William Roache in court

lukesmom wrote: »

I have been a fan of his for many years, his book 'soul on the street' is one of my favourites and I would agree with most of his beliefs. I believe he is innocent. Not just because it hope he is, I genuinely believe he is an honest and noble man. And as for his accusers who can't remember anything - Money money money.

What money though lukesmom? Genuine question.

I used know some fantastic people too, but then it turned out I didn't know them as well as I thought I did.

I haven't heard all of the evidence but just from this particular incident and the weak case brought against Michael LeVell it is starting to look as if the CPS are being a bit over zealous in their pursuit of high profile people. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but they're not doing themselves any favours and could discredit genuine cases.

WikiHow wrote: »

The actress, who plays Roache's on-screen wife Deirdre Barlow gave a glowing reference about him saying that that "he behaved impeccably towards her, he was always the perfect gentleman", you would swear she was a supermodel and that she is constantly fighting off men. :rolleyes:

So you think only good looking women or girls get harassed or abused by men?

Czarcasm wrote: »

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.

I wouldn't necessarily agree. There was very little evidence other than a shaky testimony in the Michael Le Vell Case and there is no evidence whatsoever in the Bill Roache case as far as I can see. It's one person's word against the other. Whether he did anything or not I can't see him being prosecuted because there are no witnesses or evidence to the alleged crimes. Any evidence is purely circumstancial and almost anecdotal and involves a lot of joining some fairly distant dots.

Czarcasm wrote: »

The Daily Mail is not the Book of Evidence. Come on now gramar, you know better than that. This is the trial by media nonsense I was talking about earlier. I don't care how many newspaper articles you read or how many internet opinion pieces you read. The only fact you're privy to about the case is that you're not privy to, and never will be privy to, all the facts.

I can't say whether he did or he didn't, but this thing of "I believe him because he's a lovely fella, those women are only looking for money!". In the Savile case, the maximum amount decided by the BBC that will be awarded is £40,000 compensation if the person can prove they were raped, and even then, they're unlikely ever to see a penny of that money.

The amount of compensation for what they're put through by going to trial as witnesses for the prosecution just isn't worth it.

I don't know if any crime was committed or not and I'm not presuming innocence because he's Coronations Street's Ken Barlow. I think I'm just stating the obvious which is that there is no evidence that can prove that any of the alleged events took place.

If that is the case (and it seems to be) how could he be prosecuted whether guilty or not? Reading the court transcriptions from yesterday the prosecution could only suggest that they he would have had the opportunity to have carried out the alleged assaults and that being a famous TV personality he could have leveraged that status to take advantage of young girls.

If that is the basis for finding someone guilty then anyone half famous would be a suspect.

lukesmom wrote: »

There should not be sides, just evidence for which so far there is none.

You are giving out about people taking sides yet you seem to be taking Williams side.

lukesmom wrote: »

Very funny - not.

lukesmom I may rip the piss a lot of the time in AH and come off like a sarcastic little prick but I genuinely wasn't trying to be funny when I pointed out the fact that Anne Kirkbride was not a 15 year old girl at the time these incidents are alleged to have taken place. Some sex attackers will have a specific target profile, and if you're outside the profile, well, you're outside the profile, you're of no interest to them.

You are implying he is guilty just a quick read of your posts indicate you are on the victims side. There should not be sides, just evidence for which so fat there is none.

Well it hasn't been proven anyone is a victim yet, I'm just not willing to concede that Roche is as honest or noble either as you're making out, because neither of us know him personally. I'm also not willing to castigate women I don't know as money grabbers.

You keep saying there's no evidence, but if there was no evidence, there would be no case. You just haven't been made aware of any evidence. That's not the same thing at all as no evidence.

I agree with you though about your earlier post that his comments in that interview prove nothing, I just put them down to comments ripped out of context and given a sinister spin, it's easily done when a journalist strokes the ego of an idiot and gives them enough rope to hang themselves so to speak. Martin Bashir did the same with Michael Jackson when he released the interview with just enough spin to convince the public that Jackson may indeed have sexually abused children. Later footage released by Jackson's PR team presented an almost contradictory view and immediately the public were sent into a frenzied flip-flop where they weren't sure what to believe any more.

What I'm saying is that I'm not going to pre-judge either way. I'm not prepared to castigate Roache, and I'm not prepared to castigate his accusers, but to suggest there is no evidence is simply not true.

If the cps case was to collapse completley it would have done so by now imo.
The fact that there are three accusers of a similar profile does not bode well for Roach. Too little chance that this is a conspiracy or coincidence.
That is what sets it apart from the Le Vell case.

It's Deirdre and Tracy I feel for ...