Options
Future for Ken?
jazzydrury3
Posts: 27,088 Forum Member
✭✭✭
As he has just been found not quility, i wonder what a possible future for William Roache and Ken may bring
0
jazzydrury3
Posts: 27,088 jazzydrury3
Posts: 27,088
Comments
Now it begs the question; what should be done with the supposed victims who have effectively been called liars?
I don't know to what you are refering, but if you're refering to the jury, I'm not surprised it took them as long as it did.
I don't know if you have done jury service, but I have, and since William Roache's case involved 6 accounts against him, the jury will have to take their time deciding the verdict for each account. The amount of information/evidence given alone (and the jury has to consider and absorb it as they come to their verdict) is enough for any jury to take more than a few hours or a day. And there are 12 people each with their opinion on the issues. It doesn't surprise me at all how long they take/took.
Better they take their time and come to a well-considered verdict than do a rush job.
They should be arrested for lying and wasting police time and attempting to destroy the good name of William Roache.
This whole sex witch hunt is the result of noone arresting that vile creep Jimmy Saville.
He looks very well and fit for his age. He'll be one of those that will carry on for as long as they can.
There was clearly no actual evidence after 40 - 50 years, so it could only ever be a case of his word against his accusers', some of whose accounts were just risible and ludicrous, (particularly her that claimed he raped her in his gold RR that he didn't actually buy until 20 years later, and the one that claimed he raped her in two different locations at different times. It happened once, then she went back for more??)>:(>:(
Kill the sanctimonious old fart off.
Many people are not found guilty in a court of law; what would you have happen to all their accusers?
I would say leave him in Canada.
Don't be silly. He's said before that he wants to be in it until he drops. He will be back soon.
Same.
Good luck to him, being put through all that, he and his family is cr*p, hope the accusers are bought to book. Time this rubbish was nipped in the bud, the only thing those women were after was the ££££££'s for selling their story.
For them to be hauled over the coals by the CPS, just as the defendant was.
What I don't understand is this: Now that he has been found not guilty, will he still have to pay for his defence? I can never understand how someone who has been foud not guilty is then left with this huge legal bill. Maybe WR can afford to pay his, but many won't be. Or do such people get legal aid for criminal cases? I should think they will get legal aid, surely?
Or do you genuinely believe that every single not-guilty verdict in a rape trial automatically means that the alleged victims are 'liars'? I'm not saying the verdict is wrong in this case. But it's safe to say there are numerous cases where guilty people have escaped justice thanks to insufficient evidence and other reasons.
A report in 2007 estimated that between 75% and 95% of rapes already go unreported. If every not guilty verdict resulted in the alleged victims subsequently being arrested, those already low numbers would plummet.
Or does your 'string 'em up and make an example of 'em' policy only apply when the alleged rapist is an actor in soap opera you enjoy?
Its good to hear that he says he wants to go back to work. Good news for Eccles too. That poor dog needs a walk!
1. Acquittal means you are not guilty, which means that the the jury was not persuaded of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (or the judge wasn't, either because it was a bench trial or because the judge directed a verdict of acquittal). That does not mean that the prosecution was frivolous or malicious.
2. That's pretty much what you'd have to show in order to get your fees back. Even then, you'd have to file a separate lawsuit for malicious prosecution.
The elements of a malicious prosecution case are usually something like this:
First. The plaintiff must establish the existence of a criminal judicial proceeding against him/her. On this subject the (undisputed) facts are (state the nature of the criminal charge instituted against the plaintiff, the name of the judicial tribunal in which it was instituted, etc.)
Second. The plaintiff must establish that the defendant was responsible for or caused that proceeding to be instituted against him/her.
On this subject the (undisputed) facts are (state what the defendant did to initiate the criminal judicial proceeding against the plaintiff such as signing a complaint, etc.)
Third. The plaintiff must establish that the criminal proceeding terminated favorably to him/her or in a manner not adverse to him/her.
On this subject the (undisputed) facts are (state facts relating to the nature of the termination, such as a termination in his/her favor, a failure of
the grand jury to indict, a failure of the magistrate to find a prima facie case, a voluntary withdrawal or abandonment, etc.).
Fourth. The plaintiff must establish a lack of reasonable or probable cause for the criminal prosecution.
***
Fifth. The plaintiff must establish that the defendant was activated by a malicious motive in prosecuting the criminal complaint against him/her.
The malice contemplated by this element is not malice in the sense that the word is sometimes used. The kind of malice I speak of means the intentional doing of a wrongful or unlawful act without just cause or excuse. Such malice is an intentional act which an ordinarily cautious man would realize that under ordinary circumstances damage would result to one's person or property, and which does in fact damage another's person or property. The element of malice may be inferred from a lack of reasonable or probable cause.
Sixth. The last element that must be proved is that the plaintiff suffered damage, as I shall later define that term, as a proximate result of a malicious prosecution.
Savile was a sleazy pervert. In our house he was always referred to as Jimmy So Vile, and that is not us being wise after the event, but back when he was on TOTP and Jim'll Fix It. A creepy manipulative monster.
Savile was a sleazy pervert. In our house he was always referred to as Jimmy So Vile, and that is not us being wise after the event, but back when he was on TOTP and Jim'll Fix It. A creepy manipulative monster.