Micheal Le Vell

please log in to view this image

 

I can't believe this nonce has been lording it up in the public eye since 1983 and nobody realised he liked having sex with children.

Am proper beelin at this.

<saviletyperage>

 

So the jury have retired to consider their verdict.

From what I can gather there is no medical or scientific evidence that indicates he's done anything, it appears to be the alleged victims word against his.

As I haven't been in Manchester Crown Court for the last few days I'm certainly not going to give a view on what I think should happen, I haven't a clue who is telling the truth.

Just wondering if there's anyone with any legal knowledge who knows what the jury have to consider tonight if there doesn't appear to be any proof that he actually did anything.

 

Perhaps the most damning of the evidence, this shows Le Vell noncing it up on Blackpool beach

please log in to view this image

 

We still await proof he was a Celtic fan.

 

They just have to use their judgement on who's telling the truth.

I'm willing to bet that if he is cleared (or even not) then there will be other evidence that the jury were not party to for legal reasons, like Child Porn found on his PC or similar.

Like you i'm not sure if he's guilty or not but why would a 14 year old girl make up stories about a man she's known since she was 6? Something does not add up. Still he's innocent until proven otherwise I suppose.

 

If you are not sure if he is guilty then you would have to acquit.As for your question why she might say that you need look no further than Karen Matthews. There is a big potential payday riding on this.I would put money on a not guilty verdict.

 

Guilty. No doubt about it cos I just think he is and that's good enough for me and several others who quite like me.

 

It's impossible for us to tell without hearing the evidence.Even then it's going tobe a case of believing one person against another.From what I have heard I would put the likelihood of guilty at 60-70%.That isn't enough,it has to be "Beyond reasonable doubt" IMO it's not.Half the dappy jurors will probably say "That nice Kevin wouldn't do that"

 

Hi Dev. Le Vells Defence Lawyer in his summing up yesterday said that there was no child porn found on his computer.

From what I can make out it based on both parties summing up yesterday there isn't any physical evidence as such. It will come down to who the jury believe is telling the truth.

 

Definitely an unsafe conviction.The "victim" will make a mint if it is guilty.

 

I'm saying guilty, based on the fact that he's Celtic mad.

 

If he gets convicted with ZERO actual evidence, then God help us all.

I'll reserve judgement until Dev gives us his verdict though.

 

Thank **** you aren't on the jury or ever worked in the police force or anything.

 

Au contraire!

Russ was in the force but was discharged in disgrace after getting caught with is hand in the till, so to speak.

 

At least he slows down going past primary schools!

 

Who Dev?

 

You'll be pleased to know that i'm not allowed to sit on a jury, ex coppers are barred for life. Mind you ex cons can do jury service after they have been crime free for 10 years.

Good old British Justice

 

And don't forget I was allegedly kicked out of the Army too

<BHFantasy>