Bill Roache, Not Guilty (page 23)

[Matty]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

So that's Roache and Le Velle innocent.

So that's ITV still holding a clean sheet.

Literally.

This is where we need the Scottish verdict of "not proven".

I have no idea whether Roache did or didn't do this, and neither does anyone else. It was approx half a century ago, and all they've got is hearsay and testimony from people who may well struggle to remember their own name at this stage, let alone what did or didn't happen to them in the 1960's! He could have hired me as his lawyer and I could have convinced a jury that there was no way of knowing what happened and, as such, he couldn't be found guilty. However just because they don't know what happened doesn't mean he didn't do it, as such I'd have thought a "not proven" verdict would fit a case like this more accurately than "not guilty" which suggests he absolutely did not do the things he's accused of.

 

[Phil Meup]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

Good post Matty but we need the option of a 'Great Lawyer' verdict. That's what happened here, plus the publics love of celebrities.
Very depressing.

 

[ancoats]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKdnM9xExek[/youtube]

 

[MCFCTrick]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

Guilty or innocent, he has already been punished... having to kiss that scrawny necked, walking ashtray Deirdre.

I would rather snog Eccles.

 

[Lavinda Past]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

All this goes to prove is that the jury were poorly directed by the judge.

He should have told them to discuss the evidence put forward by the Cellar.

 

[Mr Ed (The Stables)]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

So that's Roache and Le Velle innocent.

So that's ITV still holding a clean sheet.

Literally.

This is where we need the Scottish verdict of "not proven".

I have no idea whether Roache did or didn't do this, and neither does anyone else. It was approx half a century ago, and all they've got is hearsay and testimony from people who may well struggle to remember their own name at this stage, let alone what did or didn't happen to them in the 1960's! He could have hired me as his lawyer and I could have convinced a jury that there was no way of knowing what happened and, as such, he couldn't be found guilty. However just because they don't know what happened doesn't mean he didn't do it, as such I'd have thought a "not proven" verdict would fit a case like this more accurately than "not guilty" which suggests he absolutely did not do the things he's accused of.

IMO and that is all it is, I think these historic charges brought by victims are more money orientated rather than for getting justice. If Roache gets found guilty it would have opened up a sequence of litigation against him in the Civil courts as he is a millionaire. You never seem to hear of the news of historic charges being brought against a bloke who's a retired "bus conductor" The CPS should really have a review of bringing these charges how much have they spent out of the public purse on this trial I bet six figures easily.

 

[stonerblue]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

a bit like a match thread when we're 2 nil down

 

[dazdon]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

One of the "Victims" didn't have a recollection of any offence taking place.

How did that get to court?

Staggeringly inept at the very least and if you were a conspiracy theorist you'd be thinking that this was some kind of witch hunt gone terribly wrong.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

A penalty shootout would be preferable.

Particularly if Phil Jones was on the jury.

 

[malg]

Re: Bill Roache, 81, statement page 15

Christ, I can't believe some of the posts on here. I take it some of you were in the vicinity when some of this took place, as you are pretty sure of his guilt - maybe you should have appeared as prosecution witnesses.

Mind you, I'm just going off the jury's verdict which may be shite, so for those who think he is guilty can you please let me know what evidence you have that wasn't available at the trial? Or is it just a 'gut instinct'? Or, and this would swing it for me, is the fucker a Rag?