Yup, disabled too. He said if they truly lived a life of love it wouldn't happen to them.
Bill Roach charged
- Thread starter chameleon
- Start date
Yup, disabled too. He said if they truly lived a life of love it wouldn't happen to them.
and interestingly the excuse given about male victims if said about a female victim is about the most vile thing you can possibly say about a victim.
"they enjoyed it"
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Watching QT, staggered by how much the panel accept a jury's verdict as absolute proof.
Don't get me wrong, it's the best system we'll ever have but it is no means infallible yet they are all talking about how much of a victim Roach is as if this verdict is indisputable proof nothing happened.
Don't get me wrong, it's the best system we'll ever have but it is no means infallible yet they are all talking about how much of a victim Roach is as if this verdict is indisputable proof nothing happened.
You'd be hard pressed to find any jury that would convict without a single shred of evidence, as apparently was the case here.
Do you think there's a good chance he did it, then?
But it's not just the lack of evidence that has meant the charges have been dropped.
One of the supposed victims changed the date of assault half way through the case, and another other said that the fella that plays Roaches son in Corrie warned her about him, when he wasn't even on the show at that time!
One of the supposed victims changed the date of assault half way through the case, and another other said that the fella that plays Roaches son in Corrie warned her about him, when he wasn't even on the show at that time!
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I generally subscribe to the Kat Williams method, i.e. If enough people say the same **** about you for long enough then it's likely to be true (He uses the denial that Whitney Houston was a coke addict as an example).
With Michael 'Kevin Webster' Levelle it was one girl's word against his. In Roache's case there were seven independent woman making allegations (for clarity I mean 'independent' in that they were unrelated not the Beyonce definition of someone who 'don't need a man').
The public don't understand the role of the jury.
The returnable verdicts are 'Guilty' or 'Not guilty' (rather than innocent) for a reason - jurys don't decide whether a person is innocent because the law presumes that they are innocent. Instead, the question is whether they are sure or not that the person committed the offence. If they aren't sure, they must acquit the defendant.
A verdict of 'not guilty' does not mean that the complainants are liars, whores, money-grabbers or whatever; it means that the jury were not sure of the defendant's guilt.
Ah, so he's guilty then.
Well that certainly hit a nerve...
Are you that desperate for attention? And to take the time to post a screenshot here?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I'd say inconclusive. However if my life depended on going one way or the other I'd say he probably did touch up a few groupies in his time. Do I think he violently raped them with them fighting him off then 'no'.
But, I do think that the jurors took the notion of 'it was a different time back then' into account, even if they wouldn't admit it publicly.
As mentioned above, the jury didn't find him innocent, they found him 'not guilty' which basically means the evidence isn't concrete enough to convict; not that they are 100% confident he wasn't a jail-bait, cheap-thrills, opportunist.
Last edited:
What is a 15 year old groupie doing at a nightclub?
It is getting silly this. 15 year old girl wears makeup, skinny clothes etc, looks good, goes to an 18+ club with fake id, someone sleeps with her...that guy gets done for statuatory rape, even if he gets let off the phrase will tarnish him for life. Even if he asked her age, and she said "18", before he slept with her... he still gets done for it.
What is an age anyway, what if she is 15 years 364 days old?
I am by no means standing up for paedo's but I am just saying, the law needs to be realistic.
It is getting silly this. 15 year old girl wears makeup, skinny clothes etc, looks good, goes to an 18+ club with fake id, someone sleeps with her...that guy gets done for statuatory rape, even if he gets let off the phrase will tarnish him for life. Even if he asked her age, and she said "18", before he slept with her... he still gets done for it.
What is an age anyway, what if she is 15 years 364 days old?
I am by no means standing up for paedo's but I am just saying, the law needs to be realistic.
They can't find him innocent, that's his default status, until proven guilty. The lack of a guilty return means he is still legally innocent. A not guilty verdict doesn't just mean the evidence was inconclusive, it can also mean the evidence was unreliable, insufficient or simply not there at all.
Last edited:
Basically, what we have learnt over the past year or so now, if you are over the age of 55 (and reasonably well off / semi-celebrity status) there is a 75% chance of you being accused of raping someone 30 years ago.
This drops to 45% if you are neither rich nor famous.
This drops even further to 15% if you are under 55.
And finally to the low figure of 0.06% if you are a woman.
This drops to 45% if you are neither rich nor famous.
This drops even further to 15% if you are under 55.
And finally to the low figure of 0.06% if you are a woman.
What I want to know is how the CPS decided to press charges and pursue a trial based on the available evidence? from the off it looked like they didn't have enough evidence for a beyond reasonable doubt guilty verdict and the witnesses have been ridiculously unreliable. The prosecution barrister was embarrassing basically relying on a no smoke without fire argument which may hold up in the tabloid press but is some way below the burden of proof requirement in a court of law.
I think we are fast approaching the point where people are going to demand a rethink to the right to anonymity of the accused in these cases, Roaches name has been dragged through the mud in the press and he will never be free from the tarnish associated with this case.
I think we are fast approaching the point where people are going to demand a rethink to the right to anonymity of the accused in these cases, Roaches name has been dragged through the mud in the press and he will never be free from the tarnish associated with this case.
So if someone alleged you raped them and it got to court eve though you didnt do it (it was consensual), you would be ok with society considering "you are not innocent, just not enough evidence to say you wee guilty so he may have done it"?