William Roache NOT GUILTY

[*.*..lola..*.*]

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-02-06/william-roache-cleared-of-all-charges-coronation-street-not...

Let's hope he can put all this behind him and get on with his life now!  

[i-am-legion-too]

He may have called his co-stars as character witnesses, but unsurprisingly, he didn't ask the same of his close business associates.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/bill-roaches-magazine-looses-more-1779789

[electric*mayhem*band]

'I think it's easy to view him as he is now'

Even as he is now, he comes across to me as being rather sleazy, and maybe just a bit creepy. Can't abide the man.

Good post, Pixels.

[saasher2012]

Which is what I said in an earlier post! I understand your expletives but the fact remains why now, After all this time of keeping quiet,
Bravado, encouragement , sense of justice, or jumping on the bandwagon . I would like to think it was the first three for the sake of other victims, believe me I really do!

[lhasa.two]

---

@kiss*my*pixel wrote:

I would really like to say something there that begins with B and ends with cks, but am biting my tongue incase I get slapped.

If something like that happened to you, even after 47 years, you would not forget it - the barristers are extremely clever in the way they pose their questions (I know, I worked for a couple, years ago). They run rings around a defendant/claimant and know exactly how to pose a question to confuse you.

Possibly Mr Roach was able to afford a more expensive, more experienced lawyer, who managed to run rings around the claimant's lawyers.

---

Agree with you pixel. 

I had a minor situation - in comparison to these women - back in the late 60's when I first moved and started freelance work in London. I  had an extra day where I wanted to work. Got a job in the Fulham Road with a very upmarket antiques dealer in his shop. First day, he asked me to make him a coffee . As I put it down on his desk he grabbed both my boobs... I looked at him with a blank stare, picked up my bag and walked out.  This type of behaviour by men in the 60's/70's was rife and as a woman I can remember dodging these types regularly, so it wouldn't surprise me that most of these men who have been up on charges could well be guilty of what they consider to be nothing at the time - because it was rife - along the lines of "you're saying no but you mean yes really and it's all just a joke"...

[duck_a_lorange]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26068034

"The prosecution had accused Mr Roache of using his fame and popularity to exploit the girls and said that, if the actor was telling the truth, he was the victim of a "huge, distorted and perverse witch-hunt".

But Louise Blackwell QC, defending, said the women's evidence "lacked sense and credibility".

In court, the woman making the **bleep** ("carnal knowledge of a woman by force and without consent" - Lithium bleeped the word out) claims changed her mind about how old she was at the time.

Another woman initially told police she was warned about Mr Roache by actor Johnny Briggs, who played Mike Baldwin, but when it was discovered he was not in the show at the time she said the warning had come from a different actor.

A fifth indecent assault charge was dropped due to insufficient evidence after the woman, who accused him of abusing her in his car, told the court she had "no actual memory" of the episode."

The whole thing really does look more and more like people jumping on a bandwagon.

[sir_arthur_strebe-grebling]

Thank goodness that not everyone wins when they climb on the compensation bandwagon.

[kiss*my*pixel]

Good Evening, Sir A - hope you are well!

I think it's not such a case of a compensation bandwagon, more a case of an attempt at justice being done (in this case, it appears to have failed, regrettably).

[cee-dee]

Justice prevailed.

The onus is on the prosecution to present evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They clearly didn't do that hence the unanimous NOT GUILTY verdict.

Justice is not just for accusers, it's for the accused too.

[kiss*my*pixel]

The accusers had to rely on the Crown Prosecution Service (who, let's be honest, don't have a great track record)

Mr Roach could afford to hire a top lawyer.

No contest, really

Not saying he's guilty, just wondering if this was a fair trial

How many people that you know in your own real life would bring a case such as this to the fore if they didn't really believe in it?

Even if it had happened to me (and similar things did happen as described by Ilhasa above, but not to the extent of these victims), I would think not twice, but a hundred times before even considering bringing a court action. This would not have been undertaken lightly by these women (some of whom were very young girls at the time).

Compensation bandwagon? Pah!!!

Men such as this thought it was all a bit of a lark back in the day. Well it bloomin' well wasn't

[cee-dee]

The CPS aren't a pushover but by their own admission they "thought" they had sufficient evidence to produce a successful prosecution.

They didn't have any evidence at all, all they had was the say-so of several women.

I don't know how many times I've said the same thing, but what people say isn't real evidence, it should only be taken as a lead towards hard evidence.

In the past, the CPS has thrown all sorts of cases to Courts hoping to gain a prosecution and in so doing led to miscarriages of justice. This latest case was thrown to Court hoping that the hysteria surrounding JS would sway the jury to convict. The Michael Le Vell case was another where there was no evidence other than the say-so of unidentified witnesses.

From now on..... I hope that the say-so of a witness won't be sufficient to induce the CPS to go to Court and that the witness evidence must be supported by hard evidence. Also, where accusations of this nature are made, the accused should have the same anonimity granted to witnesses until proven guilty.

[kiss*my*pixel]

Mornin' All!

I agree with your last paragrah, CeeDee (and said as much further up) ^^^  Absolute anonimity until proven guilty, otherwise if someone is truly innocent, there will always be that cloud hanging over them.

I think, however, the "say-so" of several women should not be scorned and so lightly dismissed. The CPS clearly didn't have enough hard evidence and this is what ultimately let down the victims, unfortunately.

As Mrs S said earlier (lhasa) this kind of thing happens all the time. Most women could regale several anecdotes from past years of such sordid behaviour, on various different levels ranging from seedy to horrific, but try making a complaint all those years ago and it was mainly dismissed, along the lines of "Oh, take no notice of him, he's harmless enough". That is unacceptable - it was not then and is not now, okay for a victim (either male or female) to have to endure that behaviour.

Again, as has been said previously, it all boils down to who is believed and how good your lawyer is.

Mr Roach has been acquitted, but it doesn't necessarily mean he is innocent, simply he had a better legal team.

I just harbour doubts . . .

[cee-dee]

I don't think the ability of his legal team had anything to do with it.

The judge was very clear in his summing up having said something like "If you are sure he commited these offences, you must return a guilty verdict. If you are not sure, the verdict must be not guilty".

There was the telling bit, there was a doubt, the jury were not sure so they didn't take long to reach a unanimous verdict?

You can't have retrospective legislation so why should retrospective opinion be taken in to account?

The fact that complainants might have been poo-pooed all those years ago doesn't meant that present thinking should be applied? They didn't complain or tell anyone at the time so why should it be expected that complaining now should have more effect? Had they individually complained then and it have been poo-pooed, then a collective complaint now would have made a great difference.

He wasn't proved to be not guilty, the evidence (such as it was) didn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. His character is now stained by the accusations and there's no way he can prove himself completely innocent.

Bringing cases such as this and the two others (DLT and Harris) will be detrimental to similar offences in the present day and the CPS should recognise that right now.

[rose2008-2008]

 I feel so strongly about this as i had something occur with a man when i was under age and could now be having him for **bleep** but hes no longer alive!!!!!!!!!. I only found out a while back he had a penchant for young girls!!!

Roache (right name wrong spelling) wrote that letter ending it with "love from Bill". Have they just ignored that then??. It makes me sick when certain men try and get away with stuff like this with" it was only a joke". Certain men men are completely a Jeckyl and Hyde character when it comes to work and home life. He would hardly risk his job by behaving like that on set or in front of co workers as someone else said previously!!. Wether **bleep** young girls or putting it about behind their wives back men think they can get away with it by putting on on an innocent nice man personality!! when they feel its apt and then switching to predator mode elsewhere. I have had experience of men like this and its sickening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

[lost.parrot]

If ability - real or imagined - of ones legal team had no bearing, there would likely be a flat fee system.

The summation in such cases is quite common, and provides guidance for the jury. Nothing unusual there.

Juries differ in the amount of time taken to reach a verdict, and actually it wasn't that short.

You can have retrospective legislation, it's just not usual.

Any past offences would be prosecuted under the law as it was then, so quite retrospective.

In a number of cases, eg Savile, complaints were made at the time, but viewed as single isolated incidents, as they were wrongly viewed according to HMIC they were considered insufficient to take forward.That was partly a failure of both police procedure and systems failure according to HMIC.
I suspect in some cases, eg Hall some complaints may have been made at the time, but again as individual isolated cases, it would not be considered enough to take forward

Hard evidence lol, biggest red herring in the fish bowl, nonsense! most so-called hard evidence in context isn't!

Some watch far too much junk CSI telly!!, and would be better even at such late age, having more contact with the opposite gender, at least once.

Hall's case would likely never have been brought had it not been for the Savile case, and he would have remained free, and unpunished.That I take it is what some old dears would prefer, as that would be a very likely consequence of their ramblings.

Another sizable red herring is the old compensation issue. Hall transferred all his assets beyond reach, no real compensation there. And why if as suggested it's all fake do most appear to fake minor charges, not the ones that would attract a longer sentence, and greater compensation. Senility seems to have set in with some.
Since the legal penalties for such false accusations would be much the same, unless all of them are a bit short on grey matter, surely they would opt for 40k say, for the more serious assaults not 1.5 k for the less.
Doesn't make sense

Hardly makes much sense either to risk legal sanction in instigating false criminal proceedings, which may cost the celeb
defendant £200-300k with a higher burden of proof when you might sue in a civil court with a much lower burden
Sure, legal fees would apply to the plaintiff in civil cases, but then they would regardless.

The idea that the justice system should not somehow progress a case involving some minor soap actor or another because it might damage their reputation, and only a sworn statement by god would be enough evidence to convict is farcical
HMIC concluded certain cases were not progressed partly for those reasons.Far as the criminal law system goes, you pays yer money......
Some defendant's have made capital out of their situation, and most have the advantage, mr ordinary doesn't of having a jury who probably all know of the defendant, and know a guilty verdict might end their career, a weighty burden for them they dont normally have to face with mr average
In part that is what Savile relied on, and worked hard at his image, and its what kept the tabloids at bay, as they would lose a civil action because nobody would believe a care home victim against St Savile.
The legal system doesn't usually name the defendant until charges and court appearance, the newspapers do, because its what their readers want. I suggest some direct their attention there

The system is widely acknowledged to have failed many victims in the past
There must have been plenty of so-called 'hard evidence way back in domestic disputes. Assaults, physical and sexual then were deemed 'domestic' and quite often effectively ignored by the law enforcement agencies
If you look at certain cases, eg shy keenan, she was abused by her step father from as young as four. Rented out to others for money/ cigarettes , along with her sister.There must have been substantial evidence, both in terms of physical, psychological, lost school time etc
She even taped her step father admitting to some of the offences.Despite all that and something like 10 years with all the so-called 'hard evidence' that produced, nothing was done and no action was taken. The abuse continued to her and her sister till she eventually ran away, was caught, placed in a care home and abused again.
No prosecutions were brought until newsnight ran a investigation and got stepfather and one fellow abuser on video tape. Finally a prosecution resulted, both men were convicted and jailed. A great many who were also involved were never prosecuted, and remain free
Part of the documentary is on the Internet.The stepfather is quite unashamed, and unrepentant , saying most were doing the same. You don't often get the chance to see an unashamed abuser, they are mostly in denial.

Go look at some of the victims of care home abuse, if they are all lying we must indeed produce some fine oscar winning actors,
Those obsessed by compo, are more likely projecting their own values rather than objectively assessing others.Unless there are financial, and/or criminal penalties for those with a duty of care, it's far easier to hush up abuse, and at worst move the abuser elsewhere, only to abuse again.

It's not the easiest of areas for the legal system to deal with, for what should be obvious reasons, but deal with it, it must, otherwise it's a green light to all such abusers, which to some extent is how it was and is partly the reason for where we are now.

[tommy.irene]

Nice thread and good posting.. the same can be said about the POPE keeping dirty priests on the payroll..

[lhasa.two]

An excellent post lost.parrot

[upthecreekyetagain]

Where are the posts saying the verdict proves that those making the allegations were lying?

Seem to be keeping a low profile this time - good.

[tommy.irene]

Cleared Corrie star Bill Roache facing fresh anguish as more women make new sex assault allegations 

• Actor not guilty of indecently assaulting four girls and twice **bleep** a fifth
• Lancashire Police say they are 'looking into' fresh claims of sexual assault
• Spokeswoman said there is no formal investigation at this stage
• 81-year-old is set to meet Corrie bosses to discuss his return to the show
  

 8 February 2014

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2554598/Cleared-Corrie-star-Bill-Roache-facing-fresh-anguish...