a good enough job convincing the jury.

You could look at it that way, or that the pedo bandwagon that seems to be doing the rounds has had a wheel start to wobble.

Unfortunately for him, though, his name will always be tarnished and it will be difficult, I imagine, for him to step back into the limelight for a good while yet.

nick.lidgett · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:43

tom_e said:
Then where do you draw the line?

With the verdict, it might not be the correct one but thats justice and we have to accept that a jury of our peers came to their decision fairly taking into account only the evidence givien through out the course of the trial.

Spektor · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:44

nick.lidgett said:
Just because somebody has been found not guilty does not mean he didnt do it, it just means the prosecution didnt do a good enough job convincing the jury.

The prosecution got a girl up who was described as 'bubbly & naive' which is amazing considering she was apparently getting raped since she was 6, who then provided a sob story that was meant to send a man away. They must have known they had no case, why he even was in court in the first place to be found not guilty is insane.

The Dread Pirate · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:45

Spektor said:
It was her word against his and her word changed depending on who asked her about it. No evidence at all.

Indeed TBQF the case shouldn't have been allowed to proceed into court if her testimony was "Unreliable"

No1newts · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:45

nick.lidgett said:
Just because somebody has been found not guilty does not mean he didnt do it, it just means the prosecution didnt do a good enough job convincing the jury.

So he's guilty then despite being found innocent? :rolleyes:

Though that attitude sums up the general street idiot and media approach so can't be too shocked it is echoed in GD.

arknor · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:45

So, do you reckon he'll be back on Corrie soon?

no since the episodes are filmed in advance

d_brennen · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:45

Everyone is a pedo until proven innocent

Cosimo · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:46

nick.lidgett said:
Just because somebody has been found not guilty does not mean he didnt do it, it just means the prosecution didnt do a good enough job convincing the jury.

Then again maybe he is completely innocent and the whole thing was fabricated. You do have to wonder whether this what happened in this case.

DJMK4 · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:46

Tarnishing someones name like that can have some devastating effects, personally, and professionally if they end up being proved as innocent.

It can still destroy your name.

phill1978 · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:50

d_brennen said:
Everyone is a pedo until proven innocent

just spat out my juice ...

(not in that way :eek:

)

nick.lidgett · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:51

No1newts said:
So he's guilty then despite being found innocent?

Though that attitude sums up the general street idiot and media approach so can't be too shocked it is echoed in GD.

Im neither a street idiot or a media type, its not even an "attitude" its a fact.
Like i said before we have to trust our peers on the jury plain and simple.

I cant really see an argumemt here, he got found not guilty, it was fat waste of public cash, the girl stays anonymous and life goes on.

The fact he will "always" be branded a peado is yet to be seen, however i dont think its right that only the accuser gets anonimity. Both parties should recieve this right until a verdict has been reached.