William Roache in court

the_monkey wrote: »

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

Sure the whole street will be in shock.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well there's no evidence that YOU can see. I see plenty, but I'm trying to keep an open mind on the issue, because I know there would've been pre-trial interviews conducted and all manner of procedures to go through before they could even make an arrest. It's certainly not as simple as "his word against hers" or vice versa.

What evidence do you see that could prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
I just can't see it because as of yet none has been produced and I think that is based on the simple fact that there is precious little if any and therefore it is a "his word against hers scenario" and that won't get anyone prosecuted guilty or not.

gramar wrote: »

What evidence do you see that could prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
I just can't see it because as of yet none has been produced and I think that is based on the simple fact that there is precious little if any and therefore it is a "his word against hers scenario" and that won't get anyone prosecuted guilty or not.

There are convictions on the evidence of the complainant alone.

It is impossible to say for certain what evidence has in fact being given so far, as the media may be selectively reporting, or there may be some bar in reporting in full until the trial is completed. All I know is that the accused remains at this moment an innocent man.

gramar wrote: »

I think that when the CPS do their homework they should be confident of a prosecution before bringing it to trial and with the evidence I've seen they can hardly be too confident. When it came down to it in the Le Vell case the prosecution had nothing only sweeping generalisations about alcoholic soap stars. I think here it's much the same. After the Le Vell case they probably realised it would be nigh on impossible to get a successful prosecution against Roache but having sought a trial already they couldn't back peddle.

I think you're wilfully ignoring the fact that there would've been pre-trial investigations and interviews and the decision was probably made to bring this case to trial long before the second LeVeil case. They were never going to back peddle as they believed the evidence was strong enough to secure a conviction.

I think though what IS happening here in these high profile cases is that it's beginning to look like Ken Barlow is on trial and not William Roache, but what's REALLY not helping is when you have this sort of ducking and diving going on, word play to distract from the facts -

Anne Whyte QC, prosecuting, cross-examined Roache, asking about his sexual history and his admission that he was unfaithful to his first wife.

'It appears from the evidence you gave this morning that your marriage vows to Miss Cropper did not hold you back sexually from 1965?' she said.
Roache replied: 'The marriage was not as fulfilling as it had been, and yes I was having other sexual partners.
'We were drifting apart and living virtually separate lives, myself in Manchester and her in London, the marriage itself was disintegrating.'

Ms Whyte asked if he was 'serially' unfaithful to his wife, and he replied: 'I would not use the word serially, but it was frequently.'

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2547342/Bill-Roache-denies-string-historic-sex-offence-allegations-insists-does-not-know-accusers.html


By Roaches definitions then, I wouldn't use the word "guilty", but I wouldn't say he is innocent.

gramar wrote: »

I agree that the letter provers that they had met but he met and wrote to many fans and the content is hardly an admission of guilt. He may or may not have had the opportunity around the studios but most court evidence seems to dismiss that possibility.

The content of the letters is nothing tbh, because the impression I get from Roaches own testimony is that he is an ego-driven windbag that's so far up his own ass I don't think he realises just how serious these accusations are that are being made against him. Either that, or he's just purposely playing dumb by trying to look clever. One thing's for sure, the prosecution is giving him enough rope, almost too much, enough to have a jury think "Well he has to be innocent, nobody could be that incredibly stupid!".

gramar wrote: »

As far as I can see the evidence is based around tenuous accusations (including one where she says she thinks [/FONT]something happened but has no recollection which has already been dismissed), the Saville fall-out and a few eye-brow raising comments that he made a few years back in relation to karma.

This isn't entirely uncommon in sexual assault cases tbh, and there are many different reasons for it. But again you're willfully ignoring the evidence, or at least the testimony of the accuser -

The witness explained to prosecutor Anne Whyte QC why she did not give her name or that or Roache when she made the first phone call to the police.

"I was ashamed at even bringing the incident up," she said. "I didn't want my name in the papers. I wasn't even sure it was confidential. I was not sure how far I wanted to take it at that point."

Miss Whyte said: "It has been suggested to you that are not telling the truth, what do you say about that?"

The witness replied: "It's ridiculous. I would expect her (Miss Blackwell) to say that. She is defending him. That is her job. It doesn't surprise me."

gramar wrote: »

Jaysus have you nothing better to be doing than picking my arguments apart!!
Get back to work!

Slow day at the office

Ah no but seriously, I'm worse than a dog with a bone though any time I read about cases like these and the automatic assumption by some people that the accusers must be looking for money because so and so wouldn't do such and such.

gramar wrote: »

What Roache has in his favour is the time that has elapsed. Playing dumb is easy and very plausible and any link to the alleged victim is easily explained away. That's why I think it's very difficult to find anywhere near enough evidence for a conviction.

As for the trial itself I certainly don't think the charges are brought for money or fame. Any financial compensation wouldn't be significant and it's not something you go shouting from the rooftops. That fact that someone came forward is not an automatic indication of guilt but it would make you wonder why.

Well there's another case I'm just after reading about now where the victim took nearly ten years to come forward, then another 30 years before those responsible were finally held to account. Why did she go through so much?

Simply to see that justice was done -

European Court of Human Rights vindicates abuse victim

This is from the prosecutions' closing:

"You are here to judge William Roache in the 1960s when he was a young man with looks, fame and appetite. That gave him the motivation and the opportunity to behave improperly."

"He is lying or literally all of them are."


Even the prosecution are making it out to be a 'who do you believe' situation but
advise them to be careful of Bill the seasoned actor who is sticking to the script.

lukesmom wrote: »

I read that two of the witnesses are sisters or did I dream I read it because I can't find it now.

No, you didn't dream it. (unlike some of the victims evidence!!!)

"His trial has heard that the complainants, who did not know each other, apart from two sisters"

lukesmom wrote: »

Live updates twitter@stepholiverSky if anybody's interested

Thanks lukesmom. That's a good live feed.

Looks like the jury are heading out to consider the evidence now.

It's a tough one. How do you decide on a case where there's no real evidence, as such, events happened 50 years ago. The prosecution seem to be relying on:

- Either the complainents or Bill Roache is lying
- Who has most to gain from lying? (prosecution says BR does)
- Isn't it suspicious that a number of these similar cases have emerged at the same time about BR? (prosecution says yes and it points to his guilt).

That's a kinda compelling argument too...but is it strong enough.

We can only hope that justice is done....whatever that might mean re: a guilty/not-guilty verdict.