This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Not Guilty - unanimous verdict:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552261/Bill-Roach-trial-jury-retir...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552261/Bill-Roach-trial-jury-retir...
In reply to FesteringSore:
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.
whaaat?
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.
whaaat?
"The husband of one complainant, whose sister was also allegedly abused, contacted the papers before the police - which 'coloured' their allegations, Miss Blackwell said."
Can you smell fish?
Can you smell fish?
> Can you smell fish?
Very good. 10/10 - probably the best pun on this site, ever.
In reply to FesteringSore:
There's also talk that all those making the allegations were connected.. not truly independent.
At least he's been cleared. Looks well, can't believe how old he actually is.
There's also talk that all those making the allegations were connected.. not truly independent.
At least he's been cleared. Looks well, can't believe how old he actually is.
In reply to FesteringSore:
Bill Roach has always come across as a decent person. It will be interesting if he takes things further, I suspect not.
Bill Roach has always come across as a decent person. It will be interesting if he takes things further, I suspect not.
In reply to icnoble:
I worked with Bill for many years, he always struck as a kind, quiet, considerate person, albeit with some strange religious views, unlike Jimmy Saville who I thought was a nasty piece of work. I'm glad he has been found innocent as I'm sure he is.
I worked with Bill for many years, he always struck as a kind, quiet, considerate person, albeit with some strange religious views, unlike Jimmy Saville who I thought was a nasty piece of work. I'm glad he has been found innocent as I'm sure he is.
In reply to FesteringSore:
There is a fine line between climbing on a bandwagon and there not being sufficient evidence to prosecute. I am not convinced he is innocent, but I do believe justice has been done.
> Agreed - I think far too many have climbed on the Savile victim bandwagon
There is a fine line between climbing on a bandwagon and there not being sufficient evidence to prosecute. I am not convinced he is innocent, but I do believe justice has been done.
In reply to ByEek:
>I am not convinced he is innocent...
really? you know something that failed to come out in court?
>I am not convinced he is innocent...
really? you know something that failed to come out in court?
Post edited at 13:43
In reply to ByEek:
I don't understand how you think someone is not innocent but think justice has been done if they where not convicted for it.
> I am not convinced he is innocent, but I do believe justice has been done.
I don't understand how you think someone is not innocent but think justice has been done if they where not convicted for it.
In reply to Glyno:
At the end of the day, this was their word against his. Given that in order to convict the jury has to be beyond reasonable doubt, it was always going to be difficult to get a prosecution especially given the length of time that has passed since the alleged offence.
But 5 women still made complaints against him.
So are all the women glory seekers trying to bring down a public figure, or is there simply not enough evidence to discredit one side or the other?
This was the right decision based on evidence, but it has not determined the truth of what may or may not have happened. Has this case answered the question of why 5 women independently decided to make a complaint against him?
At the end of the day, this was their word against his. Given that in order to convict the jury has to be beyond reasonable doubt, it was always going to be difficult to get a prosecution especially given the length of time that has passed since the alleged offence.
But 5 women still made complaints against him.
So are all the women glory seekers trying to bring down a public figure, or is there simply not enough evidence to discredit one side or the other?
This was the right decision based on evidence, but it has not determined the truth of what may or may not have happened. Has this case answered the question of why 5 women independently decided to make a complaint against him?
Post edited at 14:00
In reply to FesteringSore:
Looking across the wider picture, there are a number of people being accused of similar offences and many of them will be found Not Guilty and several already have.
Sex crime prosecutions are difficult even when they are contemporary. There is limited evidence or in a few cases there may be false accusations. In the case of historic offences, the difficulties of all kinds are multiplied. Nobody will ever know for sure how many who have remembered offences against them are truthful and how many are not. My guess would be that, although there will be a small bandwagon effect, the overwhelming majority will be telling the truth.
The 'no smoke without fire' theory is undoubtedly going to haunt these people for a long time. It is not helpful that criminal and civil courts in UK jurisdictions are not designed for finding the truth, so often they do not.
Whatever the truth, what can be done has been done. Bill Roache has been found Not Guilty and now we should give him a break.
Making Bill Roache's life hell by harping on about it has no prospect of improving the situation for current or future victims of sexual crimes. If any other accusation or new evidence comes to light then we employ police and prosecutor to deal with that. In a post-Saville world, it seems clear that these things are taken seriously.
If anyone really wants to make a difference then be vigilant and don't let anything bad happen to those around you.
Importantly, let's not create a world where everyone is too scared to give someone a hug when they need it.
Looking across the wider picture, there are a number of people being accused of similar offences and many of them will be found Not Guilty and several already have.
Sex crime prosecutions are difficult even when they are contemporary. There is limited evidence or in a few cases there may be false accusations. In the case of historic offences, the difficulties of all kinds are multiplied. Nobody will ever know for sure how many who have remembered offences against them are truthful and how many are not. My guess would be that, although there will be a small bandwagon effect, the overwhelming majority will be telling the truth.
The 'no smoke without fire' theory is undoubtedly going to haunt these people for a long time. It is not helpful that criminal and civil courts in UK jurisdictions are not designed for finding the truth, so often they do not.
Whatever the truth, what can be done has been done. Bill Roache has been found Not Guilty and now we should give him a break.
Making Bill Roache's life hell by harping on about it has no prospect of improving the situation for current or future victims of sexual crimes. If any other accusation or new evidence comes to light then we employ police and prosecutor to deal with that. In a post-Saville world, it seems clear that these things are taken seriously.
If anyone really wants to make a difference then be vigilant and don't let anything bad happen to those around you.
Importantly, let's not create a world where everyone is too scared to give someone a hug when they need it.
In reply to ByEek:
The suggestion is, as I understand, they weren't independent. Also when you yourself go to the papers before making the allegations to the police.. then again it makes it questionable.
> At the end of the day, this was their word against his. Given that in order to convict the jury has to be beyond reasonable doubt, it was always going to be difficult to get a prosecution especially given the length of time that has passed since the alleged offence.
> But 5 women still made complaints against him.
> So are all the women glory seekers trying to bring down a public figure, or is there simply not enough evidence to discredit one side or the other?
> This was the right decision based on evidence, but it has not determined the truth of what may or may not have happened. Has this case answered the question of why 5 women independently decided to make a complaint against him?
The suggestion is, as I understand, they weren't independent. Also when you yourself go to the papers before making the allegations to the police.. then again it makes it questionable.
In reply to Glyno:
You don't have to be convinced of someone's innocence to acquit them, just not convinced of their guilt. One of the problems with this sort of trial where whatever actually happened, shit sticks. I can't see that it's avoidable.
jk
> >I am not convinced he is innocent...
> really? you know something that failed to come out in court?
> really? you know something that failed to come out in court?
You don't have to be convinced of someone's innocence to acquit them, just not convinced of their guilt. One of the problems with this sort of trial where whatever actually happened, shit sticks. I can't see that it's avoidable.
jk
In reply to FesteringSore:
I'm no legal mind, however AFAIK
Under English Law, if there is reasonable doubt as to guilt, then the jury must find 'Not guilty'.
Under Scots Law there is the option of 'Not Proven' where insufficient proof exists to convict - but a suspicion that there may be some degree of truth in the allegations against the defendant - thus leaving the way open to civil action where the burden of proof is of a lower standard.
Sometimes Scots law makes a lot more sense.
I'm no legal mind, however AFAIK
Under English Law, if there is reasonable doubt as to guilt, then the jury must find 'Not guilty'.
Under Scots Law there is the option of 'Not Proven' where insufficient proof exists to convict - but a suspicion that there may be some degree of truth in the allegations against the defendant - thus leaving the way open to civil action where the burden of proof is of a lower standard.
Sometimes Scots law makes a lot more sense.
Post edited at 14:47
In reply to jkarran:
Its tricky, I do think there should be more anonymity on both sides, but that there should be a mechanism to go to the press for more potential victims.. that was how Saville got caught.
But to go the press before an allegation is made? There's just too much damage to a person.
Its tricky, I do think there should be more anonymity on both sides, but that there should be a mechanism to go to the press for more potential victims.. that was how Saville got caught.
But to go the press before an allegation is made? There's just too much damage to a person.
In reply to IainRUK:
True, but having said that many of the complainants, not only in this case, but in the cases for DLT have said that they did not report it at the time because either they would not have been believed or it would have thwarted their career. I believe that some even complained to the police to turned a blind eye.
> The suggestion is, as I understand, they weren't independent. Also when you yourself go to the papers before making the allegations to the police.. then again it makes it questionable.
True, but having said that many of the complainants, not only in this case, but in the cases for DLT have said that they did not report it at the time because either they would not have been believed or it would have thwarted their career. I believe that some even complained to the police to turned a blind eye.
In reply to JoshOvki:
I admire your trust in the justice system but it is entirely feasible for him to have done it. As I said above, it is his word against his accusers. On the basis of a lack of evidence he has been found not guilty and rightly so. That only proves that there was not sufficient evidence to convict, not that he is innocent of the alleged complaints.
> I don't understand how you think someone is not innocent but think justice has been done if they where not convicted for it.
I admire your trust in the justice system but it is entirely feasible for him to have done it. As I said above, it is his word against his accusers. On the basis of a lack of evidence he has been found not guilty and rightly so. That only proves that there was not sufficient evidence to convict, not that he is innocent of the alleged complaints.
In reply to ByEek:
It is, but whats the point in a trial if we don't believe the verdict? these women had no evidence, one had no recollection of it..
It is, but whats the point in a trial if we don't believe the verdict? these women had no evidence, one had no recollection of it..
In reply to IainRUK:
His accusers were partially motivated to bring this case because of his interview where he kind of claimed that some abused women have them selves to blame. I imagine this was down to his religeous beliefs rather than a penchant for commiting such crimes which I believe he does not.
His accusers were partially motivated to bring this case because of his interview where he kind of claimed that some abused women have them selves to blame. I imagine this was down to his religeous beliefs rather than a penchant for commiting such crimes which I believe he does not.
In reply to FesteringSore:
So, if he's not guilty... are the women lying and will that be followed up?
So, if he's not guilty... are the women lying and will that be followed up?
In reply to FesteringSore:
From the BBC website:
"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."
Cracking work there by the CPS.
From the BBC website:
"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."
Cracking work there by the CPS.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Have you a link to that? I don't think he's particularly religious is he? I thought he was much more 'spiritual'?
But still why papers first?
Have you a link to that? I don't think he's particularly religious is he? I thought he was much more 'spiritual'?
But still why papers first?
In reply to Loughan:
Well no, you've got to be very careful doing that. Proof they lied, just not enough evidence to believe them.
> So, if he's not guilty... are the women lying and will that be followed up?
Well no, you've got to be very careful doing that. Proof they lied, just not enough evidence to believe them.
In reply to IainRUK:
"Roache denied suggesting that victims of abuse had brought the crimes on themselves. "If you accept that you are pure love, and if you know that you are pure love and therefore live that pure love, these things won't happen to you. Everything that happens to us has been a result of what we have been in previous lives or whatever,” he said."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/william-roache-coronation-street...
"Roache denied suggesting that victims of abuse had brought the crimes on themselves. "If you accept that you are pure love, and if you know that you are pure love and therefore live that pure love, these things won't happen to you. Everything that happens to us has been a result of what we have been in previous lives or whatever,” he said."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/william-roache-coronation-street...
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
not a great statement, but still no excuse for going to the press first. It basically left little chance of a fair trial by doing that.
not a great statement, but still no excuse for going to the press first. It basically left little chance of a fair trial by doing that.
In reply to IainRUK:
For a while Bill was a self confessed Druid, what he meant and understood by that I have no idea.
> Have you a link to that? I don't think he's particularly religious is he? I thought he was much more 'spiritual'?
For a while Bill was a self confessed Druid, what he meant and understood by that I have no idea.
In reply to IainRUK:
He has admitted
"“There were plenty of girls around. I shouldn't have done it. I didn't have any control over my own sex drive. I didn't have the strength to control it,”
But this not admissible in evidence to the jury according to the news.
I found that strange, in the public domain and out of his own mouth.
My gut before the trial and having previously seen the video , guilty.
Now that he has been cleared, my gut still says guilty for whatever reason .
> not a great statement, but still no excuse for going to the press first. It basically left little chance of a fair trial by doing that.
He has admitted
"“There were plenty of girls around. I shouldn't have done it. I didn't have any control over my own sex drive. I didn't have the strength to control it,”
But this not admissible in evidence to the jury according to the news.
I found that strange, in the public domain and out of his own mouth.
My gut before the trial and having previously seen the video , guilty.
Now that he has been cleared, my gut still says guilty for whatever reason .
Post edited at 19:39
In reply to Jim C:
Thats totally out of context..
Horrifically so, you are normally one of more intelligent posters?
That was about the claim he consensually slept with 1000 women in an interview with Morgan.
The judge decided rightly, that having a strong urge for consensual sex doesn't mean you will rape kids.
He said he shouldn't have done it because he was married at the time.
Thats totally out of context..
Horrifically so, you are normally one of more intelligent posters?
That was about the claim he consensually slept with 1000 women in an interview with Morgan.
The judge decided rightly, that having a strong urge for consensual sex doesn't mean you will rape kids.
He said he shouldn't have done it because he was married at the time.
Post edited at 19:58
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Calm down, the point I'm making is he said he did not have control over his sex drive not that he admitted to any crime. You can bet your bottom dollar that anyone making an accusation of sexual assault will have their character scrutinised.
A gut feeling is just what it is. A personal opinion. I think you will find that there are plenty of threads that people have been cleared of a crime where the verdict has been the 'subject of discussion' . The man was found not guilty and that stands, I did not hear the evidence.
> deary me.
> this thread will surely be pulled now.
Calm down, the point I'm making is he said he did not have control over his sex drive not that he admitted to any crime. You can bet your bottom dollar that anyone making an accusation of sexual assault will have their character scrutinised.
A gut feeling is just what it is. A personal opinion. I think you will find that there are plenty of threads that people have been cleared of a crime where the verdict has been the 'subject of discussion' . The man was found not guilty and that stands, I did not hear the evidence.
In reply to Jim C:
you are welcome to your gut feelings
it would just seem that following the lord mcalpine case, if your bowel sensations involve implying people are guilty of sexual crimes when they have been formally acquitted by a court, keeping them to yourself might be a prudent move
and one i imagine the moderators may have a view on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAlpine_v_Bercow
cheers
gregor
you are welcome to your gut feelings
it would just seem that following the lord mcalpine case, if your bowel sensations involve implying people are guilty of sexual crimes when they have been formally acquitted by a court, keeping them to yourself might be a prudent move
and one i imagine the moderators may have a view on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAlpine_v_Bercow
cheers
gregor
In reply to Jim C:
No you have totally twisted that.
He meant as in keeping it in his pants and not consensually shagging women whilst married, he couldn't control his urges.... that is INCOMPARABLE to raping young girls, incomparable.
And rightly the judge dismissed it. A huge % of people cheat, everyone says 'well I don't'.. but in a lifetime a good 50% of people cheat at some stage, should that be used as evidence in any sex crime case? FFS!
No you have totally twisted that.
He meant as in keeping it in his pants and not consensually shagging women whilst married, he couldn't control his urges.... that is INCOMPARABLE to raping young girls, incomparable.
And rightly the judge dismissed it. A huge % of people cheat, everyone says 'well I don't'.. but in a lifetime a good 50% of people cheat at some stage, should that be used as evidence in any sex crime case? FFS!
In reply to IainRUK:
Bill will be thanking his lucky stars he wasn't in Glasgow CC, with a jury of 12 Jim Cs!!!
Bill will be thanking his lucky stars he wasn't in Glasgow CC, with a jury of 12 Jim Cs!!!
In reply to Lusk:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2553448/How-did-court-As-Roache-cleared-sex-charges-disturbing-question.html
I am amazed it got to court, the inconsistencies are incredible. One of the women names Mike Baldwin being involved and gives a date before he was in the show...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2553448/How-did-court-As-Roache-cleared-sex-charges-disturbing-question.html
I am amazed it got to court, the inconsistencies are incredible. One of the women names Mike Baldwin being involved and gives a date before he was in the show...
Post edited at 00:46
In reply to FesteringSore:
Well I think hes a wrong un, and both his wife and daughter have been in prison before
Well I think hes a wrong un, and both his wife and daughter have been in prison before
In reply to FesteringSore:
And yet another innocent man has his life and reputation ruined whilst his accusers have the protection of anonymity.
Its just wrong!!!
And yet another innocent man has his life and reputation ruined whilst his accusers have the protection of anonymity.
Its just wrong!!!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...