nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Czarcasm

MonaPizza wrote: »

Do the words shame, depression, fear, humiliation, loneliness, insecurity, etc? spring to mind?

Do the words "high horse" mean anything to you? How about "rhetorical question"?

You clearly didn't read read the post properly that you quoted, nor apparently did you read any of my previous posts in this thread.

How many cases have you heard of where boys.....now grown men..eventually summoned the spine to say something about their abuse at the hands of priests and christian brothers?

Plenty, and I've talked to many more young boys who are now grown men who didn't suffer abuse at the hands of priests and christian brothers, but at the hands of family members and relatives.

What is so different about a boy being beaten and sexually assaulted as a 10 year old in 1975 and a girl being sexually assaulted in 1985 when she may have been 15?

Plenty, depending on the circumstances and how it has affected their lives.

Or in 1965 when she now may be 55 0r 60.

Time, that's one difference. Again, there would be many other factors involved and it would depend on the effect it has had on their lives. Some people prefer to pretend it never happened to them at all, and that is their way of dealing with it.

lukesmom

Gosh the verdict could literally be revealed any minute.

Leaving aside the fact that I'm a fan of bill roache and I don't believe him capable of these crimes, I really do hope that justice is done. It must be a very tough one to call when it's mostly he said, she said and no real evidence. I await with bated breath.

Santa Cruz

lukesmom wrote: »

Gosh the verdict could literally be revealed any minute.

Leaving aside the fact that I'm a fan of bill roache and I don't believe him capable of these crimes, I really do hope that justice is done. It must be a very tough one to call when it's mostly he said, she said and no real evidence. I await with bated breath.

No forensic evidence just the oral evidence of the complainants

WilyCoyote

Have no thoughts here nor there. For me Coronation Street finished the day Ena Sharples http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b6/Ena_Sharples_1980.jpg/200px-Ena_Sharples_1980.jpg
and Albert Tatlock http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e5/Albert_Tatlock.jpg/200px-Albert_Tatlock.jpg died.

lukesmom

WilyCoyote wrote: »

Have no thoughts here nor there. For me Coronation Street finished the day Ena Sharples http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b6/Ena_Sharples_1980.jpg/200px-Ena_Sharples_1980.jpg
and Albert Tatlock http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e5/Albert_Tatlock.jpg/200px-Albert_Tatlock.jpg died.

And that's not today or yesterday!

lukesmom

The jury have been sent home for the night, they will return at 10am to continue their deliberations.

BraziliaNZ

This is the most exciting thing in Weatherfield since the Great Tram Crash of 2010

Gatling

Found not guilty on the charges

Merkin

I'm actually surprised by that, I was sure he'd be convicted.

lukesmom

Great justice has been served

Gatling

Merkin wrote: »

I'm actually surprised by that, I was sure he'd be convicted.

Wishy washy testimony ,and dead witness statements I personally think the case should have never got that far based off the lack of creditable evidence

mike65

I'm not surprised, whatever the truth is the chances of making anything stick was almost zero. The CPS allow these cases as they dare not refuse them I suspect, rather than because they really believe the case is a strong one.

efb

NOT GUILTY

Czarcasm

I can't say I'm delighted with the outcome of the trial tbh, I think it was an awful thing for all parties to have gone through. Regardless of my own personal opinion about Roache (I stand by my opinion that he comes off as a pompous ass with a massive ego, but that's no reason to assume he's a rapist), I still hope that this case wouldn't have the effect of having people assume that people only coming forward years later must be only doing it for the money/notoriety, etc. This is one case among many thousands of cases, and it'd be unfortunate if the pendulum of public opinion were to swing too far the other way to say all accusers must be making it up when cases like this come to light. The right to a fair hearing must go BOTH ways and the presumption of innocence of both the accused and the accuser -

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Sir Arthur Daley

He will be going for a pint in the Rovers after all that

murpho999

Czarcasm wrote: »

I can't say I'm delighted with the outcome of the trial tbh, I think it was an awful thing for all parties to have gone through. Regardless of my own personal opinion about Roache (I stand by my opinion that he comes off as a pompous ass with a massive ego, but that's no reason to assume he's a rapist), I still hope that this case wouldn't have the effect of having people assume that people only coming forward years later must be only doing it for the money/notoriety, etc. This is one case among many thousands of cases, and it'd be unfortunate if the pendulum of public opinion were to swing too far the other way to say all accusers must be making it up when cases like this come to light. The right to a fair hearing must go BOTH ways and the presumption of innocence of both the accused and the accuser -

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

So basically despite being found not guilty you think he's guilty.

Santa Cruz

So it's back to babysitting little Amy for Ken.

lukesmom

Czarcasm wrote: »

I can't say I'm delighted with the outcome of the trial tbh, I think it was an awful thing for all parties to have gone through. Regardless of my own personal opinion about Roache (I stand by my opinion that he comes off as a pompous ass with a massive ego, but that's no reason to assume he's a rapist), I still hope that this case wouldn't have the effect of having people assume that people only coming forward years later must be only doing it for the money/notoriety, etc. This is one case among many thousands of cases, and it'd be unfortunate if the pendulum of public opinion were to swing too far the other way to say all accusers must be making it up when cases like this come to light. The right to a fair hearing must go BOTH ways and the presumption of innocence of both the accused and the accuser -

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Would you have preferred if he was found guilty of crimes the jury don't believe he commited? Remember we the public have heard bits and pieces through the media but the jury have sat through and scrutinised every shred of evidence involved in this case day in and day out. They found him not guilty.

gramar

It's what I expected and the only logical conclusion that the jury could have come to.
It doesn't mean that he did or didn't do it just that there was no evidence that could
prove that he did.

The only thing it does prove is that the CPS were too hasty in taking it to trial. It was a 'he said she said'
scenario from 50 odd years ago with nothing else that could back up either party's story so it was
inevitable that this would be the outcome.

I feel the CPS should apologise for wasting the time or both the accused and accuser for having let
it get this far. They have wasted a lot of peoples time and their own resources.

dd972

Oh look, he's got away with i......................oh, no ! cleared !, cleared !

Santa Cruz

gramar wrote: »

It's what I expected and the only logical conclusion that the jury could have come to.
It doesn't mean that he did or didn't do it just that there was no evidence that could
prove that he did.

The only thing it does prove is that the CPS were too hasty in taking it to trial. It was a 'he said she said'
scenario from 50 odd years ago with nothing else that could back up either party's story so it was
inevitable that this would be the outcome.

I feel the CPS should apologise for wasting the time or both the accused and accuser for having let
it get this far. They have wasted a lot of peoples time and their own resources.

Maybe now we can start a campaign to clear Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris

willmunny1990

murpho999 wrote: »

So basically despite being found not guilty you think he's guilty.

Even if he did what was alleged was he ever really going to be found guilty?

How long ago was it? What evidence, if any, would be there to convict him on? At this stage its just a case of his word vs the alleged victims which is not enough.

gramar

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Maybe now we can start a campaign to clear Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris

Start your own campaign if you want.

I don't know much about Rolf Harris's supposed crimes but there is an
overwhelming body of evidence and testimony that would convict Saville
a thousand times over.

mikom

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/50/50e1ede652060b23c2568fd789229208791ad83ade80d469d916b849f656a836.jpg

murpho999

willmunny1990 wrote: »

Even if he did what was alleged was he ever really going to be found guilty?

How long ago was it? What evidence, if any, would be there to convict him on? At this stage its just a case of his word vs the alleged victims which is not enough.

Thing for me is that the accusations are all old.

People like that normally don't change their behaviour and I would have expected more recent allegations to have been made as well when this first came to light.

Gatling

Wonder if similar will happen in the Dave Lee travis trial ,
That has some similar wishy washy testimony too ,

At some stage there will be a backlash against the cps and media outlets for running with the horror attack stories that turn out to be nothing

py2006

The accusers should be named and shamed now.

ManOfMystery

Personally I don't think Roache ever did it and the correct verdict was returned. Too many inconsistencies in what the accusers were saying, things like saying they had been in his Rolls Royce (which he didn't own at the time) and went on a tour of the studio (which wasn't permitted at the time).

Gatling

py2006 wrote: »

The accusers should be named and shamed now.

Unfortunately there protected by the courts with "life long anonymity" even if identified through social media the person/s identified the accuser gets dragged to court too

Czarcasm

murpho999 wrote: »

So basically despite being found not guilty you think he's guilty.

I highlighted the relevant bits for you to make it easier -

Czarcasm wrote: »

I can't say I'm delighted with the outcome of the trial tbh, I think it was an awful thing for all parties to have gone through. Regardless of my own personal opinion about Roache (I stand by my opinion that he comes off as a pompous ass with a massive ego, but that's no reason to assume he's a rapist), I still hope that this case wouldn't have the effect of having people assume that people only coming forward years later must be only doing it for the money/notoriety, etc. This is one case among many thousands of cases, and it'd be unfortunate if the pendulum of public opinion were to swing too far the other way to say all accusers must be making it up when cases like this come to light. The right to a fair hearing must go BOTH ways and the presumption of innocence of both the accused and the accuser

lukesmom wrote: »

Would you have preferred if he was found guilty of crimes the jury don't believe he commited? Remember we the public have heard bits and pieces through the media but the jury have sat through and scrutinised every shred of evidence involved in this case day in and day out. They found him not guilty.

In cases like these lukesmom, it doesn't matter whether a person is guilty or not guilty, it only matters what you can prove in Court. To be honest of course I have to be satisfied that justice was seen to be done, but I wouldn't go crowing about it because I don't believe anyone was vindicated here and there will always be suspicion on both sides of the argument.

Effectively though, the system DOES work more times than it doesn't, I don't think it's perfect by any means, but it's the best we've got and we should always be looking at ways to improve it, and if this case has taught us anything it's that hearsay without compelling evidence will never hold up in Court.