same i dont ever follow it , i only catch bits if im having me tea late , ive no idea who most ppl are on it ,
No she wont get investigated, just because Webster has been found not guilty does not mean that she has lied. The jury have it drummed into them that unless that are 100% convinced that Webster is guilty they must return a not guilty verdict. When you are talking about historical abuse there is never going to be any physical evidence due to the amount of time that has passed, and if their is only one victim that comes forward what you are left with is one persons word against another, and no jury will ever be able to be convinced 100% based upon one persons word against another. Therefore a return on a not guilty verdict is very likely weather it happened or not. Its shocking to know that only 1% of sexual abuse allegations that reach to courts result in a conviction. And many more allegations that are reported to the police dont even pass the CPS and get to the courts. So where talking abut less that 1% reaching a conviction. Im not saying Webster did it or he didn't, but their is still a good chance he may have.
In the eyes of the legal system that much of the rest of the world tries to copy, he's innocent. Where have you got this 1% figure from? If it's true it's a damning indictment of the Police and the CPS, but the figures I found were nearer 75% and increasing.
please log in to view this image *This is not saying anything in particular about the Le Vell case. Just the issue as a whole.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/23/rape-conviction-rate-high Rape conviction rate at an all-time high CPS statistics reveal conviction rate is currently at 63% as prosecutors respond to claims too few cases appear in court Owen Bowcott, legal affairs correspondent The Guardian, Tuesday 23 April 2013 It goes without saying that sexual abuse is a serious issue, but false allegations and people using it as a stick to beat people, makes dealing with genuine cases all the harder.
There was physical evidence, that she hadn't been raped & it was unlikely she'd been abused. "But the court heard that medical experts who had examined the girl had found no clear physical evidence that she had ever been sexually abused. When she was examined two years after the last alleged attack, tests indicated that she had not had full sex, the jury was told." The jury were also clearly asked to consider whether she was a truthful witness. I think they concluded quite clearly 12-0 that she was a liar. "The jury was asked to consider whether the alleged victim was a “truthful witness” or someone who had set out to “destroy” Mr Le Vell’s life." He's innocent, found so by a jury of his peers based on the evidence presented.
See that bloke in Manchester who raped a girl with AIDS recently? Somehow the dirty bastard wasn't inflected. please log in to view this image I suspect it's easier to get a conviction, if the bloke actually looks like a rapist.
"He's innocent, found so by a jury of his peers based on the evidence presented." No he wasnt He was found not guilty Like every body else he must be treated as innocent until proven guilty. That means no one can receive any form of punishment before conviction. Only two people know whether he is innocent him and the woman. The jury were asked to decide the facts on the evidence presented But I bet its put paid to anyhope he might have of a career as a babysitter.
Innocence (or guiltlessness) is a term used to indicate a lack of guilt, with respect to any kind of crime, sin, or wrongdoing. In a legal context, innocence refers to the lack of legal guilt of an individual, with respect to a crime.
How did they work that out? I'm a bit confused with the huge mass on that named 'rapists' but then a tiny group of 'reported' - how can they say how many unreported rapes are out there?
The information about the graphic is in the url at the bottom of it (http://theenlivenproject.com/the-truth-about-false-accusation/). Obviously it is almost impossible to get a precise figure, given the nature of the crime.
Not only is it not the truth, it's also nothing to do with the question at hand regarding the British Judiciary.
I served on a jury in a sexual abuse case very similar to this. It's the hardest decision most people will ever have to make. Fortunately we had eleven good jurors and just one ****. Without going into details, I can well imagine a lot of abusers get found not guilty.
