Roache Not Guilty Of All Charges

[ChillDoubt]

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

[jd_1984]

Exactly.
The justice system is set up so if there is a reasonable doubt in the prosecutuions case, you can not, with clear conscience, vote GUILTY.
It isnt a case that he 100% did not do it and these women 100% have made the allegations up. There simply enough doubt there.

[FredPuli43]

Perhaps Mr Roache should sue the CPS for bringing a case on the basis that there was an above average chance of conviction and it was in the public interest to prosecute it ? How does that appeal? After all, if these women were patently telling a pack of lies, that should have been known to the CPS shouldn't it? :)

[jim360]

The charges related to alleged events between 1965 and 1971, apparently. It was also clear that the women were no longer clear on details e.g. in the BBC story it cites an example of:

"The woman initially told police she was warned about Mr Roache by actor Johnny Briggs, who played Mike Baldwin, but when it was discovered he was not in the show at the time she said the warning had come from a different actor."

It's still possible that the incident in question is true and that the woman was warned about Mr. Roache by someone, but forgot who. On such sketchy evidence a guilty verdict is surely impossible whether or not the crimes happened, because there is a lack of evidence. To jump on the women and accuse them of telling a pack of lies is doomed to fail for the same reason -- suddenly you'd have to prove that everything was fabricated, but the passage of time and lack of witnesses and evidence etc. would stop anyone from being able to do that.

There is no evidence, anyway, to say that the women were lying. The "Not Guilty" verdict reflects only the fact that it's not clear if they are telling the absolute truth. Sometimes too much time passes and clouds the memory, and if Mr. Roache was guilty after all then too much time has passed for it to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

[Old_Jim]

Will his accusers now be charged with perjury and wasting police time? Don't hold your breath. They'll probably all still get a large bung from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

[jim360]

As has been explained above, they won't be charged of perjury because "not guilty" doesn't mean the witnesses were lying. Just that they weren't convincingly telling the truth. There is a world of difference.

[Zeuhl]

aog

If there was insufficient evidence after 50 years to find Roache guilty of anything

Why do you imagine there will be sufficient evidence to find his accusers guilty of anything?

As has been noted numerous times by ABers, a case that is little more than 'He said, She said' seems pretty pointless.

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

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

The same place where the evidence was that he committed these miss-deeds.

[Ann]

//I very much doubt it AOG. It seems some women can drag a man through the courts on trumped-up charges & get away with telling a pack of lies//

Too many women are doing this, I know at least two men who have had their lives ruined in this way and the girls have never brought to justice for wasting police time and defamation of character.

[Ann]

I agree with ummm - he was so silly to say in the Piers Morgan interview that he had slept with all those women, maybe it was all done properly and above board but it opened the floodgates.

[FredPuli43]

So there is a reasonable doubt about both, AOG ?Except that there is absolutely no evidence of intended gain. Can you point to any?

I wish I could be as sure of anything as you are certain about everything! But what's you evidence for any of your propositions above?

[Zeuhl]

/The same place where the evidence was that he committed these miss-deeds./

Exactly.

Prosecuting the women would just be the same trial in reverse with almost certainly the same result

[jackthehat]

I assume you believe that 'justice' has been served in this case, then, AOG?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26028942

[Sipowicz]

Ann, wrong interview.

[Ann]

Wrong interview? Wasn't he on the Piers Morgan show when he admitted sleeping with all those women? I thought it was.

[Sipowicz]

No, the one where he says we pay for mis-deeds in past lives in this one.

[Sipowicz]

It's been shown numerous times on BBC News.

[whiskeryron]

Personally I feel that if it could be proved that some women are guilty of giving false evidence for gain in these trials they should be publicly humiliated in exactly the same way as the man who has been found not guilty.

WR.

[Zeuhl]

that's correct sip

it was the interview for NZ tv where he implied that women who were abused 'deserved it' because of something they'd done in a previous life.

that prompted one of the women to go to the Police

[Zeuhl]

/if it could be proved that some women are guilty of giving false evidence for gain in these trials/

and how would you do that exactly 50 years on from the alleged incidents?

[anotheoldgit]

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 ? ///

Well perhaps 'charged', is going a little too far, but when I put that I was simply suggesting that at least they should be in the first instance investigated, to be sure that they were not just climbing on the band wagon.

Take this man (regardless of his celebrity status) he has been accused of vile crimes to which he has now been found not guilty of committing, say he was a teacher and found not guilty of child abuse do you think he would be able to get another job in teaching, where is the protection for innocent people?

Perhaps if it had been yourself that had been so accused you would not have such a liberal view on the matter?

/// You have read of the standard and burden of proof , have you, or was the law different in the good old days ? ///

And once again I notice that you can not join into a fair debate with me unless you get in your regular piece of sarcasm, so since you are not grown up enough to refrain from this type of thing, I now consider it pointless to continue to join you in further adult debate.