A jury has listened to all the evidence and given a unanimous not guilty verdict on all counts. Is there something you know that others don't?
It's the standard internet practice isn't it? One tweeter calling himself 'Noncewatch' announced that a certain person was the '64-year-old man' arrested a few months ago, saying "my sources tell me it's........". His 'sources' were nothing more than Wikipedia and a Google search of what had already been posted, then it turned out to be Paul Gambaccini, somebody else entirely.
Oh I am glad. I was starting to lose faith in television personalities there for a while.
Now I hope the people doing all these false accusations will be brought to justice to stop the endless stream of "I got felt up in the 70's but am only just mentioning it now because my life has gone to s**t" court cases.
Erm, there is a heck of a distance from 'not guilty' to be able to charge someone over false accusations.
I hope this is over for him, but I would not be surprised if more 'victims' crawl from under rocks on the back of the publicity generated by this case.
It's not necessarily a case of being wrong though.
A jury doesn't find a defendant innocent, they either find him or her guilty of the offence, or not guilty - i.e. they decide that the guilty case has not been sufficiently made.
That's completely different from finding them innocent, which is what you're inferring they have done, completely missing the jury's role actually is and the nature of the decision they are there to make.
I wonder will this influence the jurors of the other high profile cases underway at the moment ? I know it shouldn't but it might.
I think only in the sense that it might concentrate their collective mind on the level of evidence required to reach a decision. In the Roache case, it was purely he said/ she said, so it may lead future jurors to think 'Hang on, what actual evidence is there beyond the accuser's word?'. I don't think it'll set the ball rolling on not guilty verdicts if there's compelling evidence of guilt.
I’d be interested to know how often a jury is ‘wrong’ actually - as in they come to the wrong conclusion based on the evidence presented, as opposed to the verdict being wrong because of the evidence being inaccurate, fabricated, incomplete, misleading etc etc. The latter not being anything the jury are able to control.
Then they are not wrong are they? They are correct based on the evidence presented.
I hope he will take some time out to relax in the sun and quickly return to his role. Not that I watch but he is a major part of a British institution. I expect he'll retire fairly soon though a changed man.
I think only in the sense that it might concentrate their collective mind on the level of evidence required to reach a decision. In the Roache case, it was purely he said/ she said, so it may lead future jurors to think 'Hang on, what actual evidence is there beyond the accuser's word?'. I don't think it'll set the ball rolling on non-guilty verdicts when there's compelling evidence of guilt.
Obviously, I don't want to predict the outcome of an ongoing case.
However, there are differences.
The allegations concerning Roache were wildly different from eachother - they focused on a very limited period of time with no suggestion that there was a long-term pattern of behaviour. The alleged victims' accounts bore no resemblance to eachother. One of the victims was demolished in court by the defence and one was so unreliable the judge threw the allegation out.
Who knows the truth in these cases? How on earth can they be proved?
Exactly. Found Not Guilty doesn't mean the same as found innocent. Just because something couldn't be proven still doesn't mean the offense hasn't taken place. He could still be guilty but found not guilty under lack of proof.
For the record I'm not saying he is, I'm simply pointing out that just because someone is found not guilty doesn't automatically mean his accusers are lying.
What I totally disagree with is the naming of these people even before they've been to court. It shouldn't be allowed to have someone's name dragged through the mud even before they're found not guilty. Mud sticks. I went to Blackoool last May and Madame Tussaud's had removed his waxwork from the mock up Rovers. Obviously guilty before proven otherwise. Shouldn't be allowed.
That's completely different from finding them innocent, which is what you're inferring they have done, completely missing the jury's role actually is and the nature of the decision they are there to make.
Quite. Although you can also see others doing that here from the other side, pretending this proves he was facing false accusations, when it does nothing of the kind.
Comments
It's the standard internet practice isn't it? One tweeter calling himself 'Noncewatch' announced that a certain person was the '64-year-old man' arrested a few months ago, saying "my sources tell me it's........". His 'sources' were nothing more than Wikipedia and a Google search of what had already been posted, then it turned out to be Paul Gambaccini, somebody else entirely.
Erm, there is a heck of a distance from 'not guilty' to be able to charge someone over false accusations.
I just think the public should grow up and accept the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
It's not necessarily a case of being wrong though.
A jury doesn't find a defendant innocent, they either find him or her guilty of the offence, or not guilty - i.e. they decide that the guilty case has not been sufficiently made.
That's completely different from finding them innocent, which is what you're inferring they have done, completely missing the jury's role actually is and the nature of the decision they are there to make.
Its the fairest system there is, yes juries do get it wrong sometimes but nothing is ever going to be 100% as the jury are only human.
DLT didn't just 'hug' women, he pulled up their tops, groped them, and humiliated them.
The mistake he's made is in being an unrepentant mysoginist.
Allegedly
Didn't realise that the court case was over and that he had been found guilty!
Then they are not wrong are they? They are correct based on the evidence presented.
Precisely. Which is why you have to question why on earth it went to court in the first place.
What an atrocious waste of time and money.
Obviously, I don't want to predict the outcome of an ongoing case.
However, there are differences.
The allegations concerning Roache were wildly different from eachother - they focused on a very limited period of time with no suggestion that there was a long-term pattern of behaviour. The alleged victims' accounts bore no resemblance to eachother. One of the victims was demolished in court by the defence and one was so unreliable the judge threw the allegation out.
I think his mysoginy is pretty well documented though.
TBH, I'm pleased William Roache was cleared, given the evidence.
However, the DLT and Rolf Harris cases are different and the evidence is more substantial, particularly in Harris' case.
Yeah - because that will really help all concerned, won't it?
Exactly. Found Not Guilty doesn't mean the same as found innocent. Just because something couldn't be proven still doesn't mean the offense hasn't taken place. He could still be guilty but found not guilty under lack of proof.
For the record I'm not saying he is, I'm simply pointing out that just because someone is found not guilty doesn't automatically mean his accusers are lying.
What I totally disagree with is the naming of these people even before they've been to court. It shouldn't be allowed to have someone's name dragged through the mud even before they're found not guilty. Mud sticks. I went to Blackoool last May and Madame Tussaud's had removed his waxwork from the mock up Rovers. Obviously guilty before proven otherwise. Shouldn't be allowed.
It really is not up for discussion here so I suggest you drop it.
We all know being accused of these things means you're 100% guilty without a trail these days.