Friday, February 15, 2013

Michael Le Vell Statement Analysis

If you were accused of molesting children, falsely, what would you say?

You would say, "I didn't molest" the children.  This would be first and foremost in your language, and would flow easily.  You might add, "I never molested..." and "I would never do such a thing!" as part of your statements, but the simply fact that you did not molest children would be the basis for your denial.

It is what truly innocent people say.

Q.  What do you mean by "truly" innocent people?  Does this suggests that there are different types of "innocence"?

A.  There are different types of "innocence" in status.  One may have "done it" but is "innocent" of the charges. One may have not been found guilty, for example, and is, "judicially innocent" of something.  I speak to a "de facto" innocence:  that is, that one did not do it.

Being judicially innocent, before a trial, for example, does not mean one did not do it, but only has not been yet judged.  Another may have, like Casey Anthony, gotten away with murder and is, judicially, innocent of killing Caylee.  This is not to say that she is, in fact, innocent, of killing Caylee.

In the next article, we see a man accused of child molestation, therefore, we look for him to tell us that he did not do it.  We have a principle:

If someone is unable or unwilling to say that he didn't do it, we are not permitted to say so for him.

What do you find in his statements?


Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell has said he is innocent of all child sex charges against him and will "fight them vigorously".
To "fight them vigorously" is to describe how he will, through his lawyers, conduct himself in court.  What we look for is for him to say "I didn't molest the child..." using the pronoun, "I", the past tense ("didn't" or "did not") and add in the specific accusation.  
Le Vell, who plays garage owner Kevin Webster in the ITV soap opera, is accused of 19 child sex offences, including child rape, and sexual activity with a child between 2001 and 2010, Greater Manchester Police said.
Le Vell, 48, a father-of-two whose real name is Michael Turner, will appear in court charged with the offences on February 27.
Le Vell said: "I would like to make it quite clear that following the serious allegations that have been brought against me on Thursday 14th February 2013, I am innocent of these charges and intend to fight them vigorously.
"I will now put all my efforts into clearing my name and proving my innocence."
Please note that "I am innocent" is a true statement:  he has not yet been in court. He will also put all his efforts into this battle. 
This is the perfect opportunity for him to tell us, "I didn't do it", but he does not. 
ITV has dropped him from further episodes of the show. 


Sara Roache memorial
Michael Le Vell was first questioned over the child sex allegations in 2011

A spokesman said: "Given the serious nature of these charges, Michael Le Vell will not be appearing in Coronation Street pending the outcome of legal proceedings. It would not be appropriate for us to comment further at this time."
The actor was initially arrested in connection with the offences in September 2011.
The investigation was dropped three months later when authorities said there would be no further action taken against him as there was not enough evidence.
However, following a review of the case by lawyers at the Crown Prosecution Service the decision has been taken that it is in the "public interest" to charge the actor.
Speaking after the investigation against him was dropped in 2011, Le Vell said he was "delighted" to have been "completely exonerated", thanked police for their "thorough" investigation and Coronation Street staff and the public for their support.
Le Vell vowed to put the allegations behind him and returned to the show after a short break and is now currently involved in some of the soap's main storylines.
Alison Levitt, QC, principal legal adviser to the Director of Public Prosecutions, reviewed a file of evidence in relation to allegations of sexual offences and looked again at a decision previously made not to prosecute.
Ms Levitt said: "I have very carefully reviewed the evidence in this case and I have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to charge Michael Robert Turner with a number of sexual offences.
"I have authorised Greater Manchester Police to charge Mr Turner with 19 offences, including rape of a child."
Le Vell, who split from his wife Janette Beverley last year, is one of television's most famous faces after playing car mechanic Kevin Webster for the past 30 years in the TV show.
Originally from Manchester, he began his acting career in the Oldham Theatre Workshop after taking an interest in amateur dramatics while at school.
He first joined the soap in 1983 and quickly endeared himself to fans who have followed the trials and tribulations of Kevin, from Brian Tilsley's apprentice mechanic through to his stormy marriage to Sally, played by Sally Dynevor, and fathering two teenage girls as well as a love child from his affair with Molly Dobbs.
The subject has not yet told us that he did not do it.  He is innocent and says so, and he plans on fighting in court, which may or may not happen since plans and intentions change.  
Innocent people, that is, truly innocent, not just judicially innocent, will tell us plainly and without sensitivity indicators, "I didn't do it."
The subject does not deny the action, only the conclusion.  

73 comments:

Anonymous said...

I live In the UK and believe he is guilty because he is a known poof.

Hobnob said...

Le Vell, who plays garage owner Kevin Webster in the ITV soap opera, is accused of 19 child sex offences, including child rape, and sexual activity with a child between 2001 and 2010, Greater Manchester Police said.

Le Vell, 48, a father-of-two whose real name is Michael Turner, will appear in court charged with the offences on February 27.

Le Vell said: "I WOULD LIKE to make it QUITE clear that following the serious allegations that have been brought against me on Thursday 14th February 2013, I am INNOCENT of these charges and INTEND to fight them VIGOROUSLY.

"I will now put all my efforts into clearing my name and proving MY INNOCENCE."

ITV has dropped him from further episodes of the show.

Michael Le Vell was first questioned over the child sex allegations in 2011
A spokesman said: "Given the serious nature of these charges, Michael Le Vell will not be appearing in Coronation Street pending the outcome of legal proceedings. It would not be appropriate for us to comment further at this time."

The actor was initially arrested in connection with the offences in September 2011.

The investigation was dropped three months later when authorities said there would be no further action taken against him as there was not enough evidence.

However, following a review of the case by lawyers at the Crown Prosecution Service the decision has been taken that it is in the "public interest" to charge the actor.

Speaking after the investigation against him was dropped in 2011, Le Vell said he was "delighted" to have been "completely exonerated", thanked police for their "thorough" investigation and Coronation Street staff and the public for their support.

Le Vell vowed to put the allegations behind him and returned to the show after a short break and is now currently involved in some of the soap's main storylines.

Alison Levitt, QC, principal legal adviser to the Director of Public Prosecutions, reviewed a file of evidence in relation to allegations of sexual offences and looked again at a decision previously made not to prosecute.

Ms Levitt said: "I have very carefully reviewed the evidence in this case and I have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to charge Michael Robert Turner with a number of sexual offences.

"I have authorised Greater Manchester Police to charge Mr Turner with 19 offences, including rape of a child."

Le Vell, who split from his wife Janette Beverley last year, is one of television's most famous faces after playing car mechanic Kevin Webster for the past 30 years in the TV.show.

http://news.sky.com/story/1052421/michael-le-vell-will-fight-child-sex-charges


Le Vell said: "I WOULD LIKE to make it QUITE clear that following the serious allegations that have been brought against me on Thursday 14th February 2013, I am INNOCENT of these charges and INTEND to fight them VIGOROUSLY.

"I will now put all my efforts into clearing my name and proving MY INNOCENCE."


Hobnob said...

Would is future conditional.Here is the perfect place for him to say he didn't rape anyone yet he doesn't.

Technically he is correct, he is innocent of the charges until found guilty in a court of law. innocent until proven guilty is the rule here in the UK
He intends to fight them vigorously.

This may change as the evidence comes out and statements are taken and on what his lawyer advises.

What one intends and what one eventually ends up doing can be completely different.It may be that we will see some sort of deal being made.

He weakens his statement with the addition of vigorously.

When there are additional qualifiers (words that when removed do not change the sentence)
Instead of strengthening the sentence as many would believe and have us believe, it instead weakens the statement.

The more qualifiers the weaker the statement.

These is close those is distancing, he is close to the allegations

There is no strong first person singular past tense event specific denials.

At no point does he say i did not rape any girls and if he can't say it, we can't say it for him

Statement analysis reveals no reliable denial

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

He said on his blog"I'm a star,,,we often make mistakes"he's a dwarf (5ft 1")tall.

Www.miss-marple @.com said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

'People who are innocent don't say this, they say that'. How do you know? Has no innocent person ever said this? Has no guilty person ever issued a flat denial?

Anonymous said...

I wanted to write a brief remark to express gratitude to you for all of the remarkable tips and tricks you are posting at this site.

My extensive internet investigation has at the end been paid with incredibly good concept
to talk about with my guests. I would repeat that many of
us readers are unequivocally blessed to be in a useful community with very many lovely professionals with useful strategies.
I feel very much happy to have used your web
pages and look forward to really more cool minutes reading
here. Thanks a lot once again for everything.


Feel free to surf to my web site;

Mikala Stainer said...

One thing I want to know is how did he meet the girl? Family friends? He is a soap star so it can't be late night babysitting as I highly doubt he is in minimum wage, probably a good 100k per year if he makes regular appearances and has been in the show for 30 years. I don't watch corrie but am intrigued by this as I keep wandering how did he first meet her, no one has ever said anything on this, do they even know? Ish she a neighbour? He must (being a soap star and earning a good yearly wage for the last 30years) have a nice house mortgage paid or nearly paid therefore if she is a neighbour, she must come from a family of "means". Why is this important, its obvious really, if he didn't know her or has never met her through any of the ways above (or others I haven't listed) then he is innocent. Surely investigative journalists would have legally looked into how he meet her first and when? But then again he may be 100% guilty, only time will tell. The point is if he is guilty and by that I mean truly guilty then all his hard worked he has bullsed up. If he is innocent then she is a stupid idiotic child who wanted to have attention and to see someone's hard work suffered. Even if he is truly innocent it's a shame to think there will still be people turned against him and not believing it as there always is. I hope that in this case the real truth comes out in the next couple of weeks and by that I mean either firstly he slips up in court admitting his guilt or she slips up and say something to jepodize her case or changes her story in such a way that she tarnishes her case

Anonymous said...

The article above is a load of bollocks. Michael Le Vell is entirely innocent (in fact and in law) of all charges and his accuser is a lying little toe-rag who needs psychiatric help while in prison for bringing these utterly false charges.

Anonymous said...

The girl was very Young when the abuse started and he has a daughter the same age of the victime. So there are two possibilities, it is his daugher Amelia or a daughter´s friend/relative who would spend nights at their house.

Anonymous said...

I definitely think its his own daughter which makes the case even sicker if that's at all possible :(

Anonymous said...

Plus the girls mother had been mentioned but not her father which obviously he wouldn't be mentioned if its him!

Anonymous said...

There is no need for any 'Statement Analysis'. Had Michael Le Vell said 'I didn't do it' over and over again in public, some 'statement analyst' would find a problem with that too.
If this Analyst knows so much about the law, they should also know that a person is INNOCENT until proven guilty.
I personally believe this man is innocent and I sincerely hope that the jury will find him so.

Anonymous said...

I have a friend who lives very near Michael - the common knowledge in that part of Hale is that the alleged victim is his Sister's niece.

Anonymous said...

To describe the alleged victim as "his sister's niece" is as clever a bit of word-play as I've seen for many a year. Sadly, however, it will fly over the heads of most readers.

Anonymous said...

Any attempt at analysis of his statement is futile simply because 'his' statement isn't his statement at ALL.

Any and every statement he made prior to trial was conceived and written by his lawyers with a view to denying the charges in relatively few words.

Anonymous said...

Normally I assume that if it's come to court, the evidence must be so overwhelming that guilt is likely (though obviously not proven without a trial - but likely), or the CPS wouldn't have risked taking it that far.

So in most cases, I feel sympathy for the alleged victim and weary of the slippery arguments the defence will use to discredit her and worm the defendent off the hook.

However, this is one of the rare such cases where the alleged victim's statements just seem to be lifted from a bad TV movie aboud child abuse:

"I was holding my teddy bear"

"He said it would be our little secret"

(etc etc)

(like if a GCSE English class were asked to do a creative writing project about abuse, this is the level of tabloid-cliche they would inevitably come out with.)

It all sounds very inauthentic. Nothing personal about it.

Add to that:

"I didn't remember it at the time, but now I've had some flashbacks and suddenly I remember it all really clearly...",

And you have to say, this sounds pretty flimsy.

Does anyone know, has he got previous for this sort of thing, or any other alleged victims? If not, well...

Let's hope the trial reaches the correct verdict whatever it is.

Anonymous said...

Michael is as clean as a whistle. He shuns the celebrity lifestyle and just gets on with life in the same way any other decent person would.

Okay, he likes a drink but then who doesn't?

I know exactly who the alleged victim is and I can tell you she isn't of normal mind. It's her word against his and there isn't one atom of corroborating evidence.

It's a stitch-up from start to finish and the case would never have been brought if the prosecuting authorities weren't under such pressure to show limitless concern for all alleged victims of sex abuse regardless of how flimsy the actual case may be.

If you knew him and you knew her, you'd know she's lying.

Anonymous said...

On Day 3 of the trial, medical experts stated that, having examined the alleged victim in 2011 when she first complained about the alleged abuse, there was no evidence to support her allegations.

And let's not forget that they were examining a 16yo who claims to have been raped by a fully-grown man on a regular basis ever since the age of 6.

And let's also consider that, every morning following those alleged rapes and indecent assaults and death threats, she got out of bed, ate her breakfast and trotted off to school without EVER giving her mother the sligthtest inkling that anything might be amiss in her life.

Michael Le Vell is innocent and the girl's story is a pack of lies from start to finish.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said... September 4, 2013 at 11:28 AM - the alleged victim's statements just seem to be lifted from a bad TV movie about child abuse.

"I was holding my favourite teddy bear" not "I was holding Henry, my favourite teddy bear"

"He said it would be our little secret"

She said the alleged attacks made her feel "disgusting" - not dirty (childs words) but disgusting (what an adult might say)

I don't know what, if anything really happened between this guy & the girl, but one thing is fact, this childs words are 100% fake, very poorly chosen - very poor acting indeed.

What bothers me here is that this girl didn't tell anyone about the alledged sex untill she went to a 'motivational speaker' evening. This motivational speaker told of her own alledged child abuse and how she triumphed into the heroic person she is now.

No little girl would look twice at a floppy haired boy in the street, but if this floppy haired boy was in a pop band, she would worship the ground and follow him to the ends of the earth - motivational speaker/icon/hero - do you see the connection?

Nitty Gritty.
An adult man penetrating a 6 year old girl... I think her vagina would be ruined - doctors should easily spot this if it was true.

No lubrication - I think she would be sore for days and not be able to hide the discomfort from her parents.

Did he use a condom? If not, the parents would see the bed covers and the childs underwear would be soiled.

Guilty or not, this chaps career is over. I can think of another TV celeb who was involved in an alledged rape and now this TV celeb is no-longer on TV. I can't name the alledged victim but she said a few years later, you can 'read all about it' in her forthcoming autobigraphy' - it still didn't sell.

I am so releaved I'm not in Michael's place. I can't prove where I was last week so how do you prove you didn't do something several years ago?

I hope the truth comes out and Michael is proven not guilty (because he didn't do it). If he did do something, the prison boys will see he gets what's coming to all paedo's.

Anonymous said...

The tragedy is that the judicial system allows cases like this to be brought. One person's word against another's with no evidence to support or undermine the charges.

If the complainant is a talented actor and the accused looks a bit dodgy, a conviction is likely regardless of innocence or guilt.

Luckily for Michael, the girl's story sounds every bit as fake as it really is. If she'd come up with a better tale, he'd have been looking at 20 years in prison.

God protect us all from British 'justice'!

Anonymous said...

Doctors have declared the alleged victim's hymen is still intact and thus she has NEVER had full penetrative sexual intercourse - not this year, not last year and certainly not when she was 6 years old.

She's a vicious evil lying little scumbag who should get 5 years for perjury and another five for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Anonymous said...

The fact that the hymen is still intact does not mean she was not abused. There are so many ways a person can be sexually abused.
I have no idea whether or not Le Vell is guilty, we don´t have the full information to judge him yet. The only thing that bothers me is the victim´s melodramatic story about how she was raped. It sounds so fake and fabricated.
Remeber that her mother wanted to sell her story to the papers but the judge told her no.

Anonymous said...

The 'mother' in this case is of great significance, the truth of which I believe will eventually be heard. This child is obviously very vulnerable. A strong 'vindictive' mother, with the use of auto suggestion, can easily influence a young impressionable girl, filling her head with the weirdest 'memories'.
How many times, as an older person, do you almost feel you have actually witnessed experiences as a child when in fact, it's because one's parent recounted the tales so often? Similar to brainwashing.
I sincerely hope the truth will be revealed in full and Michael Le Vell will be totally exonerated.

Anonymous said...

on oath he has been caught lying several times and his answers generally show all the classic statement analyisis deception indicators.
His admission of being an alocholic and of and unknown ("string of" or "several") one night stands and an affair show him to be both devious and untruthful. He also admits to being chauvanistic.
In my opinion he does very badly on sensitive questions in statement analysis terms and seems unable to give a good clear non messed up denial.

I find the girl and her mothers accounts to be plausible and not piled up with countless deception indioators and fitting for what she claims and conversant with her allegations.

Anonymous said...

The fact is it's impossible for him to prove he didn't do the things he's accused of. Luckily, however, he's not obliged to prove his innocence. He remains innocent until the prosecution proves his guilt - which they have very little chance of doing.

On a less general point, if the girl had an intact hymen at the age of 16, there is simply no way she was penetrated by a man's penis at the ages of 6, 9 and 10. I mean, it's simply not possible.

So, we know the most serious allegations are false and we are therefore obliged to doubt all the other allegations.

Add to all that the fact that Michael is known locally as a decent bloke and his accuser is known as a bit of a nutter and you can, hopefully, start putting the champagne on ice for when the jury returns 'not guilty' verdicts on all counts.

Anonymous said...

I hope justice prevails, I would place money on the defendant being innocent.

Anonymous said...

The world is full of idiots and several of them have posted on this thread attempting to give credence to the utterly absurd notion of 'analysing' the defendant's various statements.

His every word has been consistent with innocence while his accuser's every word has been consistent with a very poor attempt to conjure up a convincing story.

She's an evil, demented little shitbag.

Anonymous said...

"On oath he has been caught lying several times" says some anonymous idiot on this thread.

The fact is he hasn't been caught lying at ALL, either on oath or at any other stage of these proceedings.

The girl's story reads like a trashy novel while his story reads like the Gospel truth.

He's innocent.

Anonymous said...

This is an absurd website - and completely in contempt of court.

I'd advise deleting this post and thread immediately.

Anonymous said...

Nothing on this website is in contempt of court. The only thing that would be in contempt of court is a disclosure of the alleged victim's identity.

Britain is a free country (more or less) and - apart from identifying the girl - we are free to comment as we wish upon the case and its participants.

Anonymous said...

"Apart from naming the victim" - which has been done several times in this comment thread.

Hence the advice. Ignore it at your peril.

Anonymous said...

I stand corrected - in fact it is "breaching S(1) Sexual Offences Act 1992 in relation to the public identification of an alleged victim of sex abuse"

See here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/michael-le-vell-trial-man-arrested-for-allegedly-naming-victim-on-twitter-8799535.html

Anonymous said...

comments posted on here may well be viewed by readers and analysed which often gives insight into the nature and truthfulness of the person behind the comment.

Abusers are often supported by other people whose nature is abusive and antisocial.

Anonymous said...

The thread, for the most part, has not sought to identify the alleged victim but a small number of postings have sailed quite close to the wind in that respect.

If I were the site administrator, I'd remove the potentially offending words.

The trial will end on Monday with closing arguments from both sides, a summing-up from the judge, the jury returning a 'not guilty' verdict on all counts and the nation's media pointing out that, if Sir Jimmy had kept his hands to himself, poor Michael Le Vell would never have been charged with these entirely imaginary offences in the first place.

Anonymous said...

"Abusers are often supported by other people whose nature is abusive and antisocial." says some anonymous bell end, completely missing the point that Michael Le Vell is NOT an abuser. He's an entirely innocent man who's being stitched up by a young girl whose soundness of mind is 'questionable' to say the very least.

Anonymous said...

the earlier comments did not go over my head!fact is,if you are a success there is always someone out there who want's to spoil it.the sooner he is cleared from this and the alleged victim charged the better.she should be named and shamed,even though it is common knowledge who she is.

Anonymous said...

the earlier comments did not go over my head!fact is,if you are a success there is always someone out there who want's to spoil it.the sooner he is cleared from this and the alleged victim charged the better.she should be named and shamed,even though it is common knowledge who she is.

Anonymous said...

September 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM Anonymous said...
"the sooner he is cleared from this and the alleged victim charged the better".

If Michael is found guilty (even if he didn't do the alleged crime) he faces many years in jail.
His career will be over (it may be over anyway).
If he has a mortgage, his house will be repossessed.
His girlfriend is unlikely to wait for him to be released.
In jail he will be persecuted & physically attacked.
Friends will eventually disappear.
In short, his life will be over!

If this girl is caught out telling a pack of lies, what will happen to her? Many years in jail? NO!
Will her career be over? NO, she does not have one!
Does she have a mortgaged property to lose? No!
Does she have a long standing boyfriend to lose? She is between 16 and 19 years old - I doubt it.
Will she be persecuted, physically attacked or lose friends? NO!

I'll tell you what she will get, a counsellor to help with the teenage hormones and maybe private tuition to help pass the failed exams. In short, she has nothing to lose. She even has her anonymity (mostly).

Before you ask, I don’t watch Coronation St and I would not know Michael if I saw him in my street.
I'm sure as hell glad this girl does not know me - 'cos it could be anyone of us blokes in this situtation.

Anonymous said...

totally agree.it is her word against his and what can he do??except hope that the jury wakes up to these so called allegations with no concrete proof.i will be very disappointed in the british justice system if he is found guilty.this man has innocence oozing out of every inch of him.the alleged victim should be charged if he is proved innocent.

Anonymous said...

This site has alluded to the identification of the alleged victim.

Whatever the outcome of this trial, you should ashamed of yourselves.

Anonymous said...

The law forbidding the identification of alleged victims of sex abuse was designed to protect innocent victims from the painful glare of publicity following their already traumatic experiences at the hands of their abuser.

It was NOT designed to protect vicious demented little liars from publicity while they try their damnedest to ruin the lives of perfectly innocent men.

Nobody who has identified this girl has committed any offence against morality, even though they have offended against the letter of the law.

Michael Le Vell is innocent and the evil shitbag of a girl who has told these appalling lies should be sent to prison for life.

Anonymous said...

**'The prosecutor told the jury to remind themselves of the evidence the alleged victim gave earlier in the trial. 'Absolutely the truth' She said: "The reality was that there was no reason for her to lie. It is absolutely the truth, there is no other reason that holds water'**.

Well, I didn't go to law school but I can give you many reasons why a girl would lie, but in this case, it would be money. If the defendant was found guilty, the mother & daughter would then go on a 'no win no fee' compensation claim that would see this girl never has to work again - she would be set up for life. Seize the defendant’s house and if it sells for a modest (for a celeb pad) £500k, that would pay around £200 per week until the child is 60 years old. This defendant keeps out of the limelight and drinks beer - not champagne & limos to expensive night clubs - beer! He must have a tidy nest egg put away and I'll bet this mother & child are hoping to get their grubby hands on it.

The mother has already asked if she could sell this story to the press.
She is already thinking of money, not the welfare of the child, but MONEY! I'm not the only one who can see through the lies. The kid can't tell the same story twice without changing it - even when hiding behind the screen. The plot was first told to her by a woman who says she was abused as a child but now she is a 'guiding light for the masses'. The story line was already written, all the kid had to do was learn the lines.

The result of this nonsense will be known in a day or two and the kid will learn that if she wants money, she will have to get a job like the rest of us!!!

Anonymous said...

It seems absurd that he could get so close to the alleged victim in her own bed putting her own teddy bear in her mouth and allegedly carry out all this so called sexual abuse from the ages of six up to 14 unless she was constantly in his care.
where was her mother all this time ?
Was he babysitting ?, well obviously NO if he was drunk so where did all this happen.
In my opinion there is only one conclusion, however sick it may seem.
And if I am right then the prosecutor was right, there is no reason for her to lie.

Anonymous said...

Reading between the lines, it would seem neither the Mother or her daughter (the alleged victim) need any money.
I would imagine that they have enough and this case has nothing to do with money.
In my opinion this is not just some run of the mill girl and a lot of people may be surprised and shocked.
A lot of wild speculation has been made and said about who this may be, but they may be closer to home than they think.
As for me, I'm not revealing anything cos nobody knows do they

Anonymous said...

There is absolutely no motive whatsoever in the world for this girl or child to Lie about something like this

Anonymous said...

In my opinion I think he's guilty but may be found innocent.

But even if found innocent, his life will never ever be the same and there will always be people who will think he's guilty.

Everywhere he goes, everything he does, everyone he sees, it will always remain in peoples minds, this is the guy who was in court relating to child abuse.

He can never win now either way

Anonymous said...

never been on a site with so much truth in it.let's hope the jury sees this!and realise where money is involved people will stop at nothing.

Anonymous said...

It's frightening that the case depends, in the absence of evidence, on whose story the jury believes. A man's reputation, life and livelihood are at stake. Very scary that this could happen to anyone. This is not to say anything about what I personally believe, just my opinion on what appears to be a worrying "development" in present day "justice".

Anonymous said...

I have just said these words to someone 5 minutes before reading this.strange or what?

Anonymous said...

***'September 9, 2013 at 4:09 PM Anonymous said...There is absolutely no motive whatsoever in the world for this girl or child to Lie about something like this'***.

Perhaps you should read something about this case in the press. The mum has already asked if she can sell the story to the newspapers. Just in case you can't read my writing 'sell the story to the newspapers'!

If an adult man raped my 6 year old daughter, do you think I would A. sell the story to the press? B. Beat the living daylights out of the guy then call the police? I'll give you a clue, the answer is not A.

By the end of this week we will know the outcome.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have just said these words to someone 5 minutes before reading this.strange or what?

September 9, 2013 at 5:24 PM"

If you mean my words @ 4.41pm September 9 - most fair minded people with an interest in justice will be thinking and saying the same thing : )

Anonymous said...

To decide this case, you need ask only one question: is it possible to rape a 6-year-old while her mother is asleep in the next room?

If one question isn't enough, try: would a raped 6-year-old get out of bed the following morning and give her mother NO idea that anything untoward had happened during the previous night?

This case is a travesty and should never have been brought.




Anonymous said...

a total joke and another money making expedition from people who need to learn that you have to work for a living!i just hope the jury read between the lines.this man's entire life is at stake here and i'm sure he would rather be hung than plead guilty to a crime he has not committed.

Anonymous said...

My SA of a considerable amount of the available evidence shows a mountain of red flags in regards to the accused and no significant concerns in regards to the alleged victim.
The strength and nature of the concerns with a few key points leaves no reasonable doubt as to the correct verdict.

When a celebrity is accused of crime, many fans will feel the accusations personally so fear or feel threatened by the accusations and subsequently are unbalanced in defending the said celebrity. This has been seen many times in cases involving celebrities. The bias and prejudice can be particularly hostile as they struggle to defend the accused celebrity and, in effect, a part of "themself".

Anonymous said...

It makes me shudder to think we're all at the mercy of juries that may include some of tragically thick bastards who have on this thread expressed even one atom of doubt about the rightfulness of a 'not guilty' verdict on every count in this case.

Anonymous said...

The Jury have heard both sides now and it is up to them.

either;

Innocent & Walk Free

Guilty 10-15 years

Anonymous said...

If he's found guilty, I'm going to accuse every member of the jury of raping and abusing me.

There'll be absolutely no evidence to support my accusations but, if that doesn't matter in Le Vell's case, it shouldn't matter in anbody else's case, should it?

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that some people on this site have escalators that do not reach their top level.

Nobody on the planet including the jury can possibly know if he is guilty or not, apart from himself and the alleged victim.

The Jury obviously will have to decide either way but how anybody can make comments regarding Innocence or Guilt, even friends that know him, can only ASSUME one way or the other.

Nobody can be 100% certain because they were not there, and it was not on video cam or CCTV so get real.

Anonymous said...

Childish comments will not decide, It will be left to the Jury who have heard the case set out before them and as we have not been in court and heard both sides we can not possibly know.

Murderers have got away with being convicted and innocent men have been hung for crimes they didn't commit.

I would say that the people who have been close to this man and his family for the last 25 years or so may know the truth, but for the rest of us NO, we can not possibly know what goes on behind closed doors.

Anonymous said...

One shouldn't read too much into the press, the newspapers are there to sell.
By the way it was to TELL THE NEWSPAPERS...... NOT TO SELL THE STORY

Anonymous said...

Jury back in - not guilty on all charges.

Anonymous said...

It's correct to say we cannot KNOW whether he's guilty or not guilty, just as we cannot KNOW whether or not the royal family are shape-shifting alien lizards from outer space.

That having been agreed, I'd believe the queen is a lizard before I'd believe Le Vell did any of the things alleged by his accuser.

Anonymous said...

Not guilty for lack of evidence, right?
We will never know the truth.

Anonymous said...

"Not guilty" for lack of evidence?

What are you talking about?

Every 'not guilty' verdict in the history of the world has been arrived at due to lack of sufficient evidence to convince the court of guilt.

If we accept that a man is innocent until proved guilty, we must accept he's innocent - which he almost certainly is.

Anonymous said...

not guilty!!!at last I believe in the british justice system.what must he have gone through.thank goodness the jury saw through the lies.makes me wonder what people will try next to get money.she should be sued and charged with purgery.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what his ex wife and daughter have to say about this outcome. They should be there to support him, shouldn´t they?
Unless....

Anonymous said...

This post should now be closed, like the case against Michael Le Vell. It will attract mainly snarky comments, sadly. Wishing him well.

Anonymous said...

There has been a lot of comments on here about the nature of the girl in question.. She's not right in the head, she's an evil little liar, she's mentally unstable etc. I guess if you had been abused in the way she says she was, then it would also mess with your head wouldn't it? Poor kid.

Anonymous said...

this case should now be closed.michael has been found not guilty and it does not take any messing with for some people to be out there to get money under false accusations!!good luck with your prosperous future career Michael.

Anonymous said...

I am glad to see Helen Flanagan his daughter in corrie was the first to comment on the outcome of the case.pity she is not his real daughter.where was she during this charade??

Anonymous said...

I'm a survivor. Everything in this thread has been immensely trrigering, almost identical things were said about my abuser. For decades. 32 years later her is now serving a sentence for abusing another relative. The only difference was dna. I believe the victim. Everyone thought I was a liar. Thank you for the original post. People tried to say my mother and i were mad too.