Not Guilty

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/le-vell-rape-trial-corrie-actor-not-guilty-141904131.html?nc=0

So why was he named in the first place?

Why is there no anonimity until proven guilty in this country?

 

I think the girl is 15 now.

Now he's been found not guilty does that open the door for charges to be brought against the girl?

If it never happened, why on earth would someone make up something that could destroy someone else's life?

 

I'd been wanting to discuss it, but held off till it was over, unlike the media.

The way he was looking so distraught throughout the trial and just kept repeating it never happened, really didn't look like a guilty man.

 

Lets hope it is the same for William Roache and Rolf Harris!!

Val

 

I should add, that I know there will be genuine cases and I wouldn't like to see anyone put off reporting them through fear of it being thrown back at them.

I just think its so wrong that when someone cries rape, the accused is immediately named and put up for trial by media.

 

I would say she wanted attention from her parents and this was one way to get it.

 

I sincerely hope to never find myself in his position, but if I ever did, about now I would be speaking to my solicitor with a view to pursuing damages for things like libel and defamation of character. I'd be looking to recover loss of earnings, both for while the while the whole thing dragged on, plus forecasted loss due to my inability to resume normal life for a while after my trauma, and I'd want all of this from the family of my accuser. She has tried to destroy an innocent man's life, and so she should be taught a harsh lesson, and she should be made an example of to anyone else thinking its a free meal ticket to just make up stories about people.

 

Fill me in if i've missed something, but i've not read anything about how/where all this was meant to have happened. Was the girl a friend of the family, what connection did she have to him?

Can't imagine an actor in Corrie having to moonlight as a baby sitter

Or was it all made up about someone on telly, or did mum put her up to it with a view towards selling the story to the papers?

All seems a bit odd to me

 

I'm thinking a lot of "jumping on the bandwagon" has gone on since the Jimmy Saville case.

The Media could be blamed, but it should also be taken into account how the law works in the UK.
Only the defendant is named, its not as if you could keep the lid on it anyway, (if you wanted to), if it involves someone in the public eye.
Personally I blame the prosecution service for not investigating fully before bringing the case.

On the other hand, the Jury could be wrong.

 

This thought occurred to me as well!! but if there is insufficient evidence and apparently there was significant lack of detail from the girl, then it must be a not guilty verdict!

Val

 

I agree. Even though he's been shown not guilty, his name will always be tarnished, and will stay with him for life. The girl will remain legally anonymous, even though it seems she's gone for a smear campaign.