KEV NOT GUILTY ALL CHARGES

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

"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"
Spot on.

The terrible thing Joe is whilst we are encouraged to be paranoid about anything that is not PC, I don't believe, any death, kidnap, rape, or abuse especially of a child has been prevented by PC correctness

^^^^^^^^^^^^
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?

Where was the Mother, I've not heard much of the Father mentioned, is this another "Single mum" success.

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.

Until we know who the alleged victim is and hat relationship she and her mother had with the defendant we cannot know the context. There are any number of possibilities and, as the jury did know the context and threw this out, then we must accept the decision. Going into a young child's bedroom after returning from a night out and kissing them may sound dodgy but many parents know it's something they may have done, and still do. This crazy hysteria is likely to effect the role and actions of all father's if this continues.

Viva you are wrong. You are innocent until proved guilty. It isn't the other way round.

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.

Yes. The mother goes free.  !!!   I can bet you that there is a load more to this.  If they committed perjury, along with the feminist witch hunter general, I hope he sues the lot of them.

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.

Absurd.   By your reckoning, every person who is found not guilty should have suspicion hanging over them for the rest of their lives, no matter how flimsy the evidence.

Or is whether someone is to be judged innocent to be determined by your own subjective judgement on a case by case basis?  Perhaps you can keep a log of people who you think "might have got away with it there".
 
He is innocent until proven guilty.  He was not proved guilty therefore he is innocent as things stand.

Your sinister utterings are EXACTLY why the accused should be given anonymity unless proved guilty.  People like you just cannot accept that someone charged of a heinous crime may be conpletely innocent.

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

Viva he was tried by his peers and found NOT GUILTY. That means he is INNOCENT. You are either innocent or guilty. As he is not guilty he is therefore innocent.

Exactly

Am I in a parallel Universe that contradicts everything in the other, IE, a man is found innocent therefor he is guilty.

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.

We shouldn't bother with the trial.  Now it is done and we know he's not going to jail, perhaps you can just clarify how likely it is that he did it then.  5%  40%  80%?  It seems the court verdict is insufficient for you, so we should know what we are dealing with here.

And at what level of "Viva guilt percentages" should you be unable to gain employment?  At what level should you get assaulted in the street for being a bad 'un?

As I said, your mindset proves exactly why the guy's life is in tatters even though the court found in his favour.

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)

since the  prosecution dragged his drinking and other background  to blacken his character why didnt the cps and the prosecution check out the girl and the mother's background -  however the case did not go their  way so it looks like a book deal has gone down the drain!!!

that's the point java. I'm saying we don't know. you're saying you know he didn't do it.

should the case have been brought? no.
would I have voted guilty if I'd been on the jury? no.
did he do it? I don't know.

I'd love to see how many of the kev is innocent brigade would let someone they knew had been acquitted in a case like this babysit their daughter.

No.  I am saying he was found not guilty.  A man is innocent until proven guilty.  Therefore hs should now be considered innocent and allowed to get on with his life without you sniping from the sidelines and whispering "yeah, but he might well have done it though".

that's not sniping, though, it's just fact. he might have done. there was nothing in the trial that conclusively disproved the allegations.

the burden of proof in criminal trials is beyond reasonable doubt, not balance of probability.

It seems to me if he goes down you think he did it, if he gets acquitted you think he did it.  As I say, you are a illustration of why he should have had anonymity until found guilty.

no, if he'd been convicted on the evidence presented I'd actually be saying it was a miscarriage of justice.

the reason alleged sex offenders aren't given anonymity is because if they're serial sex offenders, it's the publicity around the allegations and any court hearings that brings forward other victims.

I've seen that happen; a friend of mine testified in a case where, had the accused been given anonymity, three other victims wouldn't have come forward and the guy - a serial paedophile - would either not have faced trial or been found not guilty.

I fully understand that concept.  But the benefit of that does not outweigh the damage done to the accused when they are found not guilty in my opinion, when people like you continue to question their innocence whatever the outcome of the trial.

I sat on a rape trial last year.

In her first statement to the police the woman was asked 'What happened'.

She replied 'We had sex'.

Policeman: 'Did you want to?'

Woman: 'No, but I didn't tell him'.

How it came to court was a mystery.

well, you're fully entitled to that opinion. but I'd urge you to look through the backgrounds of convicted serial rapists, paedophiles and child murderers and see just how often it turns out that previous cases against them collapsed or weren't brought because of lack of evidence or lack of a reasonable prospect of conviction.

people have bought into the idea that the world is full of gold digging or attention-seeking women making up stories of sexual abuse. well, that does happen; but what's far more common is women not coming forward because basically the whole process is very traumatic and probably won't have any positive legal outcome.

I've never personally known a man who's been falsely accused of rape and seen it go to court or end up in the media. but over the course of my life I've probably known half a dozen women who'd either been sexually abused as children or raped as adults and never reported it. and that's obviously just the ones that talk about it.

I was charged with assault, not only did I not do it there was a third party in the room so it was not just my word against the accuser.
I got arrested and finally charged after being left in a cell for 23 hours. The other bloke that was in the room at the time of the alleged assault was sitting in the waiting room of the police station ready to make a statement.

However, they went ahead and the C.P.S. went for a conviction. When it went to court the police said the witness was "not contactable". He was sitting in the police station for over 3 hours, all on cctv of course and they fully knew who he was and why he was there. They lied through their teeth.

My brief produced his statement, the judge then took ten seconds to say to the C.P.S., "what on Earth is this bloke doing in my court room?"

C.P.S. "We withdraw your honour."
Judge, "You are free to go Blue."

The entire hearing lasted about four minutes, the whole episode caused me untold amounts of grief and problems at work. The two arresting officers were there and both walked straight out and couldn't even look me the eye afterwards.

Should have chinned them..

allyou are trying to do viva is to try and smear this bloke
nothing you have said in that has got nothing to do with the case - the girl was a virgin so she couldn't be raped

i get sick of you liberal elitist legal types who mess around with legal niceties and drag in 'at least 6 women' etc  -it
has nothing to do with the fact that the girl lied and the mother put her up to it.

better check out what is starting to leak out isntead of jumping on some sort of legalise high horse that your sort are so fond of doing -

the difference between me and you as far as I can see moisok is you're saying you know what happened and I'm saying I don't know what happened.

if anyone's "smearing" anyone it's you with your explicit allegations against the girl and her mother. on the basis of what? stuff that's "starting to leak out". oh well then - case closed. send them both down.

viva

I understand the point you are seeking to make here and there is some confusion within the counter argument so to clarify:

A central tenet of Common Law (unlike Roman/Civil Law) is that a person charged with an offence is in nearly all cases presumed innocent until proven guilty. The presumption is key. Whilst the burden of proof for the criminal proceedings is as you say extremely high the defendant doesn't lose the shield of this presumption until found guilty. Thus if he isn't convicted he never lost the presumption and it stands. Therefore he is still presumed innocent.

yes, eo. innocence in this case being a legal rather than factual concept. and english law lacking an equivalent of the "not proven" verdict available in scotland.

I think it's right that the law is the way it is, and it bears repeating that I don't think this case should have been brought. but what people don't seem to want to accept is that these cases are inherently difficult; as soon as an allegation like this is made, however the law works the outcome's likely to be messy.

no you are not you are trying to cast doubt coz you don't like the verdict - it doesn't fit in with your liberal elitist  view of the world

and the worst of it is the guy represents 'low brow' entertainment which your type snears at

re the girl and especially the mother - you quite clearly don't know whatis going on

what bit of VIRGIN don't you understand???

viva

It's a balancing act and I appreciate the other side of the argument. Like you say there are inherent difficulties but there are also profound issues for any defendant in such cases which even an acquittal don't quite fully deal with. On balance I think the only fair way to deal with those issues is for the same anonymity for the defendant until guilt is established.

naydam's gone quiet.

He's preparing Slippy's compensation claim..

Well, I've been waiting for the dust to settle after this case, but it DOES leave several questions.
Not least of these is why the CPS went ahead with such flimsy evidence. The evidence that they produced would never end in a guilty verdict and I can only hope that this was made clear to the girl at the time. It may be that she was quite prepared to face the defence counsel and have her story dissected with the inconsistencies being held up as proof of lies. personally, I would expect inconsistencies in a story that had taken place years earlier, especially when bearing in mind the age of the girl at that time. I would be very surprised if a qualified interrogator COULDN'T find inconsistencies. It could be argued that the inconsistencies could be seen as an indication that the answers were from memory, and not from a carefully rehearsed script.
But I would also have to say that the prosecuting counsel apparently made no effort at all to do their job. Perhaps they did, but the details that should have been asked seem to have been passed by.
For instance, (according to press comments) he DID say that he got INTO the bed. I believe that he was asked if he was naked but no mention was made of what the child was/was not wearing. Possibly quite important because the next question is 'What size bed was she in?' Depending on the type of bed would throw some light upon the likelihood of accidentally getting into (OR onto) it. The 'accident' would much more likely occur in a double bed as opposed to a single bed or bunk beds.
I have not seen it reported if the girl was awake or asleep at this time.
So anyway, He is (I assume)quite drunk when this occurs...but how did he get like that? Was he so drunk when he commenced 'baby-sitting'? Surely not. But if he wasn't... where did he get all the necessary alcohol? How much did he supposedly consume in order to be so drunk?
Was he really drunk at all?

One of the problems with trying to reach an opinion regarding 'did he or didn't he?' is that none of the press reports can be taken as verbatim. It is always somebody's interpretation of what was said, but it strikes me that the defence counsel did their job far better than he prosecution did.

Anyway, the case is over and a lot of damage has been done to both parties and, I suspect, some close friends and relatives of each.

Based upon the evidence offered, the correct verdict was reached.

Just a couple of points for clarification to some other posters: I believe that I heard a legal definition that 'rape' in this case did not necessarily mean full vaginal penetration. That any degree of entry would suffice...so proof of virginity would not rule out the possibility of rape.
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. Many posters seem to think that violence is a necessary component to sexual activity as named in the charges. It isn't.

oh dear, good evening naydam.

it was a put up job that failed - and no money made by them - except as usual legal filth pocket the dosh

From what I've heard of it, the prosecution totally failed to prosecute. Just sorta sat this lass on a chair and let the defence take her character and her unsubstantiated story apart.
The office junior could have prepared a better case.


Evenin' Kenny.

hand on heart I think he may have done something , but if I was on the jury id have said not guilty in less than 30 seconds.agree with naydam the prosecution barrister etc was useless.

ps I may add if the girl was laying surely the defence team would have torn her to shreds, and 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.

the fact the girl said he raped her is proof positive she lied as 3 doctors all said she  was still  a virgin........she is now 14 so she now knows the difference

sounds like they should have checked his bell end for corn.

was she a relative or girlfriends daughter

She is 17 now portmanpark

even more so then.......

sorry moisok. some people in this thread have different opinions which I don't agree with but can nevertheless respect. but you're just a shouty pr!ck I'm afraid, so over and out.

leaving aside the no smoke without fire debate which seems to be have been going here the CPS are only meant to bring cases that have a realistic chance of conviction

in this instance the chances of conviction were surely virtually nil. they are not meant to try cases on the off chance a very stupid jury might find in their favour

VIVA you have shown exactly what you are you liberal elitist theorist - a complete and utter snob  - ha ha!!!
I bet you hate coronation steet too . another legalistic  picker at legal niceties -all you want to do is cast doubt on the bloke
pathetic

Perhaps someone can clarify if an explanation has been given but why was the original decision of the CPS not to take this further overturned? From what I can tell it seems there may be three factors:

The mothers complaint.

The child supposedly remembering further details.

The current climate and furore surrounding Saville.

One and three shouldn't have caused a rethink and the second should have been thoroughly examined before proceeding.

The "no smoke without fire brigade" have never heard of a smokescreen.

You can easily see those who desperately wanted a guilty verdict because they are clutching at every available straw to justify their stance. They are totally unable to accept that a jury of EIGHT women and four men unanimously found the defendant not guilty.

They are saying he hasn't been proven innocent or that the prosecution didn't do their job. Well at least they are right about the last one because if they had done their job this would never have come to court. All I hope is that those who cannot accept this unanimous verdict do not end up on the wrong side of the CPS decisions.

Portmanpark. If you check my post @19:29...I have tried to explain why an intact hymen is not proof that these offences could not have taken place. As far as I know, full penetrative sex has never been mentioned. Nobody has ever said anything about physically ramming things up where they didn't aught to be!

sorry dr naydam

NO, I'm not a doctor. It was just something that I heard, probably on the news. I can't even remember the exact wording, but the gist of it seemed to indicate that entry to any extent constituted rape.
Just trying explain how the offence would be possible whilst still retaining virginity.

so naydam you think he is guilty.........yes or no

On the evidence I heard/saw reported, the 'not guilty' verdict was correct. There was never a credible alternative.

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

Aye, he wuz just reading her a story. Good old uncle Mick!

naydam........are you sure you think he is innocent........your sending mixed messages

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.

so you think hes guilty but the prosecution couldn't prove it

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.

but who do YOU think is the liar??.......whats your gut feeling........mine its the girl and most likely her mother

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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?

Elisjohn. There are others (well, at least one) on here with similar experiences.

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.

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)

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.

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.

I get the feeling that

Cancel that ^^^.

Some of the posts on this thread show why a defendant should have anonymity until convicted.

I would go for the accusers in this case.
What was it they did in olden days with these sort of people. ??

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.

think a lie dectecter and Jeremy kyle await

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Bettingbettor. Maybe Granada won't...but it would be a huge scoop for any magazine!

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.

Naydam,  do you have any real friends?

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.

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.

Dodgepot. I have three. None of them are called Kevin.

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.

Mentioning plausibility, what exactly did you find plausible in the defendant's account?

He said he didn't do it and the whole thing was made up .That seems quite plausible to me.

re the anonymity of the accuser ; that did not prevent any questions being asked in court . She was not anonymous to the jury , and they were fully aware of the relationship between her and the defendant.

Tomorrows Sun