This is frightening, no matter how tough you are.

[blackburn_stevie]

http://tinyurl.com/jw8rhxh

This is the video that will make most parents squirm. 

It's what happened when a man (vetted and given the job) tried to entice single boys and girls out of a Park or Swing area away from their parents. If you didn't see it earlier today on the News, take note and pass it on to all parents and other folk with responsibility over kids.

[ronnybabes]

Goodnight Tommy & Irene..  

Spoiler

night night.

[blackburn_stevie]

Creeky wrote ...... (in part) .... Michael LeVell is no more nor any less innocent than he was before the trial started.

Did you mean .... Michael LeVell is no more nor any less innocent than he was before he was even accused. Because, and let's be honest here, the majority of the general public had him down as "Guilty" based on the Press witch-hunt in the months prior to any trial.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@blackburn_stevie wrote:

Creeky wrote ...... (in part) .... Michael LeVell is no more nor any less innocent than he was before the trial started.

Did you mean .... Michael LeVell is no more nor any less innocent than he was before he was even accused. Because, and let's be honest here, the majority of the general public had him down as "Guilty" based on the Press witch-hunt in the months prior to any trial.

---

Spot on - in the same way that his accuser is innocent of any wromg doing unless or until they are put on trial and found guilty.

[ronnybabes]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

@blackburn_stevie wrote:

Creeky wrote ...... (in part) .... Michael LeVell is no more nor any less innocent than he was before the trial started.

Did you mean .... Michael LeVell is no more nor any less innocent than he was before he was even accused. Because, and let's be honest here, the majority of the general public had him down as "Guilty" based on the Press witch-hunt in the months prior to any trial.

---

Spot on - in the same way that his accuser is innocent of any wromg doing unless or until they are put on trial and found guilty.

---

Which is basically not going to happen due to the unfairness of our legal system.

I believe that it should automatically happen.

Someone is guilty somehow, somewhere along this line of debate.

[cee-dee]

Leaving aside who may have "lied" or not for now, analysis of and evidence given in the case should really start with how the initial accusation came to be made and what led up to the initial "disclosure".

Did the child (??) just "come right out with it" and if so, what provoked it?

OR, was the initial accusation made after some probing by some other party? By probing, I mean a form of questioning and by whom.

I mentioned way back the Cleveland cases and questioning of children is difficult without asking loaded or leading questions because it can lead to auto suggestion leading to false memory. Also, depending upon the viewpoint of the questioner, it's easy to implant an idea by aggressive questioning.

If you research the techniques (and ideas) of Sigmund Freud you'll find that he often wore down his subjects until they conceded his line of thought. Sigmund Fraud has sometimes been used to describe a lot of his "work"........

After looking in to the case (LeVell) with a fresh viewpoint and free of pre-conceived ideas, it might just become clear that if anyone "lied" at all, it was the person(s) to whom the accuser made her "disclosure".

[i-am-legion-too]

cee-dee, that scenario is one possibility 'though not one on which I would necessarily agree

You obviously have, so perhaps those claiming to feel so strongly about this particular case should take a moment to consider who the girl could be. People have been arrested for naming her so I will not be making that mistake, but it really isn't too hard to work out. Once that is done, the assertion that she was lying to claim the compensation is plainly ridiculous.

Even if the CPS agreed that there was a case to answer, I also doubt very much that Le Vell would want her to be named or put through a trial that in all likelihood, he would have to give evidence as a witness.

None of us are is possession of all the facts of this, or any other trial, therefore we can only base our opinion on what read or in some cases on what we want to believe, thus reinforcing our own prejudices.

I'm not going to attempt to address the, a not guilty verdict means that witness(es) lied, topic. It's gone around in circles and some still can't grasp the basis concept that she or any other witness(because that is how an accuser is treated in this type of case), can only be proven to have lied in a cout of law.

[i-am-legion-too]

basiC concept!

[ronnybabes]

---

@i-am-legion-too wrote:

I'm not going to attempt to address the, a not guilty verdict means that witness(es) lied, topic. It's gone around in circles and some still can't grasp the basis concept that she or any other witness(because that is how an accuser is treated in this type of case), can only be proven to have lied in a cout of law.

Whereas others cannot comprehend the very basic premise, that if one person is telling the truth, then the other must be lying.

---

[cee-dee]

It's not as simple as that in a case like LeVell. Think through the questions posed at #106.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@ronnybabes wrote:

---

Whereas others cannot comprehend the very basic premise, that if one person is telling the truth, then the other must be lying.

---

---

And only a guilty verdict will prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.  As it stands we don't know who lied.

There wasn't the evidence to prove LeVell lied, there may not be the evidence to prove his accuser did either or as CD has postulated maybe neither knowingly lied.

[cee-dee]

It would be very interesting to hear the chains of discussions/questions/interviews in that case from the start to the decision to prosecute.

I know that would never be possible up to the point where a recorded interview was made but the period surrounding the initial "disclosure" is probably the key to the whole thing. A genuine disclosure wouldn't have had any leading/loaded questions or questions with any suggestive content.

Having spent some time reading about the psychoanalytical procedures surrounding such cases (which makes me no expert, only a sceptic) I'd conclude that most of them are highly suspect!

In "suspect" cases, once an idea has been implanted I think it rapidly becomes expanded, oft repeated, it soon becomes a false memory.

If a complaint to the Cops or SS has been preceeded by any more than an outburst or gentle questions as to "what's the matter" I think that the whole process has already been degraded to the point where it's becoming unreliable (from an evidentiary point of view).

[ronnybabes]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

It's not as simple as that in a case like LeVell. Think through the questions posed at #106.

---

Oh believe me I have, and it is slightly insulting to suggest I put words down before a deliberation. This is something I would never do.

But, (and I do agree with the substance of your treatise) one cannot wholly pass the buck, the ultimate responsibility lies with her, she was not a robot like creature when she levelled those accusations. To form any basis, a lot of description and detail must have ensued. 

CD said:

Did the child (??) just "come right out with it" and if so, what provoked it? 

OR, was the initial accusation made after some probing by some other party? By probing, I mean a form of questioning and by whom.

I agree with what you are suggesting.

And....... We also know the Police can be forceful in their probing too, so an initial accusation can be made into a fully blown, and harrowing interrogation. They seldom look beyond the fact that an accuser is telling the truth.

Adding to the heady mix the compensation which the Police are not averse to using, and you get a confused person saying exactly what the Police would like to hear to form a strong case.

Statements (I believe) are peppered with slightly forced details.

All the Police are after is kudos for a successful case.

CD said:

If you research the techniques (and ideas) of Sigmund Freud you'll find that he often wore down his subjects until they conceded his line of thought. Sigmund Fraud has sometimes been used to describe a lot of his "work"........

I have studied and read him , and wholly agree with you.

CD said:

After looking in to the case (LeVell) with a fresh viewpoint and free of pre-conceived ideas, it might just become clear that if anyone "lied" at all, it was the person(s) to whom the accuser made her "disclosure".

True, but what then ensues is down to the accuser.

We simply cannot pardon her actions because of brainwashing, or false memories, any more then we would excuse a crime of murder for those reasons, any more then we would a sexual offence for those reasons.

[i-am-legion-too]

cee-dee wrote:

It's not as simple as that in a case like LeVell. Think through the questions posed at #106.

---

Oh believe me I have, and it is slightly insulting to suggest I put words down before a deliberation. This is something I would never do.

---------------------------------

You obviously haven't considered it enough, otherwise you wouldn't still be talking of the heady mix the compensation which the Police are not averse to using.

[ronnybabes]

---

@i-am-legion-too wrote:

@cee-dee wrote:

It's not as simple as that in a case like LeVell. Think through the questions posed at #106.

---

Oh believe me I have, and it is slightly insulting to suggest I put words down before a deliberation. This is something I would never do.

---------------------------------

You obviously haven't considered it enough, otherwise you wouldn't still be talking of the heady mix the compensation which the Police are not averse to using.

---

Oh dear!

Someone else who supposedly knows what I have deliberated over.

Says it all, really. 

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@ronnybabes wrote:

---

True, but what then ensues is down to the accuser.

We simply cannot pardon her actions because of brainwashing, or false memories, any more then we would excuse a crime of murder for those reasons, any more then we would a sexual offence for those reasons.

---

What actions? - Has the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty suddenly gone out of the window?

If it's OK to say Michael LeVell is innocent because he wasn't found to be guilty then it is equally OK to say his accuser is innocent - doubt the veracity of one and by definition you doubt the veracity of the other.

[i-am-legion-too]

---

@ronnybabes wrote:

---

@i-am-legion-too wrote:

@cee-dee wrote:

It's not as simple as that in a case like LeVell. Think through the questions posed at #106.

---

Oh believe me I have, and it is slightly insulting to suggest I put words down before a deliberation. This is something I would never do.

---------------------------------

You obviously haven't considered it enough, otherwise you wouldn't still be talking of the heady mix the compensation which the Police are not averse to using.

---

Oh dear!

Someone else who supposedly knows what I have deliberated over.

Says it all, really. 

---

Unless the battery on my abacus is flat, #106 was my first post, so if you have deliberated over it,  please feel free to enlighten me with your revised conclusions.

Says what all really?

[ronnybabes]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

@ronnybabes wrote:

---

True, but what then ensues is down to the accuser.

We simply cannot pardon her actions because of brainwashing, or false memories, any more then we would excuse a crime of murder for those reasons, any more then we would a sexual offence for those reasons.

---

What actions? - Has the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty suddenly gone out of the window?

If it's OK to say Michael LeVell is innocent because he wasn't found to be guilty then it is equally OK to say his accuser is innocent - doubt the veracity of one and by definition you doubt the veracity of the other.

---

No ... it is not... Michael Turner is innocent, or not guilty , whichever you prefer,

Therefore the accuser lied. 

You cannot have two contradictory outcomes.

One is false, one is true.

The idea that someone is innocent against an allegation. Means that the allegation must be false.

Otherwise a "Guilty " verdict would have ensued.

Therefore the allegation has no foundation. Therefore the allegation is a lie.

Not proved is a cop out as far as I am concerned.

It means a non result.

Michael Turner got the result.

It was "Not Guilty"  It was not "Case Unproved".

He did not do it.

It does not mean "Well he might have, but he got lucky".

ergo., prosecute the accuser.

Then find out whether the Justice System is a sham, or holds true.

[cee-dee]

i-am-legion-too wrote:-

"Unless the battery on my abacus is flat, #106 was my first post, so if you have deliberated over it,  please feel free to enlighten me with your revised conclusions."

#106 was posted by me.

As to whether a person had lied if they'd been recounting false memories, who'd been indoctrinated or even brainwashed in to accusing LeVell of offences, that's not so. In those circumstances they were only mistaken if they honestly believed what they said.

In training, the Police conduct various observational tests which can be either a live, acted scenario or a video and in a memorable one, an officer just would not believe he/she was wrong when questioned as to the colour of the coat worn by the "offender". When the video was re-shown, the officer, insisted the video had been changed. Did that officer lie or was he/she simply mistaken?

The idea of such training is to show that keen observation is necessary and that eye witness evidence can be misleading.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@ronnybabes wrote:

---

---

No ... it is not... Michael Turner is innocent, or not guilty , whichever you prefer,

Therefore the accuser lied.

You still don't get it - Michael Turner was always innocent - the fact they couldn't prove he was guilty doesn't make him MORE innocent nor does it prove he told the truth.

You cannot have two contradictory outcomes.

They are NOT contradictory - It couldn't be proven that LeVell committed the offence he was charged with - it was NOT proven that he didn't commit the offence

One is false, one is true.

NO - before the LeVell trial both he and his accuser were innocent of any crime - that is still the situation. 

The idea that someone is innocent against an allegation. Means that the allegation must be false.

Otherwise a "Guilty " verdict would have ensued.

NO it doesn't - it means that it couldn't be PROVED they were guilty - NOT the same thing

Therefore the allegation has no foundation. Therefore the allegation is a lie.

The allegation may well have had foundation - just not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt LeVells' guilt, who therefore REMAINS innocent.

Not proved is a cop out as far as I am concerned.

It means a non result.

Michael Turner got the result.

It was "Not Guilty"  It was not "Case Unproved".

He did not do it.

NO _ it could not be proved that he did it - it was NOT proven that he didn't 

It does not mean "Well he might have, but he got lucky".

Nothing to do with luck but you have the first part right - he might have done it

ergo., prosecute the accuser.

And if she were found not guilty where does your logic stand then?

Then find out whether the Justice System is a sham, or holds true

It would't be a sham if both were found not guilty - it would demonstrate that the system works and also demonstrate that the adversarial justice system is there to determine if there is enough evidence to prove someone's guilt NOT to prove their innocence, for which there is no need as an accused is already innocent.

---

[cee-dee]

It's never ending.......?

The upshot is that here's a case which due to the lack of evidence should never have been brought to trial.