William Roache in court

Pumpkinseeds · 23-01-2014 12:08AM

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 · 23-01-2014 12:13AM

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 · 23-01-2014 12:21AM

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 · 23-01-2014 12:34AM

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 · 23-01-2014 05:33PM

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 · 23-01-2014 06:37PM

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 · 23-01-2014 07:17PM

lukesmom wrote: »

'alleged victim'

Absolutely ridiculous use of inverted commas.

blackwhite · 23-01-2014 07:28PM

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 · 23-01-2014 07:35PM

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 · 23-01-2014 09:21PM

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 · 23-01-2014 09:24PM

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 · 23-01-2014 09:25PM

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 · 23-01-2014 10:20PM

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 · 23-01-2014 10:58PM

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 · 23-01-2014 11:20PM

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 · 23-01-2014 11:28PM

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 · 23-01-2014 11:56PM

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 · 23-01-2014 11:58PM

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 · 24-01-2014 12:15AM

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 · 27-01-2014 07:41PM

Cleared of one charge of indecent assault.

Bounty Hunter Dan · 27-01-2014 07:42PM

Cleared of one of the charges.

Have to say the guy looks ten years older that when the trial started also.

William Roache acquitted of one of seven abuse charges

Coronation Street star William Roache has been cleared of one of seven sex abuse charges at his trial, on orders of the judge.

Jurors at Preston Crown Court were directed to acquit Mr Roache of the indecent assault charge because of insufficient evidence.

Mr Roache, from Wilmslow, Cheshire, is still on trial over two rape and four indecent assault allegations.

He denies the charges, which relate to incidents between 1965 and 1971.

The offences are alleged to have involved five women aged 16 and under.

'No actual memory'
The allegation the jury were directed to find Mr Roache not guilty of, was one of two made by a woman who said she was 14 when the defendant twice made her perform a sexual act in his car in 1965.

The court heard she was picked up by the actor from the Granada Studios in his Rolls-Royce and thought she had been indecently assaulted but had "no actual memory" of the episode.

Judge Mr Justice Holroyde told the jury: "In relation to that episode, the witness was not giving evidence that it did happen, she was giving evidence that she was thinking it did happen and that is not a sufficient evidential basis for the conviction of an offence."

"Mr Roache is entitled to a not guilty verdict on that charge."

Anne Whyte QC, prosecuting, told the jury: "We do not invite you to convict on any allegation where the witness has no recollection."

Signed photograph
A juror entered a not guilty verdict on the charge when asked by the clerk.

Mr Roache still faces the second allegation by the same woman, that he assaulted her in the male toilets at Granada Studios in Manchester, earlier the same year.

Jurors were previously shown a letter and signed photograph Mr Roache sent to her after the alleged incident, in which he asked to her write back to him when she returned to school.

The defence is due to start on Tuesday and Mr Roache is expected to give evidence.

27-01-2014 07:53PM

The CPS brought that case that's been dismissed? Jesus.

lukesmom · 27-01-2014 08:00PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The CPS brought that case that's been dismissed? Jesus.

Only one charge though, still has 3 other charges.

lukesmom · 29-01-2014 03:05PM

Security manager and three of his castmates have given evidence

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 29-01-2014 03:11PM

How did that case ever get to court?

P. Breathnach · 29-01-2014 03:33PM

Zoey Powerful Cockatoo wrote: »

How did that case ever get to court?

I imagine in much the same way as many cases get to court: allegations are made; they are investigated; a file is sent to the prosecutor; the prosecutor thinks there is enough evidence to make it worth bringing to court; and here we are.

Should things be done differently because the accused is well known?

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 29-01-2014 03:38PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I imagine in much the same way as many cases get to court: allegations are made; they are investigated; a file is sent to the prosecutor; the prosecutor thinks there is enough evidence to make it worth bringing to court; and here we are.

Should things be done differently because the accused is well known?

I meant how did an accusation made by someone who couldn't remember anything, but just had a feeling she had been abused make it to court?

I Heart Internet · 29-01-2014 03:43PM

lukesmom wrote: »

Security manager and three of his castmates have given evidence

One of them is his on-screen wife Deirdre. Sure, she's a jail-bird herself!

I think Roache will be found not guilty. There just isn't the evidence to convict on these charges. Also, the fact that one charge has already been thrown out because the person couldn't actually remember it happening weakens the case for all of the charges (in my view anyway).

P. Breathnach · 29-01-2014 03:47PM

She might have seemed more sure when she wasn't on oath; or the prosecutor might simply have let a weak case ride along with ones that seemed stronger.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 29-01-2014 03:49PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

She might have seemed more sure when she wasn't on oath; or the prosecutor might simply have let a weak case ride along with ones that seemed stronger.

Thank you.

William Roache in court

Comments