Kevin Webster not a paedo

Mucky_Pup · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:52

d_brennen said:
Everyone is a pedo until proven innocent

How though? Trial by jury of your peers resulting in innocent verdict? Nope, just a peado who got away with it.

Everyone is a peado.

gillywibble · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:53

Another prime example of why anyone accused of a crime should have anonymity before conviction.

d_brennen · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:53

Mucky_Pup said:
How though? Trial by jury of your peers resulting in innocent verdict? Nope, just a peado who got away with it.

Everyone is a peado.

Better safe than sorry!

Biohazard · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:56

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.

Lmfao.

You win. I also heard you shag animals.

Disprove me.

d_brennen · 10 Sep 2013 at 15:58

Biohazard said:
Lmfao.

You win. I also heard you shag animals.

Disprove me.

I heard this too... No smoke without fire :eek:

No1newts · 10 Sep 2013 at 16:00

d_brennen said:
I heard this too... No smoke without fire

I think he should be banned unt he proves he is innocent!

/waves pitchfork

matt_fsr · 10 Sep 2013 at 16:03

I wonder if he's planning on suing all those delightful "newspapers" who ran stories about him having raped a 6 year old .... which clearly weren't true.

DanielMMS · 10 Sep 2013 at 16:07

nick.lidgett said:
... it just means the prosecution didnt do a good enough job convincing the jury.

Nonsense. You are implying that, had the prosecution been more effective, he would have been convicted. Whereas the acquittal actually means that there was insufficient evidence to convict.

nick.lidgett · 10 Sep 2013 at 16:09

Biohazard said:
Lmfao.

You win. I also heard you shag animals.

Disprove me.

It was only once and it was consentual.

I cant see what a big deal this statement has made?
Is it wrong? In anyway shape or form?

If you have a good enough lawyer you cant get away with anything from a parking ticket to murder.
Im not saying he is guilty or innocent for that matter, im saying a verdict does not prove who was telling the truth, it just proves who done a better job in court.
The fact the jury only took four hours to sum up suggests to me there wasnt much of a case to argue about.
In this case justce may well have been served correctly we will never know.
Trial by jury is probably riskier in cases like this when its statement vs statement over something of a historical crime like this where there is no physical evidence.
Once the statements have been given its all down to the lawyers to pick holes in the other sides story and prepare their client for cross examination.

Spektor · 10 Sep 2013 at 16:12

nick.lidgett said:
I cant see what a big deal this statement has made?

It flies in the face of the whole innocent until proven guilty thing, especially since you can never really be considered innocent in your crazy world. Being either guilty or getting away with it, does not a justice system make.

Pawnless Endgame · 10 Sep 2013 at 16:14

Although Le Vell has been acquitted, his life is still ruined as he's been named and shamed. This is something that will torment the rest of his life, where the girl gets to remain anonymous and carries on with life un-harrassed. She herself should be tried in court.

hurfdurf · 10 Sep 2013 at 16:15

estebanrey said:
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?

Uh, it does not at all and thats a really either disingenuous or dumb thing to say.

nick.lidgett · 10 Sep 2013 at 16:15

Spektor said:
It flies in the face of the whole innocent until proven guilty thing, especially since you can never really be considered innocent in your crazy world. Being either guilty or getting away with it, does not a justice system make.

I am sorry but how can you be innocent until proven guilty when they plaster your name all over the media and keep the alleged victims quiet?

tom_e · 10 Sep 2013 at 16:16

hurfdurf said:
Uh, it does not at all and thats a really either disingenuous or dumb thing to say.

She claimed he raped her, they decided he didn't therefore her claims are seen to be false. No?

hurfdurf · 10 Sep 2013 at 16:17

Spektor said:
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.

Whilst I agree that this one should probably not have ever gone to trial, are people who were raped since they were 6 supposed to have a set of characteristics?

gjrc · 10 Sep 2013 at 16:17

might as well have done it for all the good the not guilty verdict will do him.

guilty in every ones eyes now.

hurfdurf · 10 Sep 2013 at 16:18

tom_e said:
She claimed he raped her, they decided he didn't therefore her claims are seen to be false. No?

No, she claimed he raped her, and the jury decided that they couldn't, beyond reasonable doubt, say that she was telling the truth, that does not automatically mean she is not telling the truth, just that she can't prove it.

Guilty people sometimes don't get prosecuted, and some times innocent people go to jail.

Shock horror I know to over privileged scum, but sometimes the world isn't fair and bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.

Only someone with the intelligence of an amoeba would fail to not realise this.

Fenris · 10 Sep 2013 at 16:19

Well his life is effectively ruined so no, I doubt he will be back on Corrie.

This is why the UK needs laws to protect suspects in cases like this, it doesn't matter if they turn out not guilty, the press has already torn their reputation to shreds to a point where they will carry the accusation with them for the rest of their life.

tom_e · 10 Sep 2013 at 16:20

hurfdurf said:
No, she claimed he raped her, and the jury decided that they couldn't, beyond reasonable doubt, say that she was telling the truth, that does not automatically mean she is not telling the truth, just that she can't prove it.

Guilty people sometimes don't get prosecuted, and some times innocent people go to jail.

Shock horror I know to over privileged scum, but sometimes the world isn't fair and bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.

Only someone with the intelligence of an amoeba would fail to not realise this.

So now we're back to the he's been acquitted but that doesn't mean he's innocent line of thinking. I do agree that just because a jury says someone is innocent doesn't always mean they are, but to automatically assume this for every case is daft.
I can't decide if you've just called me over privileged scum, an amoeba or both.

darael · 10 Sep 2013 at 16:20

If I were Michael Le Vell, I'd take the girl to the cleaners.