Michael La Vell Not Guilty

[hc4361]

Of first charge.

[emmie]

in other words he could be guilty but because of lack of substantial evidence they cannot convict him. I wondered quite she would gain from lying?

[albaqwerty]

The man's life has been ruined, even with a not guilty verdict.
I can't imagine the mental anguish and pain him and his family have gone through.
A substantial storyline won't make up for that.

[viv38]

But that's wrong isn't it, if the Jury had believed her, his life would now be in tatters ?

[viv38]

I didn't say it would alba, I was just reporting what Corrie had said !

[emmie]

that is the same for anyone, you could go to court as an innocent person and end up in jail, it happens.

[viv38]

Ken - I think they should now name the girl.

[EdmundD]

I agree with viv38 -name the girl.

[albaqwerty]

agree with you viv, was only saying last night that in these matters either all parties should be named or no names whatsoever until a verdict has been reached.

Was she a god-daughter or a neighbour's child? All these youngsters will now be pointed at.

[viv38]

Just coming out of Court now on breaking news.

[Ken4155]

Emmie asked what the child would have to gain by lying. One disturbing aspect of this case was that on the 2nd or 3rd day of the trial, it was revealed that one of the first thing's the child's mother asked of the police was how she would go about selling the story to the media. When questioned on this, she replied that she had decided not to go down that route. Perhaps the media would only be interested in paying for the story would be with a guilty verdict. Just a theory, but perhaps that was the motivation behind all of this.

[viv38]

Disgusting Ken when an innocent man's reputation is at stake.

[hc4361]

She can't be named - ever. Since 1976 each and every alleged victim of a sexual offence is protected by law giving them lifetime anonymity, even if the accused is found not guilty.

[ummmm]

That's because 'not guilty' doesn't mean 'innocent'

[hc4361]

Ken, not sure I believe that. Is there a link?

[Twenty20]

I agree, either name both parties or give both anonymity. It's unfair that only the defendant is named. Mud sticks, unfortunately, and that's wrong.

[albaqwerty]

What irks me, is that some other girls are going to have the finger pointed at them, falsely.

Ken, if that's true, I've no reason to doubt it, I think the girl's mother should hang her head in shame. Disgusting.

[hc4361]

It must be dreadful for the girl's mother, too (ignoring the selling the story bit).

She believes her daughter and must feel partly responsible inasmuch as the girl felt unable to tell her, and she didn't somehow notice.

[albaqwerty]

I haven't really followed this, but am I right in thinking that this allegedly happened over 7 years from when the girl was 7 - 14?

Very sad case, no-one's a winner in these sort of circumstances.

[viv38]

From age 6, over nine years. But there was no medical evidence to support her claims.

[pixie373]

I'm still unsure whether that means he really didn't do it or there just wasn't enough evidence to prove he did. The girl definitely shouldn't be named. She may have been telling the truth. But he shouldn't have been named either, until and unless he was found guilty.