This all reminds me of The Simpsons episode, 'Homer Bad Man', where is is accused of sexual assault, especially the lines in bold:
Newsman: Simpson scandal update: Homer sleeps nude in an oxygen tent which he believes gives him sexual powers. Homer: Hey -- that's a half-truth! {[changes channels to Sally Jesse Raphael]} Woman: {[weeping] I don't know Homer Simpson, I -- I never met Homer Simpson or had any contact with him, but -- [cries uncontrollably] -- I'm sorry, I can't go on.} Sally: {That's OK: your tears say more than real evidence _ever_ could.} -- "Homer Bad Man"
Problem with cases like this and I completely am on side with yew tree, is that despite being found not guilty his life is ruined, because every single one of us and everyone else out there, whether they admit it or not are all thinking did he or didn't he? The not guilty verdict has legally cleared him but will never completely clear him his name is forever more tarnished an we'll never know if he deserved it or not.
Not guilty is not guilty. But I believe there was no evidence, that I'm aware of & I don't see how he could be found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt.. Although, I still fail to understand why a number of women from seperate locations, would come forward.
I reckon he was guilty, but it can't be proven. Just my opinion.
Especially, after that interview he gave in New Zealand (I think), saying that victims brought it on themselves, because of something they had done in a previous life. (Or some such twaddle).
And this is exactly why men's names should remain anonymous until a conviction.
But the other side of that coin is the publicity can help other victims realise that they are not the only ones, and come forward to provide additional evidence that helps secure a conviction. Ironically, there's an example of that today, in the case of the former prep school head who has been given 8 years for abusing his pupils in the 60s and 70s.
Problem with cases like this and I completely am on side with yew tree, is that despite being found not guilty his life is ruined, because every single one of us and everyone else out there, whether they admit it or not are all thinking did he or didn't he? The not guilty verdict has legally cleared him but will never completely clear him his name is forever more tarnished an we'll never know if he deserved it or not.
I don't agree with that. He's been found not guilty so that's that for me. If you want to wander found thinking that he is possibly guilty that's up to you but he's been tried and 12 of his peers have listened to all the evidence and acquitted him. That's good enough for me.
Problem with cases like this and I completely am on side with yew tree, is that despite being found not guilty his life is ruined, because every single one of us and everyone else out there, whether they admit it or not are all thinking did he or didn't he? The not guilty verdict has legally cleared him but will never completely clear him his name is forever more tarnished an we'll never know if he deserved it or not.
I don't agree with that. He's been found not guilty so that's that for me. If you want to wander found thinking that he is possibly guilty that's up to you but he's been tried and 12 of his peers have listened to all the evidence and acquitted him. That's good enough for me.
I'm not saying I think he's guilty, I actually don't think he is, I am saying that because of the celebrity status and high publicity through it all everybody knows what he has been accused of his name will always be tarnished and there will always be an element of doubt hanging over him.
The CPS do have to make a decision as to whether there is a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction. Otherwise the courts would be even more clogged up than they are now.
This (quoted from the Telegraph) is an example of very bad judgement by the prosecutors:
"During the trial the prosecution offered no evidence on one of two counts of indecent assault, relating to one complainant, as she had "no actual memory of the episode"."
If you are unable to offer evidence you should withdraw the charge.
Find it hard to believe that it is impossible to show whether Roach met with his accusers at some point. Diaries, visitor books at the studio, signed autographs,
The CPS in this country are little short of a joke.
There was clearly no 'evidence' here other than witness testimony. In one instance there wasn't even that. Yet the CPS brought this case allegedly because they felt there was a fair chance of conviction. Riiiight...
To draw a parallel between this case and something my firm experienced a few years back:
We use a datacentre for most of our IT infrastructure. We discovered that we had some servers stolen (actually stolen) out of one of our racks in the datacentre.
After some brief investigations, the (naturally mortified) datacentre found CCTV of the thief (who was a customer in the same datacentre suite as us) going through our racks and removing the servers. They had logs - and CCTV - of him leaving site with one of the servers under his arm. When the racks he operated in were searched, the remaining two servers were found in those racks - with a poor attempt made at partially removing our asset tags (along with some marker pen with the server names on them that had been similarly poorly scratched out). When the serial numbers of those servers were traced back to the mnufacturer, they were proven to belong to us through purchase orders and maintenance/support renewals. The disks on the servers had been erased, but when the servers were forensically examined by the local constabulary's 'Hi-tech' Crime Unit, low level disk analysis pulled data fragments back that could only have come from our servers (domain names, email addresses, user account details etc).
All of this was reported to the police - who could not have been more helpful.
The CPS took three months to decide that there wasn't a realistic chance of a conviction, and declined to pursue the case...
As a veteran of three stints on Jury Service my overall conclusion is that it is far easier to acquit than convict. If a defendant has a half decent brief they have the ability to put enough doubt in enough minds on the jury. I've seen police officers and other witnesses for the prosecution squirm with frustration at some drippy barrister from the CPS as they continually fail to ask the right questions. The whole legal system is stacked in favour of the defendant with so much information withheld from the jury after legal arguments.
Such a grey area (literally grey and most involved now are pensioners).
Other than for serious things such as war crimes, murder etc with proven evidence, I find it very hard to justify seeing people and their families dragged through the psychologically destroying criminal charge and court process for alleged events that happened 50 years earlier.
There is also a degree of whether it is fair seeing someone tried for alleged offences in 1965 based on 2014 values. There is an incomparable difference in the moral and social acceptance level in those two periods.
Here's my view:
1. There are few crimes that rank as serious as some of the allegations made in a number of YewTree cases. 2. There should be no time limit on bringing a prosecution in such cases - the defence of "well it was a long time ago" should always be treated with contempt 3. Morally and socially we might be living in different times, but legally we are not. If it was illegal then, it should be tested in the law courts.
*gets off high horse*
And I'm sorry AFKA as I'm pretty sure that it's not what you intended, but the inference from your remarks appears to be that rape and sexual assualt (which are what Roache was charged with) are not serious things. Apologies if I've misunderstood/misinterpreted.
Well I apologise as that wasn't what I intended. I was referring that aspect more to the DLT style charges of groping, and with no real evidence.
I realise there's a more general point being made here, but in regards to DLT specifically, I can testify, albeit second hand, that the man is a deviant and regardless of what year any crime he is accused of took place, he's as much a scumbag now as he ever was and I hope our peers see that.
The CPS do have to make a decision as to whether there is a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction. Otherwise the courts would be even more clogged up than they are now.
This (quoted from the Telegraph) is an example of very bad judgement by the prosecutors:
"During the trial the prosecution offered no evidence on one of two counts of indecent assault, relating to one complainant, as she had "no actual memory of the episode"."
If you are unable to offer evidence you should withdraw the charge.
Find it hard to believe that it is impossible to show whether Roach met with his accusers at some point. Diaries, visitor books at the studio, signed autographs,
The CPS in this country are little short of a joke.
There was clearly no 'evidence' here other than witness testimony. In one instance there wasn't even that. Yet the CPS brought this case allegedly because they felt there was a fair chance of conviction. Riiiight...
To draw a parallel between this case and something my firm experienced a few years back:
We use a datacentre for most of our IT infrastructure. We discovered that we had some servers stolen (actually stolen) out of one of our racks in the datacentre.
After some brief investigations, the (naturally mortified) datacentre found CCTV of the thief (who was a customer in the same datacentre suite as us) going through our racks and removing the servers. They had logs - and CCTV - of him leaving site with one of the servers under his arm. When the racks he operated in were searched, the remaining two servers were found in those racks - with a poor attempt made at partially removing our asset tags (along with some marker pen with the server names on them that had been similarly poorly scratched out). When the serial numbers of those servers were traced back to the mnufacturer, they were proven to belong to us through purchase orders and maintenance/support renewals. The disks on the servers had been erased, but when the servers were forensically examined by the local constabulary's 'Hi-tech' Crime Unit, low level disk analysis pulled data fragments back that could only have come from our servers (domain names, email addresses, user account details etc).
All of this was reported to the police - who could not have been more helpful.
The CPS took three months to decide that there wasn't a realistic chance of a conviction, and declined to pursue the case...
Telecity?
No. That's where we are now. And where we would have been to begin with, if bean counters weren't involved. I won't name the provider - suffice it to say they were total cowboys, who sold up for millions after providing an absolutely atrocious service.
Problem with cases like this and I completely am on side with yew tree, is that despite being found not guilty his life is ruined, because every single one of us and everyone else out there, whether they admit it or not are all thinking did he or didn't he? The not guilty verdict has legally cleared him but will never completely clear him his name is forever more tarnished an we'll never know if he deserved it or not.
I don't agree with that. He's been found not guilty so that's that for me. If you want to wander found thinking that he is possibly guilty that's up to you but he's been tried and 12 of his peers have listened to all the evidence and acquitted him. That's good enough for me.
I'm not saying I think he's guilty, I actually don't think he is, I am saying that because of the celebrity status and high publicity through it all everybody knows what he has been accused of his name will always be tarnished and there will always be an element of doubt hanging over him.
can see where you are coming from BUT our very own Jim Davidson was arrested and questioned a couple of times, admittedly no charges brought, but it didn't appear to affect his reputation at all as he went on to win Big Brother.
Problem with cases like this and I completely am on side with yew tree, is that despite being found not guilty his life is ruined, because every single one of us and everyone else out there, whether they admit it or not are all thinking did he or didn't he? The not guilty verdict has legally cleared him but will never completely clear him his name is forever more tarnished an we'll never know if he deserved it or not.
I don't agree with that. He's been found not guilty so that's that for me. If you want to wander found thinking that he is possibly guilty that's up to you but he's been tried and 12 of his peers have listened to all the evidence and acquitted him. That's good enough for me.
I'm not saying I think he's guilty, I actually don't think he is, I am saying that because of the celebrity status and high publicity through it all everybody knows what he has been accused of his name will always be tarnished and there will always be an element of doubt hanging over him.
can see where you are coming from BUT our very own Jim Davidson was arrested and questioned a couple of times, admittedly no charges brought, but it didn't appear to affect his reputation at all as he went on to win Big Brother.
Yes, but JD never got accused of underage sex. Different kettle of fish.
1 even said that johnny briggs warned her about roache but he wasnt even in the show at that time
I think it was Peter Adamson who'd given the warning. He played Len Fairclough. Ironically Adamson was himself tried for sexually abusing girls under 10 years old. He was also acquitted but later confessed to being guilty just before he died. This was in the days before Double Jeopardy.
Comments
Newsman: Simpson scandal update: Homer sleeps nude in an oxygen tent
which he believes gives him sexual powers.
Homer: Hey -- that's a half-truth!
{[changes channels to Sally Jesse Raphael]}
Woman: {[weeping] I don't know Homer Simpson, I -- I never met Homer
Simpson or had any contact with him, but -- [cries
uncontrollably] -- I'm sorry, I can't go on.}
Sally: {That's OK: your tears say more than real evidence _ever_
could.}
-- "Homer Bad Man"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26073155
I've seen police officers and other witnesses for the prosecution squirm with frustration at some drippy barrister from the CPS as they continually fail to ask the right questions.
The whole legal system is stacked in favour of the defendant with so much information withheld from the jury after legal arguments.