That's Another Man Persecuted Because Of Britain's Liberal Assault On Common Sense

6th February 2014


Why didn't the Crown Prosecution Service say "sorry, you've left it too late - the police have investigated and there's no evidence. It would be impossible for men and women to say he did those things beyond a reasonable doubt 40 years ago"?

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.

Evidence 'lacked credibility'

Outside court, Mr Roache said: "In these situations there are no winners and I think we should be much kinder to ourselves."

He added: "If you'll excuse me, I need to get back to work."

Mr Roache's family, who had accompanied him to court throughout the trial, cried with relief as the verdicts were read out.

During the three-week trial, Mr Roache denied knowing any of his accusers and said he had never had a sexual interest in under-age girls.

Bill Roache showed no emotion as he was cleared of rape and indecent assault, but his family did.

Audible sighs of relief could be clearly heard from his sons, as six times the jury foreman clearly said "not guilty".

The sighs were followed by sobs. Tears of relief as their father was cleared. Moments later the 81-year-old actor was told by the judge he was free to leave the dock.

Bill Roache then walked into the arms of his family, who have been here every day presenting a united front.

A pensioner brought to the brink of disgrace is a free man. Free to resume his life and role in Coronation Street.

The women had claimed he indecently assaulted them in the toilets and dressing rooms at Granada Studios in Manchester, as well as in his car.

One woman alleged he raped her twice at his homes in Haslingden, Lancashire, on separate occasions.

The prosecution had accused Mr Roache of using his fame and popularity to exploit the girls and said that, if the actor was telling the truth, he was the victim of a "huge, distorted and perverse witch-hunt".

But Louise Blackwell QC, defending, said the women's evidence "lacked sense and credibility".


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26068034

I believe all the women who have accused Sir Jimmy Savile should now be put on trial!

BigAndy9 wrote:I believe all the women who have accused Sir Jimmy Savile should now be put on trial!

Jimmy Saville's a totally different matter! There's been overwhelming evidence against him from dozens of sources. As for Roache, I agree it's ridiculous trying someone in their 80s for events that are supposed to have happened decades ago. There's a statute of limitations on most civil matters; maybe there should be one made in these cases, where it's obviously impossible to produce any credible evidence.

Tess. wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:I believe all the women who have accused Sir Jimmy Savile should now be put on trial!

Jimmy Saville's a totally different matter!  There's been overwhelming evidence against him from dozens of sources. As for Roache, I agree it's ridiculous trying someone in their 80s for events that are supposed to have happened decades ago.  There's a statute of limitations on most civil matters; maybe there should be one made in these cases, where it's obviously impossible to produce any credible evidence.

Sir Jimmy would have been put on trial.

Put those women on trial - let a jury decide.

Tess. wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:I believe all the women who have accused Sir Jimmy Savile should now be put on trial!

Jimmy Saville's a totally different matter!  There's been overwhelming evidence against him from dozens of sources. As for Roache, I agree it's ridiculous trying someone in their 80s for events that are supposed to have happened decades ago.  There's a statute of limitations on most civil matters; maybe there should be one made in these cases, where it's obviously impossible to produce any credible evidence.

I agree with both of you. Re JS how many and I have said this from the start jumped onto the bandwagon hoping for monetary renumeration

I'm sure if Roache, DLT, Rolf Harris were dead, there'd be a lot more women claiming rape against them.

People are innocent until proven guilty in BigAndy's world - Sir Jimmy Savile has not been found guilty - and he wouldn't be found guilty by a jury!

We will never know what a jury would find.

I don't like these cases after this period of time, some people can barely remember what they saw or said yesterday let alone 20 or more years ago, it sounds rough and if it was my daughter who had been raped i would pursue it to the day i died but it is really tough to prove.

In pursuing it you would leave a trail - I think if a case was bought now showing reports from the time it happened and a pattern of trying to bring it to trial it would be significant.

However there is no way a verdict can be bought on claims it happened 40 years but I was too scared/ashamed to say anything to anyone at the time and the only evidence I have is my statement that it happened.

sphinx wrote:In pursuing it you would leave a trail - I think if a case was bought now showing reports from the time it happened and a pattern of trying to bring it to trial it would be significant.

However there is no way a verdict can be bought on claims it happened 40 years but I was too scared/ashamed to say anything to anyone at the time and the only evidence I have is my statement that it happened.

Yes, pursuing it would leave a trail, but that is not evidence anything happened.

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:In pursuing it you would leave a trail - I think if a case was bought now showing reports from the time it happened and a pattern of trying to bring it to trial it would be significant.

However there is no way a verdict can be bought on claims it happened 40 years but I was too scared/ashamed to say anything to anyone at the time and the only evidence I have is my statement that it happened.

Yes, pursuing it would leave a trail, but that is not evidence anything happened.

No it isnt evidence that anything happened but it is a damn site more than a sudden claim that something happened 40 years ago with nothing else.

Also there would the evidence of what was and was not done at the time in response. We have far better understanding of reaction and behaviour from victims these days and something that 40 years ago was seen as insignificant would be known as more significant now.

Remember for years it was believed that people drowning would shout and scream and wave their arms until research uncovered the instinctive drowning behaviours which an untrained person may well interpret as messing about or not even notice as anything wrong at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinctive_drowning_response

There was something not quite right with some of the alleged victims I understand. This case was shaky at best and the "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" element made this an almost certain lost cause.

My gut feeling is they were seeking money riding on the back of the Saville case where there was demonstrable evidence he was a badden despite Andys protests.

Tess. wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:I believe all the women who have accused Sir Jimmy Savile should now be put on trial!

Jimmy Saville's a totally different matter!  There's been overwhelming evidence against him from dozens of sources. As for Roache, I agree it's ridiculous trying someone in their 80s for events that are supposed to have happened decades ago.  There's a statute of limitations on most civil matters; maybe there should be one made in these cases, where it's obviously impossible to produce any credible evidence.

If we stuck to that then Stuart Hall would be a free man today. He was found guilty after repeated denials that he was innocent.

I think rape is the second-worst thing you can do to someone after murder, and I don't think there should be any statute of limitations on it. And I don't think any armchair analyst could possibly know how people might react to such a thing -- I'm positive there are rape victims who wasted decades trying to convince themselves that what they experienced wasn't as bad as it really was, as a coping mechanism.