@upthecreekyetagain wrote:
Ronny - it was an awful post - compounded by your reply that doesn't address the assertion you made in your earlier post and the reason why I said it was anawful post.
I believe that it does.
You posted, and I quote - "I suspect the "Compensation" lure, plus lucrative money for the spin offs of the poor "victim" story, which would have most certainly been paid by the Media, and Press, is what enticed the unnamed person to pursue false allegations agasinst Michael Turner. (Kevin Webster of Coronation Street)"
You have not one iota of evidence to backup either the statement that her allegations were false nor if they were what her motives were.
The 2 key words there are: "I suspect". Of course I have no evidence, just as you do not have any either. We are in a debate and form opinions on what we have heard, what we surmise, and how we think.
You used the word "suspect in relation to a possible motive but assert the girl lied. She has not been formally accused of any offence let alone having been found guilty of one so is as innocent as Michael Levell of any offence
Further you now claim, "Michael Turner is innocent of all charges, but even now, by not recognising this fact, you are doing him an injustice" - again without any justification!
Michael Turner is innocent of all charges, and therefore someone lied. It's hardly rocket science.
WRONG!
I have never said nor implied that I believe him to be guilty - in fact the reverse - he has been found not guilty of all the charges and is therefore innocent - in exactly the same way that the girl has not been found guilty of lying and is therefore also innocent until proven guilty - something you seem unable to accept.
You are completely correct.
I do not accept that concept. Michael Turner is innocent, therefore the girl lied. Simples.
Again WRONG - totally false logic - the girl was NOT ON TRIAL - Michael LeVell was
As hypotheticals seem to be the order of the day let me put one forward - the girl made the same complaints but the police decided she was lying and charged her with attempting to pervert the course of justice - in court she made the allegations and Michael LeVell denied them - one persons word against another - the jury decide that it hadn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she had lied and she was therefore found not guilty - would you extrapolate from that the guilt of Michael LeVell? - If you did then you would be making the same mistake as you are in this case by saying categorically that the girl lied!
Exactly same case with a twist, but you are putting a different verdict in your hypothesis.
Exactly same case with a twist, the Jury would find her guilty.
Or else what on earth is the point of a Trial by Jury.
The likelihood is that she would be found not guilty - the whole point of a trial by jury is that it is the defendant that is being tried NOT the witnesses. There is no evidence she lied, likewise there is no evidence she didn't - certainly not to a level of beyond reasonable doubt.
Is it that difficult to understand that where it is one person's word against another's that it is impossible to judge what actually happened and that consequently should both individuals be tried separately in a court of law that neither would be found guilty of any offence and both would therefore be innocent.
What was wrong in this case in my opinion is that it ever got to court.
7ryMJjyBMgowKMZdQ~~_7.JPG "cee-dee"){kind=avatar}
