Roache Not Guilty Of All Charges

[ChillDoubt]

Just flashed up on Sky.
Can't say I'm surprised.

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

/// AOG, what do you think the women could be tried for? ///

Making false accusations?

Wasting police time?

[anneasquith]

@ ummm, '' his downfall was that interview he gave '' apparently not.

[DrFilth]

please forgive my ignorance as i have not followed the case or seen corrie for a few years

does this mean he can go back to teaching at weatherfield high or has he retired

[sandyRoe]

AOG, if after a prosecution failed the person who laid the complaint was charged the law would be in a sad state.

[jno]

this does not mean the complainants were telling lies; the jury may simply have decided that, on balance, they were not sure the women's compaints were reliable enough to justify a finding of guilty.

[FredPuli43]

How do you know that the women were telling a pack of lies?
You may have heard the expressions 'the burden of proof is on the prosecution' and 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. The judge will have directed the jury on both and told them that they must acquit if they are not sure. So an acquittal does not show anything more than that they weren't sure beyond a reasonable doubt. They may have been satisfied very quickly that they couldn't be sure. It does not follow that they thought , let alone were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the women, or any of them, had invented the whole accounts they gave.

If we applied any other principle, every case in which the jury were not satisfied of guilt should result in the prosecution of the prosecution witnesses who suggested that the accused was guilty.

[ivor4781]

agreed

[anneasquith]

what rubbish ^^^

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

/// How do you know that the women were telling a pack of lies? ///

I don't that is for a jury to decide, just as we didn't know whether or not Bill Roach was guilty.

[FredPuli43]

Where is the evidence that these women invented a whole story, perjured themselves, 'to get a few bob' ?

[anotheoldgit]

sandyRoe

/// AOG, if after a prosecution failed the person who laid the complaint was charged the law would be in a sad state.///

It is in a sad state, if some can accuse others of vile crimes they have not committed and then get away scot free, when the accused is found not guilty.

[jd_1984]

Always be that element of doubt and stigma attached to him now regardless of the verdict.

[FredPuli43]

AOG, if you don't know whether the women were telling a pack of lies, how can you suggest, as you appear to do, that they be charged with anything ? And how do you know that the jury thought they were telling a pack of lies? It is indeed for the jury, but the jury's verdict on each count is not evidence of perjury or, a bizarre suggestion, wasting police time. You have read of the standard and burden of proof , have you, or was the law different in the good old days ?

[woofgang]

yup Fred, if you sank you were innocent and if you floated you were guilty.

[sp1814]

AOG

Is there not a possibility that if women who accused someone of rape (who is then found 'not guilty') could face charges themselves, it will deter them from going to the police?

If a man is found not guilty of interfering with children on a sexual abuse trial, should the children then be charged with wasting police time?

It's the same principle really.

[ummmm]

//It is in a sad state, if some can accuse others of vile crimes they have not committed and then get away scot free, when the accused is found not guilty//

Do you not get it? My kids understand it!! It's reasonable doubt....

Not guilty is like 'yes' or 'no' ... one or the other, no other option...

I'm not saying he's guilty, but to dismiss someone as a liar is pretty crass, it just couldn't be proved..

[FredPuli43]

Yes, woofgang. Witch hunt does come to mind !