• William Roache found not guilty of rape and indecent assault
    25 replies, posted
[quote] Coronation Street actor William Roache has been cleared of rape and indecent assault charges by a jury. Mr Roache, 81, of Wilmslow, Cheshire, was found not guilty of two rapes and four indecent assaults after a trial at Preston Crown Court. Five women had claimed he assaulted them when they were aged 16 or under between 1965 and 1971. He was previously cleared of a fifth indecent assault charge after the judge said there was a lack of evidence. ... Louise Blackwell QC, defending, said the womens' evidence "lacked sense and credibility". In court, the woman making the rape claims changed her mind about how old she was at the time. 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. [/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26068034[/url]
[quote]the woman making the rape claims changed her mind about how old she was at the time.[/quote] yeah ok glad the court realized this was bullshit
I'm really not a fan of how before a verdict like this is made, the face of the accused is plastered all over the media along with what they are accused of. They may well be innocent but because of that media coverage they will still be remembered by a big bunch of ignorant tossers as a "pedo".
And this is why you should never take eye witness statements as evidence. Nice to see folk being intelligent enough to not just take folk for their word and only find someone guilty with evidence.
[QUOTE]In court, the woman making the rape claims changed her mind about how old she was at the time.[/QUOTE] That's the problem with the justice system.. you let time take its course, and 5minutes can be as bad as 50years when it comes to false memories. Anecdotes are unreliable as a form of evidence, yet people are sentenced as a result of their use every day.
I guess Deidre will have to stop eating crisps and explain to him how many people have died/gone to prison/inexplicitly vanished since he left.
"indecent assault" So what would be a decent assault?
[QUOTE=Desuh;43808517]"indecent assault" So what would be a decent assault?[/QUOTE] A nice clean fight, keeping it above the belt?
[QUOTE=Desuh;43808517] So what would be a decent assault?[/QUOTE] moving pawns steadily up the board, with bishops guarding the wings making way for the knights and the queen in combination.
[QUOTE=Desuh;43808517]"indecent assault" So what would be a decent assault?[/QUOTE] One not involving dick.
[QUOTE]"Then as soon as this madness is visited upon him, it passes. It's nonsense, it just doesn't happen in the real world. An expression, ladies and gentlemen: a leopard doesn't change its spots. How do you hide that and completely stop it for the next 42 years from 1972? Well, you don't."[/QUOTE] What a strange trial. Not sure if his fame is helping him get off or if these women are using his fame as a way to feed their wallets. Its hard to tell considering the sheer amount of false rape claims.
[QUOTE=bravehat;43808498]And this is why you should never take eye witness statements as evidence. Nice to see folk being intelligent enough to not just take folk for their word and only find someone guilty with evidence.[/QUOTE] Eye-witnesses are great for evidence. As long as you get two of them with the same story.. theres a special forensic science behind taking eye-witness statements. You could get a description, a motive, or name from people who saw something. It may not be 100% correct (which is why you should find two) -- but hell, might as well keep everyone at the scene so you can get everyone's stories.
[QUOTE=areolop;43812465]Eye-witnesses are great for evidence. As long as you get two of them with the same story.. theres a special forensic science behind taking eye-witness statements. You could get a description, a motive, or name from people who saw something. It may not be 100% correct (which is why you should find two) -- but hell, might as well keep everyone at the scene so you can get everyone's stories.[/QUOTE] So since there's hundreds of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens does that make their anecdotal evidence correct?
[QUOTE=zakedodead;43812545]So since there's hundreds of people who claim to have been abducted by aleins does that make their anecdotal evidence correct?[/QUOTE] Well maybe if they were all abducted at once.
Shame they waited so long.
dang.. he's been in that damn soap opera since [U]1960[/U]... that's some hard arse commitment right there
[QUOTE=Desuh;43808517]"indecent assault" So what would be a decent assault?[/QUOTE] punching justin bieber, you know it's decent
I hope he now goes on to sue the shit out of all the redtop tabloids that plaster "PAEDO ACTOR" or "SICK CRIMES OF CORRIE STAR" on front pages when the person hasn't been convicted yet. Surely that's libelous.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;43812583]Well maybe if they were all abducted at once.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings[/url] [quote]Six local boys and a woman report seeing a UFO land, and saw a spade-headed creature near the landing site.[/quote] Holy shit aliens are real everyone. Anecdotal evidence is not and never will be real evidence, no matter how many people claim it, especially not to prove something "beyond the shadow of a doubt"
I'm just in the middle of writing a petition to make it illegal to disclose any information regarding a sexual assault case in England. I'm not much of an expert on law, but maybe somebody could amend this and make it sound a bit more official? [quote]Following recent accusations of sexual offences against various British celebrities, and their portrayal in the media. Disclosing the details of any sexual assault case not limited to celebrities to those not involved in the proceedings should be made illegal in the country of England. The identity of the suspect should remain completely anonymous until proven guilty. Any details of the charges brought against them are to remain undisclosed, again until proven guilty. Any coverage in the media of any kind should also be banned.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Gustafa;43813492]I'm just in the middle of writing a petition to make it illegal to disclose any information regarding a sexual assault case in England. I'm not much of an expert on law, but maybe somebody could amend this and make it sound a bit more official?[/QUOTE] Mention the guy who had his life made hell when the media accused him of raping and murdering that architect a few years ago? I think he recently won a massive payout for libel. It was [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates]this.[/url]
[QUOTE=Mort and Charon;43813675]Mention the guy who had his life made hell when the media accused him of raping and murdering that architect a few years ago? I think he recently won a massive payout for libel. It was [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates]this.[/url][/QUOTE] You know what, I think I should extend it to cover ALL legal proceedings against anyone. It's not fair to call someone out and make them a public spectical before they're even found to be guilty.
[quote]The women, [b]who cannot be named for legal reasons,[/b] had claimed he indecently assaulted them in the toilets and dressing rooms at Granada Studios in Manchester, as well as in his car.[/quote] I get that this is done to protect victims, but now that it's over and confirmed their claims were bull, it seems dumb. These people tried to destroy a man's reputation to make an easy buck, either they should be held accountable for it, or it never should've been publicized that he was on trial for this until the verdict was reached.
[QUOTE=Gustafa;43813864]You know what, I think I should extend it to cover ALL legal proceedings against anyone. It's not fair to call someone out and make them a public spectical before they're even found to be guilty.[/QUOTE] So much about today's journalism is so fucked up, it's lies, fabrications and twistings of the truth everywhere and the redtop tabloids are the worst of the lot. Don't even get me started about sensationalist science articles and things like that. I had hoped that the Leveson enquiry would give the government a chance to clean up the cancer that is journalism, but it seems not much is going to change.
[QUOTE=Mort and Charon;43812951]I hope he now goes on to sue the shit out of all the redtop tabloids that plaster "PAEDO ACTOR" or "SICK CRIMES OF CORRIE STAR" on front pages when the person hasn't been convicted yet. [B]Surely that's libelous.[/B][/QUOTE] It is, the landlord of a woman who got killed was accused by the media of doing it (he didn't do it), he successfully sued a number of papers.
[QUOTE=areolop;43812465]Eye-witnesses are great for evidence. As long as you get two of them with the same story.. theres a special forensic science behind taking eye-witness statements. You could get a description, a motive, or name from people who saw something. It may not be 100% correct (which is why you should find two) -- but hell, might as well keep everyone at the scene so you can get everyone's stories.[/QUOTE] eye witnesses are terrible and some of the most unreliable forms of evidence there is. obviously cops think they're great because juries love eye witnesses and you get a conviction with them easily. but it's been shown again and again that eye witnesses misremember, are easily lead, make up false memories or sometimes are just flat out lying
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.