FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

William Roache Innocent.

Jump to newest
 

By *RYBBW OP   Couple
over a year ago

Leeds.

Yet another falsely accused celebrity has been found not guilty after being falsely accused of sex crimes umpteen years ago.

It's time a law was passed that when the true victim (the falsely accused) is found inocent the actual criminals (the false accuser) should be named, shamed and prosecuted.

Greed is a terrible thing. Congratulations to Bill, and shame on you to his false accusers.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hetalkingstoveMan
over a year ago

London

The fact that a person has been found not guilty does not automatically mean the person who was accusing them was lying.

A jury acquits if they are not 100% certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty. They do not have to be certain the person is innocent.

If you prosecute people for reporting rape and sexual assault then we will never bring any rapists to justice.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oe_Steve_NWestCouple
over a year ago

Bolton

if someone touched my arse 30 years ago i certainly wouldn't go accusing them of abuse! Too many people leaping on to the band wagon which is going to make it more difficult for people who have really been assaulted to make themselves believed. Z

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Obviously a tightrope situation here as they could be guilty (as in did it) or innocent (simply accused).

But I do think they're identity should be protected until found guilty either way (the accused).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *pecifically1Woman
over a year ago

Hull


"The fact that a person has been found not guilty does not automatically mean the person who was accusing them was lying.

A jury acquits if they are not 100% certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty. They do not have to be certain the person is innocent.

If you prosecute people for reporting rape and sexual assault then we will never bring any rapists to justice."

Unfortunately when they is no evidence other than word against word, when the accused has been found not guilty the obvious choice is that the accuser is probably lying.

Cases like this will stop people coming forward after rapes and assaults. How twisted is it that an innocent man has had to endure this, having his entire family dragged through the mud whilst the accusers remain anon......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

All that would do is stop people coming forward at all. The fear of the defendant having a kick ass lawyer who manages to get them off leading to the plaintiff being outed, ridiculed and prosecuted would mean far too many real crimes would go un investigated and un prosecuted.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London


"The fact that a person has been found not guilty does not automatically mean the person who was accusing them was lying.

A jury acquits if they are not 100% certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty. They do not have to be certain the person is innocent.

If you prosecute people for reporting rape and sexual assault then we will never bring any rapists to justice."

Save me typing!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The fact that a person has been found not guilty does not automatically mean the person who was accusing them was lying.

A jury acquits if they are not 100% certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty. They do not have to be certain the person is innocent.

If you prosecute people for reporting rape and sexual assault then we will never bring any rapists to justice."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oulou45Woman
over a year ago

Bucks


"The fact that a person has been found not guilty does not automatically mean the person who was accusing them was lying.

A jury acquits if they are not 100% certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty. They do not have to be certain the person is innocent.

If you prosecute people for reporting rape and sexual assault then we will never bring any rapists to justice."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *himanMan
over a year ago

chichester

should name n shame acusers now trial by the media bill roache should not have been named

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *himanMan
over a year ago

chichester


"The fact that a person has been found not guilty does not automatically mean the person who was accusing them was lying.

A jury acquits if they are not 100% certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty. They do not have to be certain the person is innocent.

If you prosecute people for reporting rape and sexual assault then we will never bring any rapists to justice."
innocent until proven guilty

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oe_Steve_NWestCouple
over a year ago

Bolton

But in this instance the accusations were pretty tenuous - if you're an adult and were assaulted why wait 40 odd years to speak up? in the case of a few celebrities being hauled in to court recently their crimes were a 50 year old stroke on the thigh! Z

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If, as the BBC report, that one accuser stated, presumably on oath, that Johnny Briggs (Mike Baldwin) told her to watch out for William Roache (Ken Barlow) when Briggs wasn't even on the show at the time, then she is lying, 100% lying.

It beggars belief how someone can give such evidence at trial on such "factual detail". Her lawyers must've known she was lying too.

Sadly, prosecutions of such as the lying accuser and legal team will never happen.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Obviously a tightrope situation here as they could be guilty (as in did it) or innocent (simply accused).

But I do think they're identity should be protected until found guilty either way (the accused)."

Agree. They shouldn't be named until proven guilty.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oe_Steve_NWestCouple
over a year ago

Bolton


"Obviously a tightrope situation here as they could be guilty (as in did it) or innocent (simply accused).

But I do think they're identity should be protected until found guilty either way (the accused).

Agree. They shouldn't be named until proven guilty."

But that should apply to 'ordinary' folk too - can't be one rule for one group of people and another for another. Z

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ScotsmanMan
over a year ago

ayrshire

..not..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Obviously a tightrope situation here as they could be guilty (as in did it) or innocent (simply accused).

But I do think they're identity should be protected until found guilty either way (the accused).

Agree. They shouldn't be named until proven guilty.

But that should apply to 'ordinary' folk too - can't be one rule for one group of people and another for another. Z"

I should have said to everyone - so there's no trial by media circus, and the less wealthy are protected just as much unless proven guilty.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I thought the actor that told the victim to beware was Peter Adamson who definitely was on the show.

It was always going to be difficult to bring a prosecution after all this time.

If you judge a man by the company he keeps, his two business partners are both in prison for rape (completely separate cases) one of them is a famous convicted paedophile.

Many of the statements he has made over the years lead me to believe something happened.

Rape however is a difficult crime to prosecute at the best of times. After nearly years and with an excellent defence counsel he has secured a not guilty.

British law says beyond reasonable doubt and we must respect that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Obviously a tightrope situation here as they could be guilty (as in did it) or innocent (simply accused).

But I do think they're identity should be protected until found guilty either way (the accused).

Agree. They shouldn't be named until proven guilty.

But that should apply to 'ordinary' folk too - can't be one rule for one group of people and another for another. Z"

It didn't say celebs only. I meant everyone.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"if someone touched my arse 30 years ago i certainly wouldn't go accusing them of abuse! Too many people leaping on to the band wagon which is going to make it more difficult for people who have really been assaulted to make themselves believed. Z"

30 years ago abuse was harder to report so touching someone's arse is nothing when people were getting physically, sexually and mentally abused

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *umpkinMan
over a year ago

near the sounds of the wimborne quarter jack!


"The fact that a person has been found not guilty does not automatically mean the person who was accusing them was lying.

A jury acquits if they are not 100% certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty. They do not have to be certain the person is innocent.

If you prosecute people for reporting rape and sexual assault then we will never bring any rapists to justice.

Save me typing! "

And me!

Much less serious crime. A workmate was eventually caught speeding on a motorbike after he lost a police motor cyclist one morning only to be trapped the following morning. Admitted to doing well in excess(!) of the speed limit only for the magistrate to have to throw out the case due to PC49 not having the right paperwork!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"if someone touched my arse 30 years ago i certainly wouldn't go accusing them of abuse! Too many people leaping on to the band wagon which is going to make it more difficult for people who have really been assaulted to make themselves believed. Z"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Didn't they used to call him cock roach because of his behaviour

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But in this instance the accusations were pretty tenuous - if you're an adult and were assaulted why wait 40 odd years to speak up? in the case of a few celebrities being hauled in to court recently their crimes were a 50 year old stroke on the thigh! Z"

Why not?

Like I've said earlier on in thread it's easier now to report abuse and the police actually take it seriously now, dont need DNA to bring a case to court, sadly the ones who are guilty are the ones that seem to get off

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"If you judge a man by the company he keeps, his two business partners are both in prison for rape (completely separate cases) one of them is a famous convicted paedophile.

"

What would be your judgement of the wife or husband, son, daughter, mother or father of a murderer, arsonist, fraudster...?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Sorry but our success with rape trials etc is abysmal, with police mis handling, deterring victims and low conviction rates, that means there is already sufficient deterrent against people reporting and gaining appropriate convictions for the filth who harm others. Would you be happy for past crimes not being reported and then having your child abused by some pervert, just because some person, outside of the system, wanted to make it easier for the accused? It is right that people are innocent until found guilty, and there may be some merit in keeping accused identities secret, but overall sexual abuse prosecutions should be being facilitated by our systems.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If you judge a man by the company he keeps, his two business partners are both in prison for rape (completely separate cases) one of them is a famous convicted paedophile.

What would be your judgement of the wife or husband, son, daughter, mother or father of a murderer, arsonist, fraudster...?

"

By his own admission he has bragged about sex with thousands of women and had some mysogonistic views attributed to him.

I certainly would not go into or stay in business with two men, one guilty of multiple rapes and one a convicted paedophile.

It cannot now be corroborated by a deceased former cast member who warned a young woman to stay away from him.

Everyone asks how come so many of the celebrities on trial got away with it for so long? At the time the victims were not believed simply because the alleged culprits were "celebrities"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"

By his own admission he has bragged about sex with thousands of women and had some mysogonistic views attributed to him.

"

which means nothing as regards the law in relation to what he was accused of..

hearsay, gossip and inuendo are not and hope they will never be the basis of a safe conviction in our courts..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I do wonder why these things seem to have all come out at once? Do people feel they can now come forward or is it jumping on the celebrity bandwagon or indeed a bit of both? To be honest im not sure.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By * times sexyCouple
over a year ago

Staffs


"Yet another falsely accused celebrity has been found not guilty after being falsely accused of sex crimes umpteen years ago.

It's time a law was passed that when the true victim (the falsely accused) is found inocent the actual criminals (the false accuser) should be named, shamed and prosecuted.

You shouldn't make judgements like that, As the next poster said. A jury found him not guilty, It dosent mean he was falsely accused, all you got to think of is OJ Simpson they practically had everything apart from a video of him doing it but he was Acquitted, Im aware of a lot of women that were horrendously abused either as children or young adults (My mothers 3 sisters for a start)You are either naive in the extreme or such a big fan of coronation street its affecting your judgement. eiether way yiou are doing HUGE disservice to all the women who have been abused and have had to live with the pain and psychological damage for years after maybe even for life , its distasteful

Greed is a terrible thing. Congratulations to Bill, and shame on you to his false accusers."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"

By his own admission he has bragged about sex with thousands of women and had some mysogonistic views attributed to him.

"

So having sex with many people is a sign that someone is a potential sex pest?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By * times sexyCouple
over a year ago

Staffs

Its time a moderator shut down this thread. its disrespectful and offensive to talk about women who have been brave enough to come forward and report what THEY BELIEVED was abuse. These people "cheering for Mr Roache are probably the same people who were saying Jimmy saville was a great guy and must be innocent until maybe thousands of women including mentally Ill women in Broadmoor found it in them to come forward. any woman who cheers over a case like this should be ashamed of themselves and god forbid it never happens to them or their daughters

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex


"If you judge a man by the company he keeps, his two business partners are both in prison for rape (completely separate cases) one of them is a famous convicted paedophile.

What would be your judgement of the wife or husband, son, daughter, mother or father of a murderer, arsonist, fraudster...?

By his own admission he has bragged about sex with thousands of women and had some mysogonistic views attributed to him.

I certainly would not go into or stay in business with two men, one guilty of multiple rapes and one a convicted paedophile.

It cannot now be corroborated by a deceased former cast member who warned a young woman to stay away from him.

Everyone asks how come so many of the celebrities on trial got away with it for so long? At the time the victims were not believed simply because the alleged culprits were "celebrities"

"

So are you implying that because of these things he must be guilty?

Misogynists who have multiple partners abound on this site and in real life it doesn't make them rapists though.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Come on ! Why leave it 50 bloody years to report it ? Were they waiting for dna testing to be invented ??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex


"Its time a moderator shut down this thread. its disrespectful and offensive to talk about women who have been brave enough to come forward and report what THEY BELIEVED was abuse. These people "cheering for Mr Roache are probably the same people who were saying Jimmy saville was a great guy and must be innocent until maybe thousands of women including mentally Ill women in Broadmoor found it in them to come forward. any woman who cheers over a case like this should be ashamed of themselves and god forbid it never happens to them or their daughters"

Erm. Jimmy Savile has nothing to do with this and the man on trial has been found not guilty, are you saying he was?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *emmefataleWoman
over a year ago

dirtybigbadsgirlville


"

By his own admission he has bragged about sex with thousands of women and had some mysogonistic views attributed to him.

which means nothing as regards the law in relation to what he was accused of..

hearsay, gossip and inuendo are not and hope they will never be the basis of a safe conviction in our courts..

"
Sounds like Fabswingers!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The fact that a person has been found not guilty does not automatically mean the person who was accusing them was lying.

A jury acquits if they are not 100% certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty. They do not have to be certain the person is innocent.

If you prosecute people for reporting rape and sexual assault then we will never bring any rapists to justice."

Thank goodness the first reply is sensible. I'm not posting about any case, but if there is insufficient evidence that does not make the victim a liar

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By * times sexyCouple
over a year ago

Staffs


"Its time a moderator shut down this thread. its disrespectful and offensive to talk about women who have been brave enough to come forward and report what THEY BELIEVED was abuse. These people "cheering for Mr Roache are probably the same people who were saying Jimmy saville was a great guy and must be innocent until maybe thousands of women including mentally Ill women in Broadmoor found it in them to come forward. any woman who cheers over a case like this should be ashamed of themselves and god forbid it never happens to them or their daughters

Erm. Jimmy Savile has nothing to do with this and the man on trial has been found not guilty, are you saying he was?"

A not guilty verdict means that the person has been aquitted of the crimes he was accused of , its notoriuosly difficult to obtain a conviction against a high profile name. always remember that for a case to reach a court , especially one as high profile as this, Means that the evidence would have been presented to the CPS by the police because in their opinion therwas a case to answer, The CPS will ONLY send a case to court if they think their is over a 60% chance of a conviction which means that in this case both the Police and CPS beleived they could obtain a safe conviction. He ws then aquitted by a 12 men jury and thats the way British Justice works, When the Jury return their verdict they do not say "Guilty or Innocent" its guilty or not guilty, Its an entirley different thing than being proven innocent, As i said OJ Simpson walked , with his wifes blood on his hands, Michael jackson , Well you decide, Once again it can go the other way, A jury convicted Derek Bentley of a murder Everyone even the police say he didnt commit, But the jury returned a guilty verdict and a young man hanged, So I take it then that you think thats great and worth cheering, a young man being hanged , after all he was found guilty wasnt he ?? as i say if another woman cant understand what it takes to go to court and take part in an abuse case, then to me theres something missing somwhere , and if the cap fits , wear it !!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex


"Its time a moderator shut down this thread. its disrespectful and offensive to talk about women who have been brave enough to come forward and report what THEY BELIEVED was abuse. These people "cheering for Mr Roache are probably the same people who were saying Jimmy saville was a great guy and must be innocent until maybe thousands of women including mentally Ill women in Broadmoor found it in them to come forward. any woman who cheers over a case like this should be ashamed of themselves and god forbid it never happens to them or their daughters

Erm. Jimmy Savile has nothing to do with this and the man on trial has been found not guilty, are you saying he was?

A not guilty verdict means that the person has been aquitted of the crimes he was accused of , its notoriuosly difficult to obtain a conviction against a high profile name. always remember that for a case to reach a court , especially one as high profile as this, Means that the evidence would have been presented to the CPS by the police because in their opinion therwas a case to answer, The CPS will ONLY send a case to court if they think their is over a 60% chance of a conviction which means that in this case both the Police and CPS beleived they could obtain a safe conviction. He ws then aquitted by a 12 men jury and thats the way British Justice works, When the Jury return their verdict they do not say "Guilty or Innocent" its guilty or not guilty, Its an entirley different thing than being proven innocent, As i said OJ Simpson walked , with his wifes blood on his hands, Michael jackson , Well you decide, Once again it can go the other way, A jury convicted Derek Bentley of a murder Everyone even the police say he didnt commit, But the jury returned a guilty verdict and a young man hanged, So I take it then that you think thats great and worth cheering, a young man being hanged , after all he was found guilty wasnt he ?? as i say if another woman cant understand what it takes to go to court and take part in an abuse case, then to me theres something missing somwhere , and if the cap fits , wear it !!"

You've managed to assume an awful lot about me from one sentence. You've put words in my mouth and insulted my intelligence and womanhood.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Its time a moderator shut down this thread. its disrespectful and offensive to talk about women who have been brave enough to come forward and report what THEY BELIEVED was abuse. These people "cheering for Mr Roache are probably the same people who were saying Jimmy saville was a great guy and must be innocent until maybe thousands of women including mentally Ill women in Broadmoor found it in them to come forward. any woman who cheers over a case like this should be ashamed of themselves and god forbid it never happens to them or their daughters"

not seen anyone in all the threads about saville on this site where anyone, male or female have said he was a great guy..?

perception is indeed very subjective to the individual, however neither you nor i and i imagine anyone else taking part in this thread has seen the evidence..

the jury did and their decision is now a matter of record..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I have enough to make my own judgement of what I think of him as a person from what he himself has said.

I did not sit on the jury and as I said previously the burden of proof has to be beyond reasonable doubt. Difficult in a rape case at the best of times. Practically impossible after all these years.

Regardless of what I think, the court has find him innocent and he is a free man.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its time a moderator shut down this thread. its disrespectful and offensive to talk about women who have been brave enough to come forward and report what THEY BELIEVED was abuse. These people "cheering for Mr Roache are probably the same people who were saying Jimmy saville was a great guy and must be innocent until maybe thousands of women including mentally Ill women in Broadmoor found it in them to come forward. any woman who cheers over a case like this should be ashamed of themselves and god forbid it never happens to them or their daughters

Erm. Jimmy Savile has nothing to do with this and the man on trial has been found not guilty, are you saying he was?

A not guilty verdict means that the person has been aquitted of the crimes he was accused of , its notoriuosly difficult to obtain a conviction against a high profile name. always remember that for a case to reach a court , especially one as high profile as this, Means that the evidence would have been presented to the CPS by the police because in their opinion therwas a case to answer, The CPS will ONLY send a case to court if they think their is over a 60% chance of a conviction which means that in this case both the Police and CPS beleived they could obtain a safe conviction. He ws then aquitted by a 12 men jury and thats the way British Justice works, When the Jury return their verdict they do not say "Guilty or Innocent" its guilty or not guilty, Its an entirley different thing than being proven innocent, As i said OJ Simpson walked , with his wifes blood on his hands, Michael jackson , Well you decide, Once again it can go the other way, A jury convicted Derek Bentley of a murder Everyone even the police say he didnt commit, But the jury returned a guilty verdict and a young man hanged, So I take it then that you think thats great and worth cheering, a young man being hanged , after all he was found guilty wasnt he ?? as i say if another woman cant understand what it takes to go to court and take part in an abuse case, then to me theres something missing somwhere , and if the cap fits , wear it !!"

re ONLY.

Are you sure? Didn't the Judge order that a fifth charge be dropped because there was NO evidence at all, something which the CPS prosecution agreed with?

Or did you hear of the Cheshire case which the CPS pursued where the Judge asked "Is this not a cartoon Tiger that we are watching?" Case dismissed.

I think you put too much faith in the Police and the CPS.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"

A not guilty verdict means that the person has been aquitted of the crimes he was accused of , its notoriuosly difficult to obtain a conviction against a high profile name. always remember that for a case to reach a court , especially one as high profile as this, Means that the evidence would have been presented to the CPS by the police because in their opinion therwas a case to answer, The CPS will ONLY send a case to court if they think their is over a 60% chance of a conviction which means that in this case both the Police and CPS beleived they could obtain a safe conviction. He ws then aquitted by a 12 men jury and thats the way British Justice works, When the Jury return their verdict they do not say "Guilty or Innocent" its guilty or not guilty, Its an entirley different thing than being proven innocent, As i said OJ Simpson walked , with his wifes blood on his hands, Michael jackson , Well you decide, Once again it can go the other way, A jury convicted Derek Bentley of a murder Everyone even the police say he didnt commit, But the jury returned a guilty verdict and a young man hanged, So I take it then that you think thats great and worth cheering, a young man being hanged , after all he was found guilty wasnt he ?? as i say if another woman cant understand what it takes to go to court and take part in an abuse case, then to me theres something missing somwhere , and if the cap fits , wear it !!"

so the jury that found roche not guilty were wrong and the jury who found bentley guilty were wrong also..?

are you saying that the popular opinion etc is above that of those who have seen the evidence..?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"I have enough to make my own judgement of what I think of him as a person from what he himself has said.

I did not sit on the jury and as I said previously the burden of proof has to be beyond reasonable doubt. Difficult in a rape case at the best of times. Practically impossible after all these years.

Regardless of what I think, the court has find him innocent and he is a free man. "

i would sincerely like to think that were you to be called as a juror in a case in which you had the level of 'knowledge' as you have said you have in this one that you would excuse yourself..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Juries can be wrong on occasion

A lot can depend on the abilities of the defence and prosecution barristers

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex


"Juries can be wrong on occasion

A lot can depend on the abilities of the defence and prosecution barristers"

They can but they do at least have access to evidence presented by both sides rather than hearsay and supposition.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Juries can be wrong on occasion

A lot can depend on the abilities of the defence and prosecution barristers"

Or indeed undue influence to turn a 9-3 verdict into a 10-2 verdict "so we can all go home".

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its time a moderator shut down this thread. its disrespectful and offensive to talk about women who have been brave enough to come forward and report what THEY BELIEVED was abuse. These people "cheering for Mr Roache are probably the same people who were saying Jimmy saville was a great guy and must be innocent until maybe thousands of women including mentally Ill women in Broadmoor found it in them to come forward. any woman who cheers over a case like this should be ashamed of themselves and god forbid it never happens to them or their daughters

Erm. Jimmy Savile has nothing to do with this and the man on trial has been found not guilty, are you saying he was?

A not guilty verdict means that the person has been aquitted of the crimes he was accused of , its notoriuosly difficult to obtain a conviction against a high profile name. always remember that for a case to reach a court , especially one as high profile as this, Means that the evidence would have been presented to the CPS by the police because in their opinion therwas a case to answer, The CPS will ONLY send a case to court if they think their is over a 60% chance of a conviction which means that in this case both the Police and CPS beleived they could obtain a safe conviction. He ws then aquitted by a 12 men jury and thats the way British Justice works, When the Jury return their verdict they do not say "Guilty or Innocent" its guilty or not guilty, Its an entirley different thing than being proven innocent, As i said OJ Simpson walked , with his wifes blood on his hands, Michael jackson , Well you decide, Once again it can go the other way, A jury convicted Derek Bentley of a murder Everyone even the police say he didnt commit, But the jury returned a guilty verdict and a young man hanged, So I take it then that you think thats great and worth cheering, a young man being hanged , after all he was found guilty wasnt he ?? as i say if another woman cant understand what it takes to go to court and take part in an abuse case, then to me theres something missing somwhere , and if the cap fits , wear it !!"

On the contrary more hours were put into his case than normally would as every stone had to be unturned. Also fantasists are far more likely to falsely accuse a celebrity than Joe public. The reality is if he wasn't famous the CPS wouldn't have taken the case to trial but maybe the accusers wouldn't have made it up either.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Juries can be wrong on occasion

A lot can depend on the abilities of the defence and prosecution barristers"

Or the evidence but hey the CPS would use a fresh faces prosecutor for this case which they didn't and the defense were well able too it was down to something called evidence or lack of it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 06/02/14 23:28:00]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Does this mean that Ken can come down from upstairs or wherever he is? Or is Pickles still on that walk he went on way back?!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By * times sexyCouple
over a year ago

Staffs


"Its time a moderator shut down this thread. its disrespectful and offensive to talk about women who have been brave enough to come forward and report what THEY BELIEVED was abuse. These people "cheering for Mr Roache are probably the same people who were saying Jimmy saville was a great guy and must be innocent until maybe thousands of women including mentally Ill women in Broadmoor found it in them to come forward. any woman who cheers over a case like this should be ashamed of themselves and god forbid it never happens to them or their daughters

Erm. Jimmy Savile has nothing to do with this and the man on trial has been found not guilty, are you saying he was?

A not guilty verdict means that the person has been aquitted of the crimes he was accused of , its notoriuosly difficult to obtain a conviction against a high profile name. always remember that for a case to reach a court , especially one as high profile as this, Means that the evidence would have been presented to the CPS by the police because in their opinion therwas a case to answer, The CPS will ONLY send a case to court if they think their is over a 60% chance of a conviction which means that in this case both the Police and CPS beleived they could obtain a safe conviction. He ws then aquitted by a 12 men jury and thats the way British Justice works, When the Jury return their verdict they do not say "Guilty or Innocent" its guilty or not guilty, Its an entirley different thing than being proven innocent, As i said OJ Simpson walked , with his wifes blood on his hands, Michael jackson , Well you decide, Once again it can go the other way, A jury convicted Derek Bentley of a murder Everyone even the police say he didnt commit, But the jury returned a guilty verdict and a young man hanged, So I take it then that you think thats great and worth cheering, a young man being hanged , after all he was found guilty wasnt he ?? as i say if another woman cant understand what it takes to go to court and take part in an abuse case, then to me theres something missing somwhere , and if the cap fits , wear it !!

On the contrary more hours were put into his case than normally would as every stone had to be unturned. Also fantasists are far more likely to falsely accuse a celebrity than Joe public. The reality is if he wasn't famous the CPS wouldn't have taken the case to trial but maybe the accusers wouldn't have made it up either. "

Whats it like on the planet you live on, made of green cheese lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top