The CPS And The Michael Le Vell Trial


Yesterday, the jury at Michael Le Vell’s trial for child abuse found him not guilty on all counts. My first reaction was to first warn everyone that victim anonymity in sexual cases is for life, unless the victim themselves decide to waive that anonymity and secondly to suggest that the CPS had some very big and  important questions to answer. Many of the stories in the MSM this morning are asking those very questions of the CPS.

For a very good timeline and overview of the role the CPS played in the Le Vell case please read this Daily Mail story.

But very briefly, Michael Le Vell was originally arrested in September 2011. By Dember 2011 the Crown Prosecution Service had concluded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed to trial and no charges were brought against Le Vell at that time. The victim’s mother made a formal complaint in February 2012 and the victim made further allegations to the police in March 2012. However, it was not until after the Savile revelations hit the headlines that the CPS reviewed the case and came to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence and Michael Le Vell was charged with 19 offences in February 2013.

I followed the trial in the MSM and it became increasingly clear even before the prosecution case had even been put that, in the absence of startling unreported evidence, there clearly was not sufficient evidence to convict Michael Le Vell.

So, why did the CPS change their opinion ?

Some, today,  are suggesting that it was because of a ‘celebrity witch hunt’, the consequence of public hysteria and media hubris. This suggests that the CPS are susceptible to this kind of pressure and prone to kneejerk volte face.

I prefer to look at the consequences and ask, cui bono ? Who benefits ?

Michael Le Vell has clearly not benefited and nor has the victim. The alleged victim has had to give personal testimony in an open court and has not been believed. Other alleged victims in future cases have not benefited, the Le Vell case will be used in some circles to cast doubt on other cases.

Actually, the only group of people who will benefit from this CPS decision will be offenders who will all try and portray themselves as grievously maligned.

If we exclude the Nigel Evan’s case which does not involve minors, not one politician or member of the judiciary has been arrested for child abuse.

Now, if you wanted to make things easier for powerful paedophiles then sacrificing a few celebrities and throwing in a case like Le Vell’s which clearly had little chance of a conviction would be a good strategy to adopt following the public outcry which accompanied the Savile revelations.


Filed under Abuse, News, Politics

54 responses to “The CPS And The Michael Le Vell Trial

  1. Interested Observer

    “the CPS had some very big and important questions to ask”

    To “answer”, surely, not ask?


      Agree with GoJam,
      this smells fishier than The Codfather Richard Dawkins handing out fish & loaves to his fishermen disciples in Billingsgate on a Fryday..
      I also smell lots of plague-carrying rodents eating Ratatouille whilst watching the MouseTrap with Ratty from the Willows.
      yours truth-tellingly,
      BarRat Obama xx

  2. Utterly absurd conspiracy theory. The CPS are being influenced by the manic internet ramblings about “paedo’s” and so you get worthless prosecutions like this. The CPS is diabolically badly run, but that’s about the extent of the problem. Hopefully the new DPP will begin to sort things out,

    There was a very good comment on the Mail today by a wise member of the public:

    “You cannot put someone in court simply on the basis of ‘I accuse’…there has to be more evidence…witnesses,forensic , any sort of corroborative evidence which they did not have here…unless the accused admits it all of course. ‘I accuse’ is not sufficient thats why only about 7% of rape cases get a conviction…if we allow ‘I accuse’ to become the norm then none of us are safe .”

    • Yes, your explanation, that the CPS is influenced by “internet ramblings” is obviously far more credible… not.

      • Not “internet ramblings”. Organised disinformation campaigns by clever people. Remember the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Steven Messham and then the BBC? Journalists are using confused people to create stories for them to make money out of.

        Your explanation is that the CPS is behaving as a criminal organisation as part of a paedo-conspiracy to allow crime to continue. Credible? Not.

        The Le Vell case has *Shambles* stamped all over it.

      • I’m not giving an explanation, I’m just pointing out that abusers will be the only group who will benefit from this trial.

      • Journalists benefit more directly. They write up sensationalist “paedo-theory” that they pick up from internet ramblings. This gives it the veneer of respectability and then the CPS feel pressurised to be seen to be “doing something”. Classic political manipulation.

        CPS should look at evidence and evidence not just play to the gallery. They are behaving absurdly and have been doing ever since Operation Yewtree gave credence to the journalists writing up sensationalist stories.

    • gw

      always inclined to think cock-up rather then conspiracy. Think there was at least a perception of public pressure to take these cases to court and we don’t know what the girl and the mother said to the police that may have changed things.

      Think the idea that this stuff has been spun by journalists to make a buck is a bit of a conspiracy theory as well!

      other news : 2 more pallial arrests

      • @ Think the idea that this stuff has been spun by journalists to make a buck is a bit of a conspiracy theory as well! @

        How else do you explain Messham? Ch4 feasted on that story for about three nights until it fell apart in front of their eyes. Cathy Newman was interviewing some guy on the evening news who started chunnering about Freemasons!! Then, a couple of nights later Paraic O’Brien was standing in the same spot saying nobody knew where Messham was. His face looked like that of a kid who’s just had his new toy taken off him.

        I think pro-journalists have discovered the internet ramblings and are entranced by the stories, which are far more entertaining than real life. Not so long ago bloggers and their ilk were being dismissed as spotty geeks in bedsits. Now Icke fills theatres. The Hacks follow the money.

      • gw

        replying to myself as the reply button doesn’t appear on the post below (above?):

        I’d explain it as a cock up!

        As we saw it was a pretty big gamble that did not pay off. I’d be surprised if newsnight/ BIJ made a profit with the “innocent face” debacle.

      • @gw
        I’ll bet the journalists still got their salaries. I don’t recall any of them apologising for their gullibility and roles in panicking the public even more. They’re quick enough to demand “apologies” from everybody else.

      • gw

        I’m afraid I disagree – people lost jobs + reputation. I’m sure there are plenty of journalists out for the money however I think that plenty are motivated by more then just finances. Journalism in the scheme of things isn’t particularly well paid hence why there is the crossover to PR. Not all saints I’m sure but again I err to cock up over conspiracy. btw I skimmed over your blog – v. interesting and will read it in depth once I’m out of the office! t

  3. Gojam, I think you have misunderstood the post by Moor Larkin. I think he is saying that The CPS being influenced by internet ramblings is an utterly absurd theory.
    However, is it not just possible that the CPS believed the victim?

  4. Claire

    I still believe the difficulty of guilty verdicts being reached in rape trials in general is being vastly underestimated.
    I guess your view of the CPS’s role (who I would normally jump at discrediting as they have a proven track record of incompetency and dubious decisions, particularly in the wake of Savile, and this would again fit an agenda) also impinges on whether you believe he was found not guilty on the sole conviction of being unequivocally innocent, or there being ultimately insufficient evidence, or the jury unable to be ‘virtually certain” of his guilt – which as it happens is often the case in a rape trial.
    I also recently saw a good point made elsewhere about the differences in nuance between ‘innocent’, ‘not guilty’ and ‘unproven'”.
    Lastly I should remark on reading between the lines of various reports on the trial it could perhaps be surmised the defence may have used somewhat controversial medical ‘evidence’ to support Le Vell’s case.

    Whatever, I will still watch with a very critical eye the role of the CPS who do have massive questions to answer in general.

    • @ I should remark on reading between the lines of various reports on the trial it could perhaps be surmised @

      There’s an awful lot that could be surmised, but only the jury got to hear all the information. All 12 of them.

      • Claire

        @Moor Larkin
        To make my remark more pertinent I should have said it related to the doctor’s ‘neutral’ verdict on her being a victim of sexual assault, and the standard methods used by courts to ascertain this. Some are at best uncertain, even unreliable, and the ‘court heard’ one thing, and the ‘doctor said’ another. Not so much surmising as analysing. I will not go into further detail as I do not wish to publically, for obvious reasons.
        Perhaps you have better faith in the justice system than I do.

      • I still have faith in the part of the justice system that involves “the people” – Juries, if you like.

        As to the judiciary , when they are good they are very very good but when they are bad, they become extremely unappealing.

    • aliharris

      This is an excellent article Claire summarising the false equivalence of being found innocent (whether or not it being the actual case) and the myth of false allegations, and indeed whether it makes any progress when dealing with rape apologists in the first place . This blogger has pulled together many brilliant analysis in the same article for all those with more intelligence than philosophy 101. Furthermore it clarifies the position of public opinion re accusers whethr they be men or guess who, women and girls.

    • Claire – It’s not clear what you mean when you say the defence used ‘controversial medical evidence’. There was no medical evidence, the prosecution tried to suggest that the skin disorder ‘lichen sclerosis’ could have some connection with sexual abuse. This is false.

      In the Cleveland case Dr Higgs repeated misdiagnosed a child as sexually abused when she had lichen sclerosis. This painful condition therefore remained untreated until another doctor diagnosed it – it was the first warning shot that Higgs and her cohorts were on an ideologicial mission to diagnose sexual abuse unbiquitously which eventually became centred around the ‘anal dilatation’ nonsense.

      A couple of years later Dr Camille Lazaro wrote a letter to a medical journal suggesting that lichen sclerosis may be caused by sexual abuse. She gave no evidence for this, as was her style. Her empire – the one of ‘the legend in her own imagination’ became eventually unstuck at the Shieldfied malicious libel trial – read the judgment by Mr Justice Eady – read what is said about Dr Lazaro.

      It is the habit of paediatricians in cases where no medical evidence exists, and where indeed the complainant is a virgin, to say this does not prove or disprove the allegations and that it is ‘consistent with’. Well it wouldn’t prove it even if there were injuries because it could have been someone else. But this ‘consistent with’ hypothesis is counter intuitive when you consider the actual allegations alleged. Raping a six year old is not a ‘neutral event’.

      There’s even a case with a naturally occurring imperforate hymen where the prosecution are holding fast to their claim of penetration by toys. No injuries of course.

      This whole field has become utterly bizarre and nonsensical – it’s the world of the witchhunts and ‘spectral evidence’.

  5. Pingback: The CPS And The Michael Le Vell Trial | justiceforkevinandjenveybaylis

  6. Crown prosecution in the UK will not prosecute unless CPU agree and in KEvin and Jenvey Baylis{s case the CPU is protecting the pedophile…. and the UK is as well

  7. Thanks Gojam – they were in possession of Mary Moss the NAYPIC activist who worked with Chris Fay at the time. ‘The register’ from which they were held to have been taken was in the possession of Carol Kasir who was desperate for help in getting her children back and somehow thought that a Greenwich councillor and a Naypic activist could help her in this However it is clear from the ‘list’ that that the ‘names’ could not have come from the register as it was at the time of the raid in 1982. So somebody must have added them later – this of course is academic since the ‘list’ wasn’t a genuine list at all.

  8. Claire

    @Margaret Jervis

    “Stuart Bell – known to Dwyer & Haddon – supplied boys.”

    From the Richmond tab and list of names;
    Bell, Stuart (1938-2012) MP, ‘supplied boys’

    He is on the documents, whether it ‘suits you’ or not I am afraid, and yes, as Gojam states, they were written by Chris Fay and John Oakes, not Mary Moss.

  9. To KD – lichen sclerosis diagnosis was in newspaper reports on the trial – no inside knowledge I’m afraid and wouldn’t be able to reveal it if I had.
    the other information is publicly available from the Cleveland Report and the Journal of Archives of Childhood Diseases (I think that was the journal the letter was in). Can give chapter and verse with a bit of time and will do on request,

    To Claire – agenda? – truth and justice – the truth is singular – but lies have many faces.

    re the register – the issue is not the ‘documents’ but their provenance, Claire. It’s an elementary forensic and investigative issue. Timelines and all that.

    • kd

      re the lichen reporting, thanks for clarifying Margaret.

    • Claire

      Agenda, bias, call it what you will, Margaret, but you are a professional CSA refuter, paid to help deny CSA claims.
      I’ve been reading many of your articles and they all, unsurprisingly, have the same theme, dogged denial or discreditation of CSA. Cleveland was a particular interest, many now consider to be a Psyop.
      Spin and propaganda is rife in the world of CSA, particularly VIP abuse. When names with a history of negation and professional interests pop up discrediting the Elm documents it makes me more inclined than ever to believe them tbh.
      You said Stuart Bell’s name wasn’t on any ‘guest list’. I merely pointed out Bell’s name is on the list of documents.

  10. KD – as promised refs to lichen sclerosis in text and footnotes for citations.

    As mentioned the ref in trial came from newspaper reports.


      Getting spoooky now that The Ghosts of Dictators Past are commenting on here…I thought your surname was ”Thatcher” not ”Jervis”..??

    • GREAT! I love people who check up facts thoroughly! So now can you please then check up on the fact that the Staffordshire Pindown report has been taken out of all the public librarieds, making it unavailable to read to the victims of the abuse, also the victims of the abuse have been treated worse than criminals, and at least one of them (me) has been treated in a truly disgusting way in the Secret (therefore illegal) Family Courts and had a syndrome that was invented by a paedophile used against her, and the whole of Parliament knows it.

      • Zoompad – I’m sorry you have become a victim of ‘victim pathologising’. The Staffs Pindown report – about excessive ‘time out’ as it was termed – will be available. Try one of the University libraries – you can check online. If you live in Staffs it must be available through the council. You don’t need to go to the extent of FOI here. This was a published report. I do not know the facts concerning Pindown – it was during the time I worked at Social Work Today but I was assigned to other things at the time. I do remember Rachel Downey – who later became an editor of Community Care and a bigwig at Reed publishing had an interest in this journalistically and the scandal was prominently reported in the Independent. Unfortunately both authors Alan Levy and Barbara Kahan have since passed away. Chris Fay may have a copy as there was NAYPIC advocacy.
        On the other hand alot of material gets discarded in time by libraries – seen the Cleveland report recently? Luckily I’ve saved a copy. Neither report is online – pre-internet I’m afraid.

        As for the family courts – that is the legacy of secrecy and flawed judgment – if you ignore the the false positives, they will escalate, and false negatives become overlooked as we see with Daniel Pelka etc etc. Are you a victim of a false positive, may I ask?

        I don’t think you could have been diagnosed formally with anything that isn’t in the DSM – but there’s a tale!

      • chris46

        Hi Margeret. Thanks for that. I think it is important to remember that Pindown was not just confined to Staffs. It was widely used throughout the LA care system and in juvenile psychiatric units. If you look at the Melanie Klein report it is referred to as “the Home Office approved method”. Courses for Secure Unit staff were taught these methods on such a course, run at Frant Court Secure Unit as late as 1991. In Greenwich they were referred to as “blanket searches”. The trade union NALGO complained about the numbers of staff who were injured on these courses.
        In its defence evidence to the dept of health inquiry in 1991 BMI, who ran Langton House stated all their staff had been on this “home office approved course.”
        As far as we could assertain at NAYPIC, our research showed the roots for the methods taught on this course, had originated from the Northern Ireland prison services and had been developed to deal with terrorist prisoners. Who thought this was a good idea to use on children – God knows!!!
        chris fay

      • Yes I visited ?Kneesworth where distrubed mentally handicapped patients were subject to this regime and that I think was AMI. It was a behaviourist approach which would have been American in origin – rewards and punishments. When you go to these places as a journalist it’s very difficult to do any kind fair ‘assessment’ since your obviously being treated to the PR (even then). I was taken around by a psychologist and saw one incident where somebody went into an out of control strop. The psychologist immediately intervened very calmly and the person calmed down straightaway. I was a bit astonished by this – there was no restraint at all. I couldn’t make my mind up about the place and so never actually wrote anything up – whatever I said it wouldn’t have felt quite right. There were of course many different fads around the late seventies -80s often applied by un- or barely trained staff in local authority homes. Too often in inner cities staff were recruited from care leavers which meant that there was going to be an ‘authority’ problem unless there was good supervision. In the 80s local authority care homes were a complete cinderella especially in cities – it was foster, foster, foster – unless sent to special boarding schools. and the psychodynamic ‘therapeutic communities’ . But there were also lots of rights battles over freedom, since these were mainly teenagers.

  11. Sweetie

    A fact checker or a fat chequer?

      • Sweetie

        Attracting a few from the same litter I see ;-p
        Aah sneaky ciggies behind the bike sheds. Those were the days…

        Margaret Jervis September 1, 2013 at 15:17
        Well done Moor, Rabbit and Anna and all the guys’n gals. Hope to meet you in court – though it’s a long walk to the smoking area – at the back by Thomas More building the best. Near the family courts.

      • @sweetie @ Attracting a few from the same litter I see ;-p @
        I think you need to read the needleblog Mission Statement sweetie.

        “This blog was not created as simply a platform to express my own views but my earnest hope is that others who comment on other blogs will contribute to this one and be credited and perhaps even take ownership of it as an equal partner.”

  12. Can one favourite posts on wordpress?

  13. LJMT

    Some people treat this subject very lightly indeed, as though it were a game, and as if lives were not destroyed in the process. My life has never been destroyed, but I have been made horribly aware that others have, and that sometimes the victims are too scared ever even to take their cases to court, but pay for years of therapy scrimping and saving, until if lucky they get their lives back. Sometimes they know their abuser has been taken to court by someone else and found “not guilty”. And for the Jimmy Saville cases they had to see their abuser on the front of a video advertising “Stranger Danger”, a kind of torment some of us find far from funny.

    Incidentally is Moor Larkin’ a serious name, or the description of a desire?

  14. Pingback: The CPS And The Michael Le Vell Trial | L8in