12 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
12 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Micheal Turner case UK?

by trader909
10 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
anyone in the Uk is familiar with this case.

Big soap star "accused of child *****""etc

Huge case lasting weeks. No surprise at all he was found not guilty.

So let me get this right....a girl accuses him of rape. No proof, no witnesses, no mitigating evidence at all....and it ends up being put to a jury? it should never have gone to court.

Something seriously wrong with out "legal system" here.

This really does smack of a "witch hunt" and politically driven case.

It's actually scary.
  • Profile picture of the author alistair
    If you're talking about Michael Le Vell then I know about the case and that he was cleared but that's about all. All I can say without knowing anything about the accuser or whatever is that just because there is no proof, evidence, eye witnesses and whatever else doesn't mean something didn't happen. But I won't comment on how he was treated or if it was a witch hunt or not because I'm pretty much oblivious when it comes to "celebrities" and their lives.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8506177].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    I guess the UK is a little like the US. In the US, now to DECADES ago some people were disadvantaged in some way as a group. Eventually, they became what is known as a protected class, and they were legally all allowed to do to the others what earlier might have been done to them by, among others, some of the others.

    One such group, in the US, is females. So if she accuses a male of some trespass, her word carries far more weight. Of course, all that matters is that she be female. She may be SUPER strong, TALL, and have no proof, but that really doesn't matter.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8506335].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trader909
    If you're talking about Michael Le Vell then I know about the case and that he was cleared but that's about all. All I can say without knowing anything about the accuser or whatever is that just because there is no proof, evidence, eye witnesses and whatever else doesn't mean something didn't happen. But I won't comment on how he was treated or if it was a witch hunt or not because I'm pretty much oblivious when it comes to "celebrities" and their lives.
    Balls...that's exactly what it was. There was effectively nothing, no evidence not one shred of it. Shouldn't have gone to court. Politically driven. All stems from the Jimmy Saville balls up.

    and his real name in Turner...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8507072].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by trader909 View Post

      All stems from the Jimmy Saville balls up.
      There may perhaps be an element of that, in this specific case; yes.

      It does seem a little anomalous - at first glance - that the accuser gets anonymity and the accused doesn't.

      But on the other hand, I think experience has shown that it's only by denying the accused anonymity in these cases that other victims "come forward" and the chances of a successful prosecution significantly increase. And the proportion of such cases that are ever successfully prosecuted is always said (by all concerned) to be staggeringly, distressingly low. Rightly, it's extremely difficult for the CPS to prove people's guilt, in these matters.

      Originally Posted by lgibbon View Post

      But what if that girl was telling the truth?
      Then you could really say the legal system is seriously wrong, if cases were
      dismissed on the reasons you list above.
      You could also say that no legal system is perfect, and that in general it's better, for society, for them to err on the side of being imperfect by failing to convict some guilty people than it is for them to be imperfect by convicting some innocent people.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8507809].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        There may perhaps be an element of that, in this specific case; yes.

        It does seem a little anomalous - at first glance - that the accuser gets anonymity and the accused doesn't.

        But on the other hand, I think experience has shown that it's only by denying the accused anonymity in these cases that other victims "come forward" and the chances of a successful prosecution significantly increase. And the proportion of such cases that are ever successfully prosecuted is always said (by all concerned) to be staggeringly, distressingly low. Rightly, it's extremely difficult for the CPS to prove people's guilt, in these matters.
        When I worked at the crisis center, one of our jobs was acting as support for the victim while they were involved with the legal system. Twice while I was there, we ran into cases that the woman was just very obviously flat out lying in order to get revenge on a man for something (one was because he broke up with her). We refused help. Period. Unfortunately, as I pointed out, it's not a crime that has a lot of witnesses, and even with bodily fluids, intention and willingness can't really be proved. It's a hard one to prosecute in most cases. That's why in the US, women prefer to carry stun guns, regular guns, pepper spray.......:rolleyes:
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8508467].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lgibbon
    Banned
    Originally Posted by trader909 View Post


    So let me get this right....a girl accuses him of rape. No proof, no witnesses, no mitigating evidence at all....and it ends up being put to a jury? it should never have gone to court.
    But what if that girl was telling the truth?
    Then you could really say the legal system is seriously wrong, if cases were
    dismissed on the reasons you list above.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8507090].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trader909
    But what if that girl was telling the truth?
    but you need some evidence, something to at least have a chance of a jury finding something. The whole case here, 100% only, her word. That was it.

    The CPS dismissed it first time around...then for some reason decided to go ahead with it. No new evidence, nothing.

    so every child that makes an accusation the case goes to crown court?

    Or only the high profile "cases"?

    "what if......"

    Shows the legal system is about about political pressure.

    Rule of law my backside.

    he should sue the arse off them for false imprisonment and defamation of character. Cost the tax payer another £2 million.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8507279].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    The idea is to have HER have some adverse thing happen and proof that is created by things out of any ally's control. If it fails the first, she shouldn't get anything, or have an interest! If it fails the second, the suspect shouldn't be suspected.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8507633].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Originally Posted by trader909 View Post

    anyone in the Uk is familiar with this case.

    Big soap star "accused of child *****""etc

    Huge case lasting weeks. No surprise at all he was found not guilty.

    So let me get this right....a girl accuses him of rape. No proof, no witnesses, no mitigating evidence at all....and it ends up being put to a jury? it should never have gone to court.

    Something seriously wrong with out "legal system" here.

    This really does smack of a "witch hunt" and politically driven case.

    It's actually scary.
    Um.........dude.........are you serious? And you think that people who commit crimes like this aren't usually pretty careful to avoid witnesses? No proof - even if they go to a doctor and get bodily fluid samples (rape med proof kits in US, not sure if in UK). There was strong enough coercion or a gun to keep them from fighting back, no marks of struggle.

    All you did was site why rape is such a hard crime to prove - it says nothing about how real the crime is for the women who are raped.

    As far as this guy? Don't know a thing about it, so I'd call it a toss up on this end.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8507704].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trader909
    I am serious..the no proof of he allegations. Not one shred of it..so it should not have gone to court.

    You are telling me...accusation is all that is needed?

    Um.........dude.........are you serious? And you think that people who commit crimes like this aren't usually pretty careful to avoid witnesses?
    I have no idea...but imagine if your neighbour accused you of rape...no proof, nothing, but it goes to court? is that right?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8513826].message }}

Trending Topics