Kevin Webster not a paedo

[SexyGreyFox]

Read the thread and you'll realise why that comment is silly.

Let's see if I understand correctly.
Because he has been found not guilty it just means there wasn't enough evidence to convict him so he could actually still have done it and she is actually telling the truth?
If it was a case hinging on a DNA sample and it was not his then he could have been proven innocent and that could lead to suing her?

 

[Von Smallhausen]

The way you're saying that is like the police have done no wrong, please forgive my lack of knowledge about the CPS, but surely they thought they had good evidence to get a conviction which they clearly did not, that was my point, so someone got it wrong which I feel is the police, my opinion that is all.

Police take the complaint then they gather the evidence and bar very minor crimes, the evidence is presented to the CPS for a charging decision. If evidence was insufficient then it is right to ask why a charging decision was made given that Michael le Vell was not charged initially.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Because he has been found not guilty it just means there wasn't enough evidence to convict him so he could actually still have done it and she is actually telling the truth?

That is a possibility as is the possibility he is completely innocent. Only two people know that for sure.

If it was a case hinging on a DNA sample and it was not his then he could have been proven innocent and that could lead to suing her?

Depends what her evidence was and the specifics of the case. It would also depend if she was being criminally investigated for perverting the course of justice or of reputational damage civilly.

 

[muon]

Let's see if I understand correctly.
Because he has been found not guilty it just means there wasn't enough evidence to convict him so he could actually still have done it and she is actually telling the truth?
If it was a case hinging on a DNA sample and it was not his then he could have been proven innocent and that could lead to suing her?

Consider 2 scenarios.

Person A rapes B. B goes to police but there is no other evidence than the word of B. In court B's word alone isn't enough to convict A.

Person C does not rape D. D attempts to get C convicted and fails to convince the jury on their word alone.

How will you tell these cases apart?

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, either of these scenarios could be true in this case.

 

[Gogl]

I wasn't aware you knew the intricate details of the case.

How does one exactly go from "found not guilty" to the automatic assumption she intentionally lied, many other possibilities exist.

I think he meant that people do make up stories like these for all manner of reasons, and that you cannot assume that an allegation is true simply because you cannot see a clear motive for it being invented.

I think it was more badly phrased than anything, in part I would suggest because of the way the quote was phrased, something that doesn't seem to concern you at all.