Shrewd - the CPS originally dropped the case presumably because they thought it would not be possible to secure a conviction.  For whatever reason (I suspect the current media environment) someone at the CPS decided to reverse this decision.

Most posters on this thread seem to think the trial was a waste of public money due to the lack of evidence.

However, you use the the fact that the judge didn't throw it out as a way to excuse the CPS reversing their decision.

The point you keep making Shrewd is that it isn't the CPS's fault it went to court because the Judge was responsible and should have thrown it out. I think it is down to the CPS.

Shrewd - the CPS originally dropped the case presumably because they thought it would not be possible to secure a conviction.  For whatever reason (I suspect the current media environment) someone at the CPS decided to reverse this decision.

Most posters on this thread seem to think the trial was a waste of public money due to the lack of evidence.

However, you use the the fact that the judge didn't throw it out as a way to excuse the CPS reversing their decision.

I don't know the ins and outs of the CPS decision originally. People have different views on cases and things are often reviewed.

Your last sentence is the equivalent of someone saying to you your using the fact that the jury didn't find him guilty to slag the CPS.

Bigrust where have I ever said that? I don't blame the judge at all he made his decision based on the law. Your issue if you disagree that there was sufficient evidence is with the law rather than the CPS. Because your opinion is different from what the law is.

if you ask me if anything MLV comes out of this better than if the original CPS decision had stood

everyone can know see the case against him was utter nonsense

The CPS made the decision to go to court Shrewd. It is not just this forum that is questioning this decision I can assure you of that. It was thought to be a thoroughly bad decision at the time because even the CPS couldn't agree. Then, as the case unfolded the decision looked worse and worse until the jury decided in only 4 hours for 12 counts that the decision to go to court was a poor one.

Biscuit1979

There is absolutely no evidence that this happened. Good job you weren't on the jury.

MLV admitted it to police.



Source Guardian

ITV+1

The Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell has acknowledged that he once got into a bed in which his alleged victim was sleeping

Source: Guardian

into not onto.

There are some people on here who wanted him to be found guilty even though there was no evidence to say so. I imagine these same people would be squealing like pigs should they be wrongly accused of anything at all.

Better

I wouldn't trust the press to accurately report anything.

It is certainly The CPS which decides whether a case goes to court or not ,they are the only people who can bring a prosecution by the state . As Java says , simply making an allegation is not going to lead to a trial . The CPS have to assess the strength of the evidence the police have gathered . When the evidence is just the uncorroborated testimony of one person ,then The CPS have to make a decision as to how credible their testimony is .

So The CPS brought this to court, solely on the strength of the girl's account , with the decision of the lady who overruled the first guy (post The Savile Uproar)

A judge can throw out a case , but he has no say in whether or not the trial goes ahead in the first place. I think a judge can only throw it out when a key piece of prosecution evidence is shown to be wrong (eg the witness contradicts earlier testimony in some crucial way) or if a witness doesn't turn up , or an expert witness is disqualified in some way (that happned , rather dubiously IMO , in The Kieran Fallon Trial) . If none of that happens then the case will reach The Jury, though the judge can effectively influence them with his summing up.

I think The CPS got this very badly wrong ,and deserve all the stick they are getting and more .

Right from the first day , when she said how he silenced her by placing a teddy bear over her mouth , this seemed an absurd fantasy . Surely if you are trying to silence someone you place your hand over their mouth, so you can feel if they are struggling and , if necessary , tighten your grip ? By doing that of course he is also holding her down to facilitate the rape. How the hell does anyone commit a rape while using one hand to grasp a fekn teddy bear, when he can't feel if she is getting her mouth free and would hear her screaming before he realized she was now able to 

The teddy bear stuff will have been included in the lies to heighten the sense of outrage and sympathy to 'the victim' . As a symbol of innocence , is was included in the fiction like any bad novelist would clumsily reach for a cliche for fear hat the simple attack itself has not been described effectively enough . 

Also i can appreciate if this happens to someone they might keep it secret for a long time but when they finally did tell surely they would tell all the essential incidents, rather than make an allegation and then ,after the first is deemed inadequate to prosecute , come back and make a whole new set.

I agree with Mafeking , she should be sacked . Frightening to think she can put people through hell on the strength of rubbish like this.

During the trial Mr Le Vell admitted he was an alcoholic who had a series of one-night stands throughout his 25-year marriage, including a time when his wife was undergoing Chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Jeez like the Sally Webster plotline


Later in the interview Le Vell claimed not to have actually got into the girl's bed. Instead, he said, he had simply briefly lain upon it.

Yep and morons going on about him "Bedding" a 6 year old. People wont even be able to tell a kid stories in future for fear of the cps fitting them up for rape

^^^^^^^^^^^^
But he acknowledged that he once got on a bed in which his alleged victim was sleeping, telling officers who arrested him in 2011 he had done so after becoming disoriented by drink.

Detective Constable Neil Rothwell asked: "Did you touch X?"

Le Vell: "No."

Rothwell: "Did you put your arm around her?"

Le Vell: "No, and if I did I wasn't under the sheets. It wasn't anything sexual."

First he said he definity did not touch the girl then he contradicts himself later in the interview by suggesting he might of put his arm around her.



Would you let a drunken man put his arm around your daughter whilst reading the 3 little pigs when she´s trying to get to sleep?

people should be clear: he's (rightly) been found not guilty because essentially it was one person's word against another, and you can't bang people up in those circumstances. That doesn't mean he's been proved innocent.

That doesn't mean he's been proved innocent.

that true but lets not forget the girl , her mother and their lawyers have come out of this with suspicion.

all round a messy mistake by the police.

no brigust, he has been found not guilty. that is, the evidence did not reach the criminal standard of proof.

we live under a legal system where, given two flatly contradictory versions of events, the benefit of the doubt (rightly) goes to the accused. there are two separate questions here:

1 - what happened?
2 - given what we know, is it fair to convict?

the answers are:

1 - we don't know.
2 - no.

he said the girl is seriously deluded, and what about him going on bed with small kid, I think its him that's deluded

Exactly

no, you are both wrong.

he hasn't been found innocent, he's been found not guilty. that doesn't mean the jury are saying he didn't do it, it means they're saying the prosecution case didn't meet the standard of proof for criminal conviction. ie, it wasn't proved beyond reasonable doubt that he did what he was accused of.

if you were on that jury and you thought, "well, my gut feeling is he did it, but he might not have done", you'd have to vote for an acquittal.

which is very common in cases of historical abuse allegations. because basically unless someone else comes forward, you are usually going to end up with one person saying he did this to me and the other person saying no I didn't. and if they both stick to their stories and neither story falls apart under examination, then, well that person has to be found not guilty.

because the alternative is to live in a society where one person can get another person locked up just by saying something about them that can't be disproven.

theres some sickos on here are not satisfied with the result and want to pin something on this geezer
THE GIRL WAS A FKN VIRGIN OR DONT YOU THICKOS READ!!??
so how could there have been a rape for starters
this was part of a feminist witch hunt - dont you know who overuled the previous decision not to prosecute
you have got to see the feminist rubbish in the guardian too!!!  lets get or man is their mantra (no pun intended)