Michael La Vell Not Guilty

[hc4361]

Of first charge.

[Ann]

Obviously I am not referring to this case as we will never know who the "victim" was, but there are more and more cases of young girls lying about alleged rapes etc purely as an act of revenge when marriages or relationships break down and they side with their mother in casting blame on why the marriage came to an end. It is obviously the girl's word against the man's, but whether found guilty or not, it completely ruins everyone's lives, extended family included. I'm not making this up - I know.

[MaryDou]

Why isn't there a mechanism to make the accuser pay for a very expensive trial. This is madness, as a woman, I despise spurious claims of this sort as it means that genuine cases are relegated because the accused (guilty or not) is not high profile. Both parties or neither party should be named.

[ummmm]

Because it's not the accuser that brings it to court.

[hc4361]

MaryDou, it is very difficult to secure a conviction in a rape trial, especially in historic cases such as this.
Le Vell has been found not guilty. That doesn't mean the girl is lying, it means the jury were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Le Vell is guilty.

The prosecution always hopes that the accused will plead guilty at the last minute, as Stuart Hall did. The very last thing I want is for sex abuse victims to only be able to seek justice if they are extremely wealthy. The girl in this case is still not 18, so to say she should be made to pay is ludicrous.

Rape and sexual abuse carries a stigma even today for the victim. If he or she knows that they are going to be named if they make a complaint to the police, very few victims will come forward.

Naming the accused helps find other victims of that person, who may not have wanted to come forward before due to lack of physical evidence and fear of not being believed. It may help flush out vital witnesses, too.

Be assured the police and CPS do rigorously investigate sex abuse and rape allegations, regardless of who the accused is.

[Stargazer]

Can anyone tell me whether this accuser is going to get charged for such a serious offence and be named in the Press. Surely if there was no clear evidence this case should never have been brought to court. How did it happen and surely "she" cannot get away with such a vile crime. Also Why? What was behind this false accusation?
I have been away so have not been able to follow the story behind this charge.

[hc4361]

Stargazer, the accuser will not be charged with anything. The police investigated her complaints, referred the matter to the CPS who decided there was enough evidence to secure a prosecution, but it is the jury who must decide beyond all reasonable doubt.
She will not be named in the press as she has guaranteed anonymity by law for life, regardless of the verdict.
Nobody knows what was behind the accusation and nobody except the two people involved know if the accusation is false.