NOT Guilty of ALL charges (1 Viewer)

It does indeed.

And how on earth can you prove something from over 40 years ago, unless there are any other credible witnesses?

The unfortunate thing about all this for me is the law as it stands. Did the accusers lie to the police? I know of someone who was accused of the same thing that was supposed to have happened 10 years ago. Every one new that he was not the type of person to do that crime, but the police still arrested him in front of his family as they are duty bound to with that category of crime. He was eventually told by the police after 4 months of interviews investigations and the inconvenience of answering bail that he would not be prosecuted. Over this period of time the only way to describe him was hollow, he lost the sparkle you get for life and his confidence took a kicking. He's back to normal now but it took a good 6 months for him to get over.

I firmly believe in cases such as these their has to be anonymity for both party's, I also believe that in cases like my mates the accuser should have been prosecuted for wasting police time any vindictive women would be able to say that you did something to them at some point in the past and the police have to investigate they are duty bound to. The only chance the prosecution has in cases like Roaches or my friends is if the accused has actually done something and pleads guilty at the time of arrest. The other problem is that these accusers also make it hard for the real women that have been raped.

Who is next on the roster Rolf Harris, Dave Lee Travis.................

Completely agree that something needs to be done, but if you arrest these vindictive women (and men in some cases) for false accusations it can deter people who were actually abused from coming forward

definitely a tough one, maybe a separate investigation should follow if the person is found innocent

I think a lot of people are getting confused William Roache was found not guilty,not innocent there is a difference.

Yeah prob not guilty due to lack of evidence, as someone above says "how do u prove something 40 years ago"

ricohman said:

Yeah prob not guilty due to lack of evidence, as someone above says "how do u prove something 40 years ago"

Click to expand...

He may well be innocent but a jury trial does not have that alternative,the Scotish system is preferable at least you know where you stand.

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:

I think a lot of people are getting confused William Roache was found not guilty,not innocent there is a difference.

Click to expand...

That's just silly talk. I accept your point that not proven as guilty doesn't necessarily mean that you are an angel & the charges were completely unfounded - but in the eyes of the law "not guilty" means innocent.


PUSB

SkyblueBazza said:

That's just silly talk. I accept your point that not proven as guilty doesn't necessarily mean that you are an angel & the charges were completely unfounded - but in the eyes of the law "not guilty" means innocent.


PUSB

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it doesn't

Good job Deirdre has heard this case about Ken,

well she's never mentioned it

The strangest thing about this case is---if you have been raped why on earth would you go back to get raped again.