William Roache in court

lukesmom

So the coronation street star who has been accused of twice raping a girl of 15 back in the 60's, has been in court the past few days. There is no proof and his 'alleged victim' only came forward when she heard of other similar cases of celebrities being accused. I reckon its another case like Michael Lee vell's in Corrie. I just don't believe it. Why do people go through with these types of cases if the allegations are false? Seems like an awful lot of hassle and trying to keep up the lies.

Mint Aero

I dunno about him. He appeared on Sky News after the Saville revelations claiming that these things were normal back in the day :rolleyes: I was like yeah :rolleyes: I'll give you a few months before you're caught so and I was right

IvaBigWun

lukesmom wrote: »

Why do people go through with these types of cases if the allegations are false?

Money.












(if its false)

Mint Sauce

lukesmom wrote: »

So the coronation street star who has been accused of twice raping a girl of 15 back in the 60's, has been in court the past few days. There is no proof and his 'alleged victim' only came forward when she heard of other similar cases of celebrities being accused. I reckon its another case like Michael Lee vell's in Corrie. I just don't believe it. Why do people go through with these types of cases if the allegations are false? Seems like an awful lot of hassle and trying to keep up the lies.

Must have been enough proof for it to reach court. Unfortunatly though, if he is found innocent, I'm sure they will dig other aspects of his past, like Michael Lee Vell and his drink problem.

Other important thing to be considered in the cases of alleged abuse/rape cases, is naming the accused. Whether they be famous or not, even found innocent, is that there will always be a doubt about them afterwards from certain members of society. If the alleged victim is allowed to remain anonymous, why not the alleged accused.

MJ23

Half a bitter Ken?

Hootanany

Thumbs up Len said he was worse than him and he was convicted.

Santa Cruz

MJ23 wrote: »

Half a bitter Ken?

In a minute when Rita is finished sucking me off

stimpson

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Must have been enough proof for it to reach court. Unfortunatly though, if he is found innocent, I'm sure they will dig other aspects of his past, like Michael Lee Vell and his drink problem.

Like the time he said abuse victims bring it upon themselves?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/20/coronation-street-bill-roache

Banjo String

Deirdre's gonna bate the shiite outta him when she finds out about this......

Thank God Blanch isn't around to see it.

lukesmom

lukesmom wrote: »

Why do people go through with these types of cases if the allegations are false? Seems like an awful lot of hassle and trying to keep up the lies.

Maybe it's not a false allegation so.

Just because it's long ago doesn't mean it didn't happen or it doesn't matter anymore.

Maybe the Yewtree thing gave the victim confidence that they might be believed for the first time.

If it is false, I feel very sorry for the man, although he does seem to come out with a lot of stuff that excuses abusers and blames victims.

Czarcasm

lukesmom wrote: »

So the coronation street star who has been accused of twice raping a girl of 15 back in the 60's, has been in court the past few days. There is no proof and his 'alleged victim' only came forward when she heard of other similar cases of celebrities being accused. I reckon its another case like Michael Lee vell's in Corrie. I just don't believe it. Why do people go through with these types of cases if the allegations are false? Seems like an awful lot of hassle and trying to keep up the lies.

In many of these types of cases people don't make a report or come forward for fear they won't be believed. They can carry it with them for decades after the incident and even in some cases convince themselves that they were to blame for what happened to them. They may also be unaware of other victims, and when a case does come to light, it can help them to realise it didn't just happen to them, they were not to blame for what happened to them, and this can give them the courage to come forward.

In any case, the CPS do not bring forward these cases without evidence that there is a strong possibility of a conviction. Trial by media in the "Court of Public Opinion" doesn't help their case, it actually hinders it, but it is unfortunately one of the ways of encouraging other victims to come forward when they read about the case.

Donkey Oaty

lukesmom wrote: »

So the coronation street star who has been accused of twice raping a girl of 15 back in the 60's, has been in court the past few days. There is no proof and his 'alleged victim' only came forward when she heard of other similar cases of celebrities being accused. I reckon its another case like Michael Lee vell's in Corrie. I just don't believe it. Why do people go through with these types of cases if the allegations are false? Seems like an awful lot of hassle and trying to keep up the lies.

Hi, Lukesmom.

Accidentally thanked your OP and don't know how to undo it.

Hell of a lot of assumptions you've got there though. CPS must have thought these things through already

The jury will have had access to more info than any of us - will you trust their judgement?

Pumpkinseeds

I'm always confused by these cases. Accusations are made decades later, the accused is named publically while the victim remains anonymous. So trial by media. Essentially it's one persons word against another, presumably without any forensic evidence of an offence having being commited.

Where were all of these 'victims' prior to the Saville case? How in the name of Jesus is Saville supposed to have sexually assalted 1000 boys and girls in his dressing room? And all of them chose not to report it to the police. I think a lot of these cases are just bulls*it and an attempt to wangle money.

I'm not defending Roache or Saville, I'm not a fan of Coronation street, I just think a lot of these accusations are false and potentially damaging in the future in the case of genuine rape/sexual assault victims. The LaVell case was proven to be a false allegation, if there are many more cases where the 'victim' is proven to be lying it might predjudice a jury against victims.

Super-Rush

Closed for review.

Super-Rush

Reopened.

tritium

Czarcasm wrote: »

In any case, the CPS do not bring forward these cases without evidence that there is a strong possibility of a conviction. Trial by media in the "Court of Public Opinion" doesn't help their case, it actually hinders it, but it is unfortunately one of the ways of encouraging other victims to come forward when they read about the case.

I disagree somewhat. While I don't know enough about the William roache case its pretty clear that on the Michael leVell case this wasn't the principal driver for bringing charges. If you recall in that one the cps did a half assed review of a previous decision based on very limited new evidence and decided all of a sudden that prosecution was in the public interest. For any other type of case the cps employee responsible for the decision would have been forced to resign

Pumpkinseeds

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Where were all of these 'victims' prior to the Saville case? How in the name of Jesus is Saville supposed to have sexually assalted 1000 boys and girls in his dressing room? And all of them chose not to report it to the police. I think a lot of these cases are just bulls*it and an attempt to wangle money.

Threatened into silence? Told no one would believe them? Afraid of people thinking they're just after money? Being exposed as a victim and having people think they were asking for it? Jimmy Saville abused kids lying on their deathbeds, literally, in a hospice. Those kids died with that mans abuse in their minds.

Mostly though I'd imagine they'd be afraid people wouldn't believe them. With good reason, apparently.

I'm not defending Roache or Saville

If your knee-jerk reaction is to assume many victims are just money grabbing liars, then that is exactly what you're doing. These guys operate under the assumption that they'll get away with it because no one will believe the victims.

With good reason, apparently.

I feel sorry for this guy if he's innocent, and he shouldn't be named. But he doesn't seem to be helping his case with some of the stuff he's said.

if there are many more cases where the 'victim' is proven to be lying it might predjudice a jury against victims.

Well, no victims have been proven to be lying (as of yet) in this case, and you've made the assumption. So I guess the prejudice already exists.

dark crystal

lukesmom wrote: »

So the coronation street star who has been accused of twice raping a girl of 15 back in the 60's, has been in court the past few days. There is no proof and his 'alleged victim' only came forward when she heard of other similar cases of celebrities being accused. I reckon its another case like Michael Lee vell's in Corrie. I just don't believe it. Why do people go through with these types of cases if the allegations are false? Seems like an awful lot of hassle and trying to keep up the lies.

I have no idea why you presume the allegations are false just because of one other case.

It's been reported that one of the the women came forward after seeing Roache discussing his sexual past as a lothario and felt sick after what he allegedly did to her.

You raise a good point when you ask why people would make such allegations if they are false. Why would anyone want the hassle, the judgement, the decimation of their character by the defence when there's nothing in it for them? Why would multiple women, unknown to each other, decide to destroy an innocent man's life with a web of lies?

Perhaps it would be best to wait until the jury has reached a decision, having heard all the evidence, before deciding these women are malicious liars.

Czarcasm

tritium wrote: »

I disagree somewhat. While I don't know enough about the William roache case its pretty clear that on the Michael leVell case this wasn't the principal driver for bringing charges. If you recall in that one the cps did a half assed review of a previous decision based on very limited new evidence and decided all of a sudden that prosecution was in the public interest. For any other type of case the cps employee responsible for the decision would have been forced to resign

Mistakes were made in the LeVeil case certainly, but I don't think anything was decided suddenly or on a whim. I was talking though in more general terms about high profile cases in the media rather than just the specific two cases of LeVeil and Roache.

As for assertions being made in the thread that anyone would claim to have been sexually assaulted/abused with the intention of gaining infamy or wealth?

That's about as common as a false conviction for sexual assault/abuse.

lukesmom

dark crystal wrote: »

I have no idea why you presume the allegations are false just because of one other case.

It's been reported that one of the the women came forward after seeing Roache discussing his sexual past as a lothario and felt sick after what he allegedly did to her.

You raise a good point when you ask why people would make such allegations if they are false. Why would anyone want the hassle, the judgement, the decimation of their character by the defence when there's nothing in it for them? Why would multiple women, unknown to each other, decide to destroy an innocent man's life with a web of lies?

Perhaps it would be best to wait until the jury has reached a decision, having heard all the evidence, before deciding these women are malicious liars.

You'll notice I said 'IF' they are false

lukesmom

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Hi, Lukesmom.

Accidentally thanked your OP and don't know how to undo it.

Hell of a lot of assumptions you've got there though. CPS must have thought these things through already

The jury will have had access to more info than any of us - will you trust their judgement?

Yes I will indeed trust their judgement.

Pumpkinseeds

Candie wrote: »

Threatened into silence? Told no one would believe them? Afraid of people thinking they're just after money? Being exposed as a victim and having people think they were asking for it? Jimmy Saville abused kids lying on their deathbeds, literally, in a hospice. Those kids died with that mans abuse in their minds.

Mostly though I'd imagine they'd be afraid people wouldn't believe them. With good reason, apparently.



If your knee-jerk reaction is to assume many victims are just money grabbing liars, then that is exactly what you're doing. These guys operate under the assumption that they'll get away with it because no one will believe the victims.

With good reason, apparently.

I feel sorry for this guy if he's innocent, and he shouldn't be named. But he doesn't seem to be helping his case with some of the stuff he's said.



Well, no victims have been proven to be lying (as of yet) in this case, and you've made the assumption. So I guess the prejudice already exists.

I think you need to take a deep breath. I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and no, I do not believe that everyone claiming to be a victim is a victim. Of course there will be victims who genuinely did not want to come forward for various reasons. But I think a lot of it is farcical. A lot of these accusations date back to the 60's, the first generation of teenagers dressing older and trying to appear older than they were, that by no means is meant to put blame on a victim.

It's a very emotive subject, and I have every sympathy for genuine victims, I also believe that we live in a world where people are quite happy to cash in where they can. As I said, I believe in innocence until proven guilty, that means giving both sides a fair hearing. Not just accepting allegations as being truth.

I think that a lot of these high profile cases are going to show that a lot of lying is going on. If that is the case then it really will affect the genuine victims of rape. I find it disgraceful that the identities of the men accused have been disclosed, if the victims identity where leaked the media there would be public outrage.

Henlars67

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I'm always confused by these cases. Accusations are made decades later, the accused is named publically while the victim remains anonymous. So trial by media. Essentially it's one persons word against another, presumably without any forensic evidence of an offence having being commited.

Where were all of these 'victims' prior to the Saville case? How in the name of Jesus is Saville supposed to have sexually assalted 1000 boys and girls in his dressing room? And all of them chose not to report it to the police. I think a lot of these cases are just bulls*it and an attempt to wangle money.

I'm not defending Roache or Saville, I'm not a fan of Coronation street, I just think a lot of these accusations are false and potentially damaging in the future in the case of genuine rape/sexual assault victims. The LaVell case was proven to be a false allegation, if there are many more cases where the 'victim' is proven to be lying it might predjudice a jury against victims.

Well actually it wasn't.

Pumpkinseeds

Henlars67 wrote: »

Well actually it wasn't.

Well he's not in prison.

if832uspx4eogt

I'll still have suspicions over Le Vell. And same with Roache, even if he is found not guilty. Just because the jury believed it, doesn't mean he didn't do it.

ArmaniJeanss

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

The LaVell case was proven to be a false allegation,

It wasn't, statements like this indicate a slight lack of understanding of how the system works.

All that was proven in the MLV trial was that the allegation was not supported by enough evidence to convict.

For the allegation to be 'proven' to be false the CPS would have to be convinced there is enough evidence to take a perjury case against the people who made the allegations, and then present this evidence to a jury with the burden of proof now reversed - they would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was a deliberate false allegation.
Quite plausibly they would be found not guilty and the case would be in a very common legal grey area; no one guilty of assault and no-one guilty of false allegation of assault.

lukesmom

Mad how one of roache's accusers say he raped her and she was terrified and felt awful and a few months later she visited him again. Why would you approach somebody who just a while ago raped you??? Does not make sense to me.

Pumpkinseeds

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It wasn't, statements like this indicate a slight lack of understanding of how the system works.

All that was proven in the MLV trial was that the allegation was not supported by enough evidence to convict.

For the allegation to be 'proven' to be false the CPS would have to be convinced there is enough evidence to take a perjury case against the people who made the allegations, and then present this evidence to a jury with the burden of proof now reversed - they would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was a deliberate false allegation.
Quite plausibly they would be found not guilty and the case would be in a very common legal grey area; no one guilty of assault and no-one guilty of false allegation of assault.

I didn't follow the case and I only vaguely remember the case,tbh I really have no interest in these cases. I just think that it's wrong to identify people before a verdict has been reached. Not only does the accused have to deal with the fall out that those accusations bring, their families are subjected to it as well.

I'm just curious as to how a case can be taken for rape/sexual assault, alleged to have taken place decades ago, based purely on accusation when presumably, no evidence exists.

wretcheddomain

Let's not forget this video footage...

Czarcasm

quote="lukesmom;88610168"]Mad how one of roache's accusers say he raped her and she was terrified and felt awful and a few months later she visited him again. Why would you approach somebody who just a while ago raped you??? Does not make sense to me.[/quote]





lukesmom you might as well be asking the question why would anyone sexually assault or abuse another person in the first place?



The fact is there can be an infinite number of reasons, some which will indeed make absolutely no sense, and if the person is asked why, even they may not be able to rationalise their behaviour.

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I'm just curious as to how a case can be taken for rape/sexual assault, alleged to have taken place decades ago, based purely on accusation when presumably, no evidence exists.

A case is never brought forward for prosecution Pumpkinseeds based purely on accusation without evidence. Evidence which is only gathered after an investigation has taken place. There are a number of other factors involved and procedures to go through before the CPS can proceed with the case.

Okay, okay! I heard you the first time...

Pumpkinseeds

Czarcasm wrote: »

lukesmom you might as well be asking the question why would anyone sexually assault or abuse another person in the first place?

The fact is there can be an infinite number of reasons, some which will indeed make absolutely no sense, and if the person is asked why, even they may not be able to rationalise their behaviour.





A case is never brought forward for prosecution Pumpkinseeds based purely on accusation without evidence. Evidence which is only gathered after an investigation has taken place and it can be shown that there is enough evidence to lead to a successful prosecution. Bringing a case to court isn't cheap, and the higher the court, the higher the costs to the State, so they really aren't taken as lightly as is being made out here.

What kind of evidence though? Are we talking physical evidence or circumstancial evidence? The Yewtree operation has attracted massive public attention and the police are under the spotlight on this, likewise the CPS are under pressure to secure convictions. If we're talking circumstancial evidence several women saying he raped them at the set of Coronation Street could be seen as enough circumstancial evidence to take a case. I'm not a barrister and I don't follow the case, I'm genuinely just curious as to how so many people have come out of the woodwork claiming to have been raped by celebrities in the 60's and 70's. It just seems to be an incredibly high number.

Czarcasm

Candie wrote: »

Okay, okay! I heard you the first time...

Touch site is acting the so and so on me, combined with me confusing the Irish and English legal systems, eesh!

Czarcasm

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

What kind of evidence though? Are we talking physical evidence or circumstancial evidence? The Yewtree operation has attracted massive public attention and the police are under the spotlight on this, likewise the CPS are under pressure to secure convictions. If we're talking circumstancial evidence several women saying he raped them at the set of Coronation Street could be seen as enough circumstancial evidence to take a case. I'm not a barrister and I don't follow the case, I'm genuinely just curious as to how so many people have come out of the woodwork claiming to have been raped by celebrities in the 60's and 70's. It just seems to be an incredibly high number.

If you really think about the number of people these celebrities had access to Pumpkinseeds, the numbers really aren't that high, as in the number of people accusing them of sexual assault is relatively small compared to the number of people they would've met over the course of their careers.

One comparison that could immediately come to mind is the RCC scandals we have over here, and people as you put it are still "coming out of the woodwork" decades later. If anyone was doing it for the money, they certainly aren't seeing a whole lot of it!

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Another problem with taking these cases is that they are prosecuting an actor, who has trained their whole life gaining the ability to pretend to be someone else saying words written by someone else. Ken is a terrible actor though. Someone like De Niro could probably sound convincing even if he was standing over a body with blood on his hands.

I agree that the accused shouldn't be named and shamed until there is a conviction.

Remember the COMPLETELY FALSE allegations made against Louis Walsh. He was lucky his accusor was found to be a spoofer early on because if it had been dragged out any longer he would have been put on 'temporary leave' from X-Factor, he might have 'temporarily' lost one or all of the acts he manages and his career is effectively over before a trial even starts. There can be victims and liars on both sides of this and the legal system needs to protect victims first and punish the liars and abusers secondly.

johnsuperf

lukesmom wrote: »

So the coronation street star who has been accused of twice raping a girl of 15 back in the 60's, has been in court the past few days. There is no proof and his 'alleged victim' only came forward when she heard of other similar cases of celebrities being accused. I reckon its another case like Michael Lee vell's in Corrie. I just don't believe it. Why do people go through with these types of cases if the allegations are false? Seems like an awful lot of hassle and trying to keep up the lies.

It is often the case that a person who has been raped or sexually abused as a child do not bring it up for decades later and some dont bring it up at all.I know from personal experience.

lukesmom

Who knows? I just find it hard to believe is all. I believe him when he says he loved women and had plenty of them, but not underage.

4zn76tysfajdxp

lukesmom wrote: »

'alleged victim'

Absolutely ridiculous use of inverted commas.

blackwhite

Emberly Cuddly Poodle wrote: »

I'll still have suspicions over Le Vell. And same with Roache, even if he is found not guilty. Just because the jury believed it, doesn't mean he didn't do it.

Don't forget your torch and pitchfork when you join the lynch-mob.


This post really is a perfect example of why the accused should only be named if they are actually convicted.

People who know nothing about the facts of a case are always very quick to claim "there's no smoke without a fire" and other such rubbish.

ahnowbrowncow

Emberly Cuddly Poodle wrote: »

I'll still have suspicions over Le Vell. And same with Roache, even if he is found not guilty. Just because the jury believed it, doesn't mean he didn't do it.

And this mentality is why the accused should be given anonymity.

Edit: For feck sake Blackwhite, always stating my opinion on things just before I can.

lukesmom

Milena Tart Roadblock wrote: »

Absolutely ridiculous use of inverted commas.

Oh excuse me if my punctuation or grammar isn't perfect, I was under the impression that After hours didn't require it

Aidric

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Another problem with taking these cases is that they are prosecuting an actor

Opening statement of the prosecution to the jury was that William Roache is on trial before you, not Ken Barlow.

4zn76tysfajdxp

lukesmom wrote: »

Oh excuse me if my punctuation or grammar isn't perfect, I was under the impression that After hours didn't require it

Merely an observation, do carry on.

Femme_Fatale

Both "Oh well there's no smoke without fire" when it's just alleged, and "I'd say it could be false and they're looking for money - where were they earlier?" are really sh1tty attitudes.

Is it really so difficult just to keep an open mind on both counts until the actual verdict is reached? Is the suspicion stuff just to look kinda hard-ass?

Czarcasm

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Both "Oh well there's no smoke without fire" when it's just alleged, and "I'd say it could be false and they're looking for money - where were they earlier?" are really sh1tty attitudes.

Is it really so difficult just to keep an open mind on both counts until the actual verdict is reached? Is the suspicion stuff just to look kinda hard-ass?

Often times for many people FF, unfortunately it IS difficult to keep an open mind, especially in high profile cases like this where people often think they "know" the celebrity and can feel like their accuser is being motivated by them having something to gain from the accusation. It's a classic case of their prejudices saying "Oh sure so and so would never do that; surely they would've been found out sooner if it was true; why are these people only coming forward now, surely they're just jumping on the bandwagon!".

The other side of that coin are the people that say "Oh so and so was protected by their aides (Michael Jackson), I always thought there was something off about them (Jimmy Saville), they had plenty of opportunity, sure they're a celebrity, everybody loves them, some nobody doesn't stand a chance when these celebrities can afford the best solicitors,lawyers, that money can buy!"...

People on either side of the argument will always look for signs that confirm their prejudices rather than look objectively at the evidence, or indeed lack thereof. They're more focussed subjectively on the person or persons involved. That's why trial in the court of public opinion is absolutely meaningless, and why while it might be the right thing to do to leave one's prejudices to one side, it's human nature to be prejudiced in the first place, and leaving that to one side can indeed be difficult.

Undoubtedly the legal system sometimes gets it wrong, and this may only come to light with new evidence or new methods of gathering evidence, but it's the best one we've got and we have to trust the system to do it's job, because more times than not, the system gets it right. Whether we agree or disagree with the decision of the Courts or not, we have to have faith in the system, because if we don't, then cases like these won't come to light, and the perpetrators will go unpunished because victims will have no trust in the system.

Femme_Fatale

lukesmom wrote: »

Oh excuse me if my punctuation or grammar isn't perfect, I was under the impression that After hours didn't require it

I don't think he means the punctuation in and of itself, more the use of it - the way it implies the person in question is lying. They may be, they may not.

lukesmom

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I don't think he means the punctuation in and of itself, more the use of it - the way it implies the person in question is lying. They may be, they may not.

Yeah thanks I'm aware that he may be or maybe not lying. I used the commas as it is unclear if she is actually a victim or not. Perhaps I used them in the wrong context.

However I don't believe it's fair to name the accused unless a guilty verdict is reached.

supersean1999

Just before hayley died on cornation street. She leaned to Roy and said iv something to tell you.. Ken Barlow touched my willy.

Femme_Fatale

lukesmom wrote: »

However I don't believe it's fair to name the accused unless a guilty verdict is reached.

I fully agree; just as I think the accuser should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Corkfeen

lukesmom wrote: »

Yeah thanks I'm aware that he may be or maybe not lying. I used the commas as it is unclear if she is actually a victim or not. Perhaps I used them in the wrong context.

However I don't believe it's fair to name the accused unless a guilty verdict is reached.

Except making the name public gives the opportunity for other victims to come forward which would strengthen a case.

lukesmom

Cleared of one charge of indecent assault.