Roache Not Guilty Of All Charges

[ChillDoubt]

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

[jno]

mikey - I agree with ummmm; I think I've briefly mentioned my own experience from 50 years back. It wasn't terribly serious but I remember it all and could testify about in court tomorrow if I had to.

[mikey4444]

Ummmm...Yes of course, you are right...I would remember. But would my recall of events be sufficiently detailed and accurate enough after so many years ? Would I be able to remember what I clothes I had on, or what day of the week that the offence occurred on ? Would I be a good witness in Court ?

In a Court, it is the prosecutor's job to prove that the defendant is guilty... its not the job of the defendant to prove his innocence, although most do, as it is the best way defend themselves. The Jury preferred to believe Roach rather than his anonymous accusers.

[jno]

... and before you ask, it was a Saturday afternoon.

[Ken4155]

ummmm; "Not guilty does not mean innocent."

The old adage is, "innocent until proven guilty" is it not? Therefore, having been found "Not guilty", i would argue that William Roache must be innocent.

[FredPuli43]

No, mikey, it does not follow that the jury thought that the defendant was telling the truth. Nor does it follow that they thought the witnesses were lying. They could have been in a state of doubt about both sides. All we know is that they were not sure of guilt.

[mikey4444]

JNO...then I hope that your case, when it comes up, will be successful. But it will be up to the Jury to decide. They will have to make their minds up whether you are telling the truth, or the accused.

My commiserations to you, by the way.

[DTCwordfan]

Is that two fingers to all doubting Thomases......?

[2sp_]

I was attacked when I was 13.

I remember exactly what I was wearing, what time of day it was, what I had been up to that day but for the life of me I couldn't tell you the date. I think my brain has removed that information from my memory to prevent me reliving it (even more) on the anniversary.

I didn't report it. Mostly because I think if nobody believed me and the courts had found the attacker not guilty everyone's assumption would be that I had lied. I couldn't live with that.

[jackthehat]

///The old adage is, "innocent until proven guilty" is it not? Therefore, having been found "Not guilty", i would argue that William Roache must be innocent. ///

You *could* argue that, but you'd be wrong...

[Ken4155]

As none of us were actually in the courtroom and have only gleaned what little information we have through the media, none of us can know why the jury reached this verdict. It may well be that they had an element of doubt as some of you suggest. But it could just as easily be that they did not believe a word the accusers spoke. We will never know.

[jno]

the case won't come up; my point was rather that yes, people are well able to remember details of something extraordinary and unpleasant that happened to them decades ago. 2sp's just confirmed this as well.

This doesn't mean that not remembering the details is evidence that you're making it up.

[DTCwordfan]

The woman who is claiming she was raped by William Roache will now be 61 years old......

I wonder if she sat down to watch Corrie and shouted "That's the bastard there..."

[sp1814]

If a woman is shown to willfully invent a story about a man raping or sexually assaulting her, she can be prosecuted.

There have been a number of recent cases where this has happened.

However, there is no evidence that this is the case in the William Roache case.

People talk about 'vile accusations'. Well, that's what rape is. Let's be clear - just because a man is found 'not guilty' of rape/sexual assault, does not mean that the person accusing them is guilty of wasting police time.

AOG - if your daughter had been raped by a gang of lads, who all got off on a technicality, would you support her prosecution for wasting police time?

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// AOG - if your daughter had been raped by a gang of lads, who all got off on a technicality, would you support her prosecution for wasting police time? ///

That is totally unfair to bring it down to a personal level, even if you found that your daughter had falsely accused the boys most fathers would still be on the side of their daughter.

All I am saying that there should be some equality, but by your very wording you assume that Roache got off on a technicality, so there is nothing more to say.

[mikey4444]

Fred...I understand that the Jury came back with their verdict after 30 mins, although I can't confirm that anywhere at present. If it is true however, it doesn't appear to show that they had much in the way of doubt about their verdict. If they were not sure, wouldn't they still be in the Jury Room ?

There is also another factor in this case. A further charge of indecent assault against Roach was dropped last week :::

"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 " ( BBC News website) If she no actual memory of the event, it beggars belief why the charge was brought in the first place.

If the same Jury that gave the not guilty verdict today, were also present when that charge was dropped, might that not have effected their subsequent verdicts on the remaining charges ? Its difficult to understand how it can't have had some effect, at least, no matter what the Judge would have said to the Jury.

I bow to your superior knowledge with this sort of thing of course.

[Peter Pedant]

I am very pleased.

All these historical offences are 'He did - N, I didnt ' and I am not sure that we respect Justice in England more as a result of them - the cases let alone the verdict....

[Peter Pedant]

Zowl: BTW The Polygraph was invented by the same man who created 'Wonder Woman'

and no wonder - wonder woman was found to tell the truth more....

[Peter Pedant]

Mikey - was it 30 m ?

I thought they ahd been out for a day or two.

30m means er - 6 mins to acquit on each charge.... evidence if you like of complete lack of belief of the jury in anything besides the sun rose today.

[hc4361]

The jury deliberated for over 5 hours - they started their deliberations yesterday before being sent home for the evening.

Andrew Lancel's jury took 29 minutes to find him not guilty (another Coronation Street actor).

[hc4361]

It was 5 hours and 59 minutes for the William Roache case. Nearly an hour for each count.