Another' Not Guilty' Verdict For Emmerdale Actor

[andres]

Tucked away on page 17 of the Daily Mirror yesterday there was an article on yet another indecent assault case. This time it was Emmerdale actor,Cy Chadwick. He played the part of 'Nick Bates' for 10 years on the soap.He was cleared of sexually assaulting an 8years old boy ,30years ago.The man went to the police last year to make a complaint.
With all the emphasis on Rolf Harris and his 'victims',why do you think no-one believes any of the alleged victims of the numerous soap star cases?
In Bill Roache's case one of his victims said she was raped by him when she was thirteen. Five other women came forward . None were believed.He was cleared on all counts.

[Canary42]

Perhaps the jury were soap addicts unable to believe that their idols were capable of such behaviour.

Possibly the evidence was insufficient for "beyond reasonable doubt".

[andres]

-How on earth could a 'perfect gentleman ' like Bill Roache do such a thing !!He would have been too busy having sex with the 1,000 women that he boasted about (in his dreams).

[boxtops]

Perhaps (sadly) the people he assaulted were included in that 1000......

[hc4361]

Obviously the evidence wasn't strong enough to convince the jury it happened.
The one off offence lasting 30 to 60 seconds supposedly happened when Chadwick was 17 and there has been no other complainants against him.

I don't think it has got anything at all to do with 'soap star status'. The majority of the population do not watch any soaps at all, and of those that do watch soaps the majority don't watch all of them. The chances of Emmerdale fans making up the entire jury are non-existent.

[andres]

I didn't for one minute suggest that soap actors automatically got off but just think it odd that none of the claimants seem to be believed .

[razza]

One of the girls who alleged Bill Roache raped,went back again several times.

[pixie373]

I'm not sure if they weren't believed- perhaps they were, but the evidence was not strong enough.
Hadn't realised Bruce Forsythe had been questioned, either...

[New Judge]

I imagine the main reason is that most people find it very difficult to recall in detail events which are said to have occurred thirty or forty years ago. This of course holds true for both the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator.

Anybody who has witnessed any sort of criminal trial will know that it is not a simple matter of the alleged victim standing up in court and saying "Rolf Harris (or Bill Roache, Cy Chadwick, Stuart Hall or Uncle Tom Cobley) did such and such to me. They will be cross examined in minute detail about the event and if their version does not stand up to rigorous scrutiny the jury will not be swayed to convict.

[sp1814]

andres

Juries will be persuaded (or not), by the evidence put before them. If several victims recount similar stories - where the method used by the defendant is the same, then they are more likely to bring back a guilty verdict.

Incidentally when you referred to Rolf Harris' victims, you put the word in quotes.

Why is that?

[andres]

I don't really consider grown women such as V.Feltz, to be victims.

[ladybirder]

You're not saying a grown woman can't be the victim of rape are you andres?

[andres]

But she wasn't raped ,was she? Rape is a different matter than a grope.

[ladybirder]

Yes it certainly is. I am amazed anyone would dare to grope Miss Feltz to be honest. She is such a forceful woman I can imagine she would just lay you out if you did.

[hc4361]

And those sort of comments are exactly why people are reluctant to make a complaint.

[ladybirder]

Well you weren't exactly defending her when you got Best Answer on this thread hc. And there's worse remarks there as well.

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Media-and-TV/Question1348707.html

[hc4361]

ladybirder, I commented on her forceful personality and tv persona.