I'm afraid you will have to do better than that ST, there are far more speculative assertions than mine all over this forum, many people already had him down as guilty whereas I did not. "Like you i'm not sure if he's guilty or not"
**** me, I'm getting flashbacks. I knew something happened when I was a wee boy, probably. Which paper pays the most for revelations?
More bullshit You've gone from speculating on the case to the extent of suggesting he watches child porn to trying the "I wasn't there so can't comment" line in the space of a couple of days.
I speculated that Child Porn would be found on his PC, I never said he was Guilty. I said this because if Child Porn had been on his PC that may have gone some way to explaining why the CPS decided to go ahead. The Crown Prosecution Service has defended its decision to bring criminalcharges against Michael Le Vell. In the wake of the not guilty verdicts, the CPS said the available evidence was subjected to 'careful scrutiny' before a recommendation to charge the actor was made. There was a 'realistic prospect of conviction', said a spokesman, and it was 'in the public interest' to bring the case because of the serious allegations. The CPS however said it respected the verdicts handed down by the jury. In a statement, prosecutors said: “This case was reviewed in great detail,and the evidence subject to careful scrutiny before a decision was taken to prosecute. On the basis of the reviews the CPS concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. As these were very serious allegations of child sexual abuse it therefore followed that it was in the public interest to place that evidence before a jury at court. “Whilst the CPS needs to consider if a conviction is realistic, the jury needs to be sure that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. “The jury has had an opportunity over the course of the trial to hear and fully consider both the prosecution and the defence cases. It is for the jury to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not and we of course respect the verdicts the jury reached.”
Well, of course they're going to say that. They ****ed up and are now trying to cover their own backs. Everyone else on here is of the opinion that they only went to court because of the furore over Savile. Clearly there wasn't 'sufficient evidence' as was ably demonstrated in court. I hate to agree with the Daily Mail but why was it ever brought to court? It was the CPS reacting to public outcry over Savile and others and nothing to do with legal diligence.
I'm watching a video on YouTube called 'Make a Hard Plastic Sheath for Your Knife or Machete' Somebody help me
Well as I have said several times I don't know what the CPS' reasons were, maybe, just maybe they believed the complainant. "As these were very serious allegations of child sexual abuse it therefore followed that it was in the public interest to place that evidence before a jury at court". I agree with this, do you?
No. I, like most other sane minded people, believe that the CPS got caught up in the Savile frenzy and went ahead with a trial that they had very little chance of winning at great expense. If you can't see this then you're beyond help.
Totally agree with you ST. Dev has said that if child porn was found on Le Vells computer that would influence the CPS in deciding to prosecute and he also said that if child porn was found on Le Vells computer it wouldn't be revealed in court. In his summing up Le Vells Lawyer Alisdair Williamson said that there was no child porn found on Le Vells computer.
A “child” claims to have been sexually abused by a famous person and sticks to her story for several years. Not only does she manage to convince numerous police officers (no doubt highly experienced in the field of child abuse) but numerous legal professionals too. According to you - and most other sane minded people - the Law (Police and prosecutors) are only interested in the case because of the whole Saville inquiry, and the only reason they take it to trial is because the feel some sort of pressure to do so. I cannot help but wonder if you would feel the same if it were your own child who was the complainant. Should every case - where it is one person’s word against another - be similarly ignored and not put in front of a jury, just in case Saville is a factor?
