7ryMJjyBMgowKMZdQ~~_7.JPG "cee-dee"){kind=avatar}
cZWBOTS0P!wJ!~~_7.JPG "queenelsa83"){kind=avatar}
r9)c!s!BMe7Sm0zi!~~_7.JPG "electric*mayhem*band"){kind=avatar}
Not sure I agree - he may have been found "Not Guilty" by the courts, doesn't mean to say he is actually "Not Guilty" - the verdict has been reached purely on unsubstantiated evidence, due to the time factor.
Many of you are saying "thank goodness, now he can put it behind him". However, I think if these women were brave enough to speak out, they were clearly very certain of what happened to them. Can they now "put this behind them"? If their accusations are true, then they have suffered a disservice by the Legal System. There are not many in society who would bring such a claim if there wasn't something behind it.
Having said that, I do agree that someone accused of such a crime should be entitled to complete anonymity until found guilty or innocent.
Actually, should have said
"until and IF found guilty"
If found innocent, then identity should not be revealed at all
Sorry - typing too quickly!
Now that he has been exonerated, maybe at aged 81 he should take the cue and exit stage left, instead of wanting to get back to work as he has said. Not as if the soap would crumble in his absence. It hasn't done so far.
I dont believe he is innocent!!!. He sent that suggestive letter to a schoolgirl did he not??. I did not know what was in all of it but i thought it was a concrete piece of evidence??.
Saasher - it always, always boiled down to in the end, in every legal court case, who has the best barrister/lawyer, no matter how much time has elapsed.
Just suppose you had been molested as a young girl, and now felt able to speak up as an adult. Would you think there should be a time limit then? (I think that's what you're saying in your closing statement)??
@rose2008-2008 wrote:I dont believe he is innocent!!!. He sent that suggestive letter to a schoolgirl did he not??. I did not know what was in all of it but i thought it was a concrete piece of evidence??.
And of course the glowing character references of his Street co-stars, Anne Kirkbride, Chris Gascoyne and Helen Worth, wouldn't have anything to do with the outcome, would it ?
To quote good old Mandy Rice-Davies, "Well they would say that, wouldn't they" ?
@electric*mayhem*band wrote:
@rose2008-2008 wrote:I dont believe he is innocent!!!. He sent that suggestive letter to a schoolgirl did he not??. I did not know what was in all of it but i thought it was a concrete piece of evidence??.
And of course the glowing character references of his Street co-stars, Anne Kirkbride, Chris Gascoyne and Helen Worth, wouldn't have anything to do with the outcome, would it ?
To quote good old Mandy Rice-Davies, "Well they would say that, wouldn't they" ?
MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY YES!!!!. hOW MUCH WERE THEY PAID SPRINGS TO MIND!!!.
Cee-Dee - what makes you think this was not a genuine claim for justice by these women? Just because William Roache was "found" Not Guilty, doesn't diminish the claims against him.
Maybe he is not guilty, but we shouldn't dismiss the original claims for justice - has it been determined they were not genuine claims? Or simply not able to prove . . .
He was paying for his barrister, the women were reliant on the CPS... that in itself doesn't bode well for them imho, and held in Bolton, gateway to the macho industrial north!!!! Waits to be stoned... 
I think it's easy to view him as he is now, hopefully everyone has a modicum of sense at 81 but back then if he - according to his autobiography - slept with a 1,000 women and was unfaithful to his first wife many times, around the time this happened then I think there has to be at least some suspicion about his actions, particularly with his high libido. Nothing wrong with having one of those but he obviously enjoyed putting it about!
It's very difficult to prove with evidence so it comes down to "he said she said", but the letter he wrote to one woman seemed a bit OTT if she was just a school girl fan... You don't as an adult male actor invite a school girl to write to you, do you, unless perhaps she was interested in pursuing an acting career?!
Of course he was going to be a complete "gentleman" with the cast members who were "character" witnesses, it was his job at risk if he wasn't squeaky clean.
I think he charmed the jury, kept his head down and was very lucky!
In the end the law is the law and a jury has found him not guilty which isn't the same as being innocent...
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.
