We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 241 comments are related to the topic:
KEV NOT GUILTY ALL CHARGES
KEV NOT GUILTY ALL CHARGES
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 241
|
By:
he said the girl is seriously deluded, and what about him going on bed with small kid
Yes imagine that sitting/lying on a bed with a kid...........shocking etc etc.... Its funny how every innocent act now a days has to be depraved etc... Maybe Adults who are not the kids parents shouldnt be allowed within 50ft......maybe they might look at the kid funny |
|
By:
Aye, he wuz just reading her a story. Good old uncle Mick!
 |
|
By:
naydam........are you sure you think he is innocent........your sending mixed messages
|
|
By:
Did I say that I thought he was innocent? Sorry for any ambiguity, but I would require a bit more info to form an opinion.
|
|
By:
so you think hes guilty but the prosecution couldn't prove it
|
|
By:
You're attempting to put words into my mouth. As far as I am concerned the court proceedings in this case proved absolutely nothing whatsoever. Given the stalemate of contradictory statements the only safe verdict was 'not guilty'. That was the result.
What IS clear is that a liar walked away from that trial. |
|
By:
but who do YOU think is the liar??.......whats your gut feeling........mine its the girl and most likely her mother
|
|
By:
there is an elephant in the room that lots of you are missing but clearly some of you know.
lots of hints about who was the victim and the mother to the accused. some get close to naming who the victim was to the accused but dont quite get it right. |
|
By:
Fact no. 1 = He was found not guilty and is innocent.
Fact no.2 = It was found there was sufficient evidence in law to prosecute and have it to be put before a jury. That is the limitations of the English legal system compared to an enlightened system such as Scotland which requires corroboration. |
|
By:
I don't know what the relationship might be...but it's possibly a little girl that he has known for many tears.
On the other hand, of course, if the claims are entirely false, it could be somebody he didn't know at all. Was it ever confirmed that he baby-sat this child? Was the definition of 'baby-sitting' ever clarified? Some possibilities you just don't want to think about. |
|
By:
in some cases doesn't the judge comment that a case shouldn't have been brought to court etc, he didn't in this case.
I have no problem once this came to court with seeing it out. After all, he might have slipped up, confessed, contradicted himself or dropped himself in it and ended up being found guilty. The judge was right to let it continue, it wasn’t like there was CCTV evidence of Le Vell somewhere else on the occasions in question, he never denied he had the opportunity. But at the end in directing the jury the judge told them to concentrate on whether they believed the girl was telling the truth or ‘trying to destroy the life of’ the actor. That he made no mention (I've not read any anyway) of Le Vell’s version of events and that he said assessment of the girl ‘was critical’ suggested to me he was basically telling them to vote not guilty. |
|
By:
I am curious as to the legal ending to this case. Is the defendant not guilty or innocent. Is there a difference.
Whatever terminology you use the way the prosecution had to put so much emphasis on the testimony of the accuser it was going to be a case of one of them being found to be lying. As the defendant was acquired it follows that the accuser was found to be lying in the eyes of the jury. It was therefore not a case of Le Vell not just being acquitted but no crime having taken place as the defendant was found to be lying about it. |
|
By:
Also, there was reference in an earlier post about putting a hand over the child's mouth to silence her. There has never been any suggestion of violence of any sort in this case.
erm , the report on the very first day that he 'placed a teddy bear over her mouth to stop her crying out' This is a big problem it seems with the 'it doesn't mean he didn't do it' crowd : not actually bothering to read the evidence. The legal definition of rape is pretty clear in requiring penetration. Shrewd Dude's point i don't understand . The case went ahead because The CPS made an objective decision to bring it to trial (reversing their initial decision) This was plainly a stupid decision as the evidence was so pitiful. Seems many people having issues with understanding this . There is nothing inherently wrong with a he said/she said case coming to court . It depends entirely on which account is more plausible .He was not found Not Guilty because 'it was his word against hers' . Plenty of men have been convicted without corroboration .In this case it the verdict was because her account was altogether unbelievable. |
|
By:
paddletoe
As I said earlier the presumption of innocence was never lost. Which isn't the same as innocence. The case was never to ascertain if he was innocent. It was to ask could it be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. |
|
By:
diamond , well I wouldn't go lying or into bed with a 6 year old kid if she wasn't my daughter. probably wouldn't with a niece . would you ?
|
|
By:
just a thought for everyone, I knew a lovely man, lovely family, but later found out hed abused, did everything but actual rape with a close family member of me, if the case had gone to court its (99%certain hed have been cleared, and everyone would have slated us, the man really was guilty fact.
|
|
By:
Sadly, we don't have access to the evidence. Just some reporter's idea of it.
I believe the Daily Mirror said the teddy-bear was 'to hide her screams'. I think that might have been a slight exaggeration. Mentioning plausibility, what exactly did you find plausible in the defendant's account? |
|
By:
Elisjohn. There are others (well, at least one) on here with similar experiences.
|
|
By:
Flower you seem to think this was a case to find out if HE could slip up. What about HER slipping up and being found to have lied?
I don't know what your point is Elsjohn but I think this high profile ridiculous trial has set back the cause for women in this position. |
|
By:
On a more general point, I think this kind of thing happening makes society a far worse place.
I have my own son, but if I was with him in the playground and I saw another kid fall over and cut his knee, I'd ask him if he was okay, but I certainly would be frightened to help him to his feet in case some weirdo mother accused me of something awful. (aided of course by our wonderful police and CPS) |
|
By:
I don’t think anything of the sort, what are you talking about? I was merely responding to the question “Why didn’t the judge throw it out?” I have said repeatedly that it should never have come to court, as the evidence test requires that a conviction is a likely outcome, and is not just ‘in the balance’.
These kinds of cases are often without forensic evidence or other witnesses. Once in court the evidence from both sides deserved to be tested. It is essentially a competition to convince the jury and her words, manner and veracity were just as deserving to be evaluated as his, it is laughable to say I was thinking the judge is trying to catch him out, but inevitably one side or the other will seem the most convincing in that environment, that's what it all about. What about HER slipping up and being found to have lied? And this point. She was not believed, there’s a difference. We can’t start saying that if you fail to convince a jury of your version of events that you will then be convicted instead. None of these cases would then ever get to court through fear, and surely most of them have a basis in truth. The CPS should have stuck to their guns and filtered out this case in order to protect the girl from making herself seem a liar in public, they failed to do what was really in her best interests, imo. |
|
By:
Let's be clear and fair to the girl here. She may have been believed but the degree of certainty required for a conviction wasn't met. To be fair though the other and to me more logical and convincing suggestion is that given the speed of the return of the verdict the jury seemed quite sure very quickly that it didn't come near passing the test.
|
|
By:
I get the feeling that
|
|
By:
Cancel that ^^^.
|
|
By:
Some of the posts on this thread show why a defendant should have anonymity until convicted.
|
|
By:
I would go for the accusers in this case.
What was it they did in olden days with these sort of people. ?? |
|
By:
I have a strange feeling that we have not yet heard the last of this affair. I guess that might depend upon the girl waiving her right to anonymity.
Anyway, it is what it is and that's how it will remain unless some radical changes occur. He was found not guilty. So, that's it for me. |
|
By:
think a lie dectecter and Jeremy kyle await
|
|
By:
I understand the presumption of innocence eternal optimist but in this instance the prosecutions case was such that the jury were being asked one question - who was lying. It was not a case of whether there was enough evidence to convict. The prosecution themselves made it a case of who was lying. Therefore I don't think you can say the defendant was acquitted due to their not being enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt. He was acquitted because the jury thought the accuser was lying.
|
|
By:
I can't say I followed the full case or evidence but logic would question how a prosecution could pass the evidential burden essentially purely on the basis of asking who do you think is telling the truth?
|
|
By:
portmanpark 13 Sep 13 14:18 Joined: 07 Dec 03 | Topic/replies: 965 | Blogger: portmanpark's blog
think a lie dectecter and Jeremy kyle await Unfortunatly I can´t see Granada TV sanctioning that.  |
|
By:
Not taking anything anyway from the terrible crime of abuse against children. People who commit those crimes should be punished far more. I would only disagree with the death penalty because it does not involve enough suffering.
But when a man is accused of these types of crimes and he knows he is innocent he deserves the right to show he was wrongly accused and totally innocent rather than being acquitted as not guilty. Where two people have different versions of events its not enough for the man to be not guilty if he is innocent. The accuser needs to be seen as guilty of lying otherwise suspicion will always hang over the man. |
|
By:
Well, let's have him accusing her of perjury and see how he gets on shall we? Prosecution says 'you lied'. Defence says 'no I didn't'. Result...not guilty verdict.
Would that now mean that HE was the liar? |
|
By:
Bettingbettor. Maybe Granada won't...but it would be a huge scoop for any magazine!
|
|
By:
Naydam being wrongly accused of crimes such as rape or the abuse of a child is not the same of being wrongly accused of other crimes even if your found not guilty of both.
If I was wrongly accused of such a crime I would not be happy with a not guilty verdict because in many peoples minds that verdict means not proven. Your own views are evidence of this. I would want the option of going for a verdict which showed that the accuser was lying and my innocence was not in doubt. |
|
By:
Naydam, do you have any real friends?
|
|
By:
I would go for the mother, cps, police and then the young woman - in that order - and sue the bottoms of the lot of them
I have never heard of such a set up job as this one. If he goes for it he will have the lot of them quaking in their boots and looking up their chances of future employment elsewhare. |
|
By:
In almost every case every day someone lies. Either the accuser or the defendant. But just because they are not believed is not evidence of perjury or sufficiently provable to bring a case against them to court. That is exactly why this case should never have gone to court in the first place because there was no evidence.
The only reason this case came to court was because the mother got stroppy and the current climate for chasing potential child abusers scared the CPS into prosecuting. |
|
By:
Dodgepot. I have three. None of them are called Kevin.
|
|
By:
Paddletoe. I agree. As would anybody who was wrongly accused of such things. Kevin is probably happy with his verdict, though.
Anyway, I keep trying to leave this thread as I think all that CAN be discussed, has been discussed and the verdict has been reached. The one thing that makes me unsure is that the anonymity clause may have prevented many questions being asked. I'll never know, and so that must be my torment. My very own Bete Noire. |