Le Vell Verdict

[Dee Sa]

I acknowledge the fact he has been found not guilty by a jury of his peers. but do you think his celebrity status helped eg Michael Jackson, O.J.Simpson, &Harry Redknap etc

[Baldric]

Bestowing 'celebrity' status on a Corrie actor is stretching it a bit imho!

[zebo]

Could have worked both ways, was he prosecuted because of his celebrity?

[Hopkirk]

No, I have more faith in the British public on a jury than that.

With the recent publicity about Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall etc, I don't see why people should be swayed towards innocence by celebrity status.

I bet half the jury didn't even know him before the case.

[Peter Pedant]

and Dr Crippen

The more lawmen *** off juries the more I think juries are preferred

Juries you know, know who the Beatles are and travel by bus and so on.....

[Peter Pedant]

no Corrie is a big deal up t' North

just as Blackadder and so on is, down South Baldric

[Peter Pedant]

oh dear the missing word is .... sl+g

[Baldric]

Ah! the good old N/S divide again

[joggerjayne]

The judge and the Beatles ...

The judge knew very well who he Beatles were.

He was not allowing them to gain any advantage through their celebrity.

So he went through the motions of requiring the Beatles' barrister to explain on record that they were a musical group, just as if they were four blokes who played in the local pub.

The judge was levelling the playing field.

By refusing to acknowledge the fame and celebrity of the Beatles, the judge was not being out of touch with the common people. Quite the opposite. He was making a stand on behalf of the common people by making it clear that fame and celebrity would not attract any advantage in the eyes of the law.

[sandyRoe]

As was this learned lord :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VgwxKW0J6I

[New Judge]

No, but his celebrity status (if he enjoys such a thing) most certainly helped him be accused and charged. From what I've read (and it's only what I've read, not all the facts) it seems this cases was spawned from the Jimmy Saville affair. In 2011 (the year before JS) the CPS decided not to prosecute Mr Le Vell. Two years later, with no substantial additional evidence other than a bit of embellishment by the alleged victim and her mother, together with a demand for a review, that decision was reversed. It is my view that the burden on Mr Le Vell's alleged victim to provide convincing evidence had been considerably reduced since the JS allegations were first born and I have serious misgivings about some of the other historical allegations that have recently been made against celebrities.