Perhaps he did, but have you spoken to the jury? Do you know for sure they definitely think he was innocent, or did they just have reasonable doubt, that is, were they unconvinced either way?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Ken Barlow's Jury Out
- Thread starter Lenny Rider
- Start date
Perhaps he did, but have you spoken to the jury? Do you know for sure they definitely think he was innocent, or did they just have reasonable doubt, that is, were they unconvinced either way?
Why? You can't have it both ways? He was tried and found innocent by people who heard all the evidence. Roach is the victim here. Perhaps we should look at procescuting false claimants?
Well that is for the prosecutors to make a case that stuck. They didn't. End of. That is our justice system.
Da Man Clay
T'Blades
- Dec 16, 2004
- 16,254
Why? You can't have it both ways? He was tried and found innocent by people who heard all the evidence. Roach is the victim here. Perhaps we should look at procescuting false claimants?
Just because he's been found not guilty does not mean the victim is a false claimant. Just the crown couldn't prove the case 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I'm not suggesting that Roach is in anyway guilty by the way - he's been tried by a jury of his peers and that's good enough for me. Just saying that it doesn't automatically mean its a false claim.
John Bumlick
Banned
You're
It is, but my issue is with your assumption that not guilty = jury definitely think he is innocent. Our system doesn't work that way, our system means 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' = guilty, 'probably guilty but not totally convinced' all the way through various levels of certainty to 'absolutely unquestionably innocent' = not guilty.
In some cases, it can also include 10 out of 12 think guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the other two fall somewhere else on the spectrum of certainty, or 2 think guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the other ten fall somewhere else on the certainty spectrum.
Why? You can't have it both ways? He was tried and found innocent by people who heard all the evidence. Roach is the victim here. Perhaps we should look at procescuting false claimants?
No, he was found 'not guilty'. The jury heard all the evidence and were not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt. By default this makes him innocent in the eyes of te law, but his innocence wasn't proven, they failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
BensGrandad
New member
Do Scotland still have a guilty, not guilty and not proven verdict, which I think is fairer as this doesnt assume innocence just insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict.
My comment was slightly tongue in cheek but it surprises me how many people seem to disregard the verdict and plough on with their own agenda. I have an uneasy feeling with all these sex abuse cases on both sides of the fence. However maybe because I am man I have a very uneasy feeling about the fact that all "victims" in these cases have complete anonimity. This seems unfair to me.
What more can he do we don't have a innocent verdict. Your slant on it implies guilt regardless. In all these cases the defendants life is pretty much ruined regardless of the verdict. Hence why I think it would be more just to have anonimity on both sides.
I don't mean to specifically make him sound guilty, we have to assume his innocence by default anyway. He wasn't proven guilty, so we assume innocence. My concern is that claiming his innocence was proven suggests the victim lied (and that he was never afforded the assumption of innocent - a basic tenet of the legal system), which feeds into the black and white attitude some people have of "accused was not found guilty ergo victim lied", which is harmful in the bigger picture, because it skews people's perception - it makes it appear as if attacks don't really happen that often, making people more doubtful of victims, it makes victims feel like they won't be believed and less likely to report their crimes, and so on. Just highlighting that use of language may have made it sound like I was assuming he was guilty, I didn't mean to.
As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, the problem with anonymity is that if accused have it, Stuart Hall would have walked free, Jimmy Savile would have recieved a knighthood. Naming accused gives other victims the courage to come forward often times increasing the likelihood of justice being served, this happens more often than just those two examples. Finding fairness the other way, naming victims, will make it less likely for victims to come forward and less likely that justice is served.
Publius Ovidius
Well-known member
So everyone who goes to court, for whatever crime in your eyes is guilty unless they can prove they are innocent.
Blimey.
Finish reading the thread.
Publius Ovidius
Well-known member
I would prefer to pick out your best efforts and question you.
But as you are this boards resident obsessive, please do summarise your points to make it easier for me to follow as I have an extremely short attenti..............sorry what were you talking about.?
lawros left foot
Glory hunting since 1969
A guy on the Jeremy Vine show today, some kind of abuse victim charity, I didnt catch who, said a high court judge had told him he would not have allowed the celebrity character witnesses in the Roach case
When you go to court you are assumed innocent. You are not there to prove your innocence. Your accuser is trying to prove your guilt. You are found guilty or not guilty. Your innocence isn't proved because it is assumed, and if your guilt is not proven your innocence continues to be assumed.
My point in correcting Marshy that Roache was not found innocent, he was found not guilty, was partly due to pedantry, partly due to the issue that presenting it as "proven innocent" implies that the accuser is lying, which feeds into the idea that "not guilty = victim was lying" which is damaging to efforts to fight abuse and find justice when abuse occurs. It makes it appear as if sexual assaults are rare, making it harder to be taken serious, it makes victims feel they won't be believed, and so on.
Innocence SHOULD always be assumed, unless guilt is proven. How does a third (inconclusive) option make it "fairer"?
I can't prove I didn't do all sorts of things in the past, but if I were accused of doing something, a "not proven" verdict would be awful.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 10,659
Speaking entirely as a layperson, I do still have quite strong feelings on this subject. For many years, I have kept a purely spectatorial interest in the workings of law and the court system. I regularly attend my local crown court in the viewing gallery; I should add, with a sense of human curiosity about how juries and barristers behave*, not morbid schadenfreude for the suspect and/or victim.
I have very strong adversarial feelings towards the Crown Prosecution Service and about the whole trial selection process in general, particularly when relating to sexual crime. In my opinion and based solely on what I've personally followed from the case, Bill Roache should not have been made to stand trial facing the case as it was put forward by the CPS. The reason for this is that the case, as put forward by the CPS, was not likely to have - to repeat an oft misunderstood and overused phrase - "a realistic chance of conviction". With the witnesses available and their uncorroborated anecdotal evidence forming the entire prosecution case, the prosecution must have had absolute faith in the accuracy of their testimony - startling, considering that every single key witness (including all of the alleged victims) were impeached easily on cross-examination. In simple terms, things started badly and got worse.
And it is an all too familiar story.
I was a jury foreperson myself in a sexual assault of a minor trial in 2012. The case involved a girl aged 19 at the time of trial, who was allegedly sexually assaulted by her step-uncle.
Two counts were on the sheet (Sexual Assault by Inappropriate Touching), two occasions across three years when the alleged victim was aged between 14-17. Prosecution alleged defendant was a predatory paedophile, who couldn't resist his pretty young step-niece. The defendant had no prior convictions so was said to be of "good character". The first count the defendant allegedly put his arm around her on his sofa, and touched her left breast over her clothing. The second count, on a different occasion within two years of the first count, the defendant allegedly went up to the alleged victim's bedroom, closed the door, and pinned her on the bed, kissing her forcefully. He then allegedly digitally penetrated her, before hearing someone coming up the stairs and quickly leaving the room.
The alleged victim did not tell anyone about either assault, until she confided to a male friend several years later. She was then made to tell her Mother, who immediately phoned the police. The prosecution's case relied on one key witness - the alleged victim - and her two sisters who commented on the defendant's character but not on specific knowledge of or having witnessed the crime occurring. The White British female prosecution barrister focused on the British Muslim defendant's character and alleged unusual pattern of "grooming" behaviour towards young girls; the three key witnesses testified to the defendant driving them around late at night in his car, playing loud dance music whilst his own family - wife and then four year old daughter - were at home. He would offer to take the sisters to prayers at the local mosque and would "shake them warmly by the hand, and hug them several times on each occasion" - which, curiously, the defence was very keen to deny - almost as if the case depended on it. The other two sisters involved the case did not allege any crimes were committed towards them, just that their Step Uncle was "a bit weird".
Defence barrister (White British man in middle-age) asserts case that none of it ever happened, and that the alleged victim's motive for making up such heinous lies is due to a family dispute over the sale of a used car, involving the defendant. Produces evidence of an arrest sheet from the alleged victim's Father for "breach of the peace" around the time the allegations were made. Prosecution contend that this was the alleged victim's Father angrily confronting the defendant and being arrested. Defence argues malicious lies exactly coincide with this family dispute. As a "secondary defence", counsel also calls alleged victim's character into question. She is a young Muslim and confided in her "friend" - every time the defence counsel says this, it's with half a nudge and a wink to the jury. Three Muslims are on the jury; during deliberations one of the jurors criticised the girl for cavorting with a young lad in public outside of wedlock.
Under cross-examination, the defence barrister reduces the alleged victim - appearing via CCTV link - to tears when she cannot remember which Eid festival the alleged crimes occurred on (but she "believed" they both happened during Eid, as it was the only time the whole family were together). With a bit of a flim-flam, counsel gets alleged victim to say that she can't remember if she was 14 or 17 - i.e. if either of the alleged attacks happened 2 or 5 years ago. This was a huge part of the deliberations. Counsel contends it's because it didn't happen, and she only "remembered" after the family dispute. That the Mother and the boyfriend cooked up the story to get back at her Step Uncle. Defence case offers alibis for three Eids in the given timescale. Offers cooperative police interviews (as did the prosecution) as evidence of innocence.
Defence counsel objects at one point when prosecutor asks middle sister why she thought defendant was weird; "because his four year old daughter told me about the special cuddles they have". Cue a heaving objection and approach by defense counsel!! Nobody on the jury seemed to notice this - more on this in a minute.
RIGHT so the problems?
1) The prosecution barrister could not correctly pronounce the names of all parties involved - including the defendant. Did not have a grasp on the key dates involved, had to ask for recess to check when Eid fell in the years of the defendant being "14-17". Why was this not done before going to trial? WHEN the crime occurred is crucial. The defence could offer ANY alibi for ANY Eid and it would be feasible.
Additionally, prosecution kept banging on about "big Eid" and "little Eid" and not knowing anything about Muslim religious festivals, the majority of the jury had no idea what was going on. Neither did the prosecutor.
2) Prosecution barrister offered no evidence to support case that defendant was a "predatory paedophile" apart from the alleged crime; attempts to paint defendant as "grooming" young girls was not effective with the jury.
3) The key witness was unreliable, nervous and in no state to give evidence. She giggled when talked about when the defendant allegedly attacked her (outside of the CPS's control, I appreciate, but she had been offered no coaching - the Judge mentioned her nerves could be misinterpreted during summing up). She contradicted herself, leaving herself speechless, on at least four occasions while under examination. She didn't have key dates, who was present at the parties, and gave easily contradictable evidence. She had not been adequately (or even modestly) prepared for questioning.
4) Another witness (the Mother) was unprepared and hostile to both barristers, at one point mistakenly believing the prosecutor was the defence counsel. Was warned about her conduct on the stand by the judge - came off as mentally challenged and admitted she could not remember any dates, just that she "hated him (the defendant)".
5) Three instances of missing paperwork; each with a nearly two-hour recess.
In short, the CPS had put no money or research or care into making their case. The defendant's guilt was irrelevant because the CPS and the prosecutor failed to make their case. The first charge was mentioned twice in open court; an afterthought to make the case seem stronger. We found unanimously not guilty on that one as we all agreed that the prosecution had not offered any evidence apart from character evidence. The second count, the more serious offence of the pair, we were hung 8 hours favouring 8-4 not guilty before being dismissed.
It may very well be that a crime was committed, but the case put forward by the CPS more often than not is so unbelievably flimsy as to be pointless. The statistics are interesting. Of the attrition rate of 10% of reported rapes which are taken forward and prosecuted, 50% of these lead to conviction. With the quality of some of the cases I've watched, frankly that figure seems rather high.
If every trial was as poorly prosecuted as the Bill Roache/Michael Le Vell "test cases", then some genuinely guilty people are going to walk away free men.
Oh and a word on juries - it is a terrifying thought to believe that one's liberty can be placed in such careless hands. One juror, a - and I quote - "feminist young person social worker" took one look at the rap sheet on the bench in front of her, then one look at the defendant in the dock and whispered to me "guilty". This was before the opening speeches. There were three people who didn't care, would rather have been at work - and made that very vocal - and one who spoke very broken English and didn't understand what was going on. He just voted what the person next to him voted; I know this, because I suggested we all switch seats after six hours of deliberating...
I think maybe all this spotlight right now on the CPS is a good thing; Roache isn't the only case being tried with minimal chance of conviction in our courts at the moment. Put the time and money in, and do it right - but please stop wasting tax-payers money on these grotesque sideshows; the public want justice on sexual crime, not to lose faith in the Crown Prosecution Service's ability to keep dangerous sexual predators off our streets.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*In particular, the psychology of barrister selection. I would approximate that over half of the rape/sexual assault cases I've witnessed involving minors or adults as allegedly committed by a man are defended in court by a female barrister. Furthermore, it is entirely probable that a certain type of defence will be offered (obviously depending on specific case circumstances) by a female barrister - and a very different approach taken by a male counterpart.
Example scenario, based on two similar cases I have seen over the years:
"Miss A gets a taxi ride back to Mr B's house, having just met at a party. She has consumed alcohol, and was seen kissing and dancing with Mr. B at the party by witnesses. Several days later, she reports that she was forcibly raped."
Female barrister presents solicitor's case; a young woman gets drunk, and uncharacteristically (as the prosecution will be very keen to establish to the jury) goes home with a complete stranger. The two have consenting sexual intercourse. That is not disputed in court. Mr B contends that he basically "humped and dumped" Miss A, ending their "affair" after just a few days. Out of spite, feeling used and hurt, Miss A makes a false rape allegation to get her own back.
Female barrister cross-examines Miss A gently and in an understanding tone; she feels she can trust talking to a woman, she'll understand right? Miss A finds herself defending why it took her 48 hours to report the alleged crime to the police. She "didn't think" to not get a shower and lose DNA evidence. Asks her if she has ever stubbed her toe, or walked into furniture. Of course, everyone has done this; if Miss A answers "no" the the jury will know she is lying, if she answers "yes" then the defence counsel can claim that's how the bruises on her legs came about - she was drunk, after all.
Male barrister (of the white, middle-aged variety) presents case; Miss A is a slut, who picks up men at parties that she hardly knows. Goes with them back to their house. Kisses and dances provocatively with them in front of dozens of witnesses. Obviously, she was asking for it - what does she think is going to happen if you go back to a strangers house. Men have needs, am I right? Cross-examination asks what she was wearing that night - how low was her top? Was she showing any leg? Has she ever slept with a man she just met before or was Mr. B a one-off (objected - it doesn't matter, that was a giant "you're a dirty slut" aside to the jury). Says she was drunk, consented.
What is really eye-opening is how often defences are recycled by defending counsel - and for that matter, how motive is crudely recycled by the prosecutor in sexual crime cases time after time. There's nothing bespoke about trial by jury!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have very strong adversarial feelings towards the Crown Prosecution Service and about the whole trial selection process in general, particularly when relating to sexual crime. In my opinion and based solely on what I've personally followed from the case, Bill Roache should not have been made to stand trial facing the case as it was put forward by the CPS. The reason for this is that the case, as put forward by the CPS, was not likely to have - to repeat an oft misunderstood and overused phrase - "a realistic chance of conviction". With the witnesses available and their uncorroborated anecdotal evidence forming the entire prosecution case, the prosecution must have had absolute faith in the accuracy of their testimony - startling, considering that every single key witness (including all of the alleged victims) were impeached easily on cross-examination. In simple terms, things started badly and got worse.
And it is an all too familiar story.
I was a jury foreperson myself in a sexual assault of a minor trial in 2012. The case involved a girl aged 19 at the time of trial, who was allegedly sexually assaulted by her step-uncle.
Two counts were on the sheet (Sexual Assault by Inappropriate Touching), two occasions across three years when the alleged victim was aged between 14-17. Prosecution alleged defendant was a predatory paedophile, who couldn't resist his pretty young step-niece. The defendant had no prior convictions so was said to be of "good character". The first count the defendant allegedly put his arm around her on his sofa, and touched her left breast over her clothing. The second count, on a different occasion within two years of the first count, the defendant allegedly went up to the alleged victim's bedroom, closed the door, and pinned her on the bed, kissing her forcefully. He then allegedly digitally penetrated her, before hearing someone coming up the stairs and quickly leaving the room.
The alleged victim did not tell anyone about either assault, until she confided to a male friend several years later. She was then made to tell her Mother, who immediately phoned the police. The prosecution's case relied on one key witness - the alleged victim - and her two sisters who commented on the defendant's character but not on specific knowledge of or having witnessed the crime occurring. The White British female prosecution barrister focused on the British Muslim defendant's character and alleged unusual pattern of "grooming" behaviour towards young girls; the three key witnesses testified to the defendant driving them around late at night in his car, playing loud dance music whilst his own family - wife and then four year old daughter - were at home. He would offer to take the sisters to prayers at the local mosque and would "shake them warmly by the hand, and hug them several times on each occasion" - which, curiously, the defence was very keen to deny - almost as if the case depended on it. The other two sisters involved the case did not allege any crimes were committed towards them, just that their Step Uncle was "a bit weird".
Defence barrister (White British man in middle-age) asserts case that none of it ever happened, and that the alleged victim's motive for making up such heinous lies is due to a family dispute over the sale of a used car, involving the defendant. Produces evidence of an arrest sheet from the alleged victim's Father for "breach of the peace" around the time the allegations were made. Prosecution contend that this was the alleged victim's Father angrily confronting the defendant and being arrested. Defence argues malicious lies exactly coincide with this family dispute. As a "secondary defence", counsel also calls alleged victim's character into question. She is a young Muslim and confided in her "friend" - every time the defence counsel says this, it's with half a nudge and a wink to the jury. Three Muslims are on the jury; during deliberations one of the jurors criticised the girl for cavorting with a young lad in public outside of wedlock.
Under cross-examination, the defence barrister reduces the alleged victim - appearing via CCTV link - to tears when she cannot remember which Eid festival the alleged crimes occurred on (but she "believed" they both happened during Eid, as it was the only time the whole family were together). With a bit of a flim-flam, counsel gets alleged victim to say that she can't remember if she was 14 or 17 - i.e. if either of the alleged attacks happened 2 or 5 years ago. This was a huge part of the deliberations. Counsel contends it's because it didn't happen, and she only "remembered" after the family dispute. That the Mother and the boyfriend cooked up the story to get back at her Step Uncle. Defence case offers alibis for three Eids in the given timescale. Offers cooperative police interviews (as did the prosecution) as evidence of innocence.
Defence counsel objects at one point when prosecutor asks middle sister why she thought defendant was weird; "because his four year old daughter told me about the special cuddles they have". Cue a heaving objection and approach by defense counsel!! Nobody on the jury seemed to notice this - more on this in a minute.
RIGHT so the problems?
1) The prosecution barrister could not correctly pronounce the names of all parties involved - including the defendant. Did not have a grasp on the key dates involved, had to ask for recess to check when Eid fell in the years of the defendant being "14-17". Why was this not done before going to trial? WHEN the crime occurred is crucial. The defence could offer ANY alibi for ANY Eid and it would be feasible.
Additionally, prosecution kept banging on about "big Eid" and "little Eid" and not knowing anything about Muslim religious festivals, the majority of the jury had no idea what was going on. Neither did the prosecutor.
2) Prosecution barrister offered no evidence to support case that defendant was a "predatory paedophile" apart from the alleged crime; attempts to paint defendant as "grooming" young girls was not effective with the jury.
3) The key witness was unreliable, nervous and in no state to give evidence. She giggled when talked about when the defendant allegedly attacked her (outside of the CPS's control, I appreciate, but she had been offered no coaching - the Judge mentioned her nerves could be misinterpreted during summing up). She contradicted herself, leaving herself speechless, on at least four occasions while under examination. She didn't have key dates, who was present at the parties, and gave easily contradictable evidence. She had not been adequately (or even modestly) prepared for questioning.
4) Another witness (the Mother) was unprepared and hostile to both barristers, at one point mistakenly believing the prosecutor was the defence counsel. Was warned about her conduct on the stand by the judge - came off as mentally challenged and admitted she could not remember any dates, just that she "hated him (the defendant)".
5) Three instances of missing paperwork; each with a nearly two-hour recess.
In short, the CPS had put no money or research or care into making their case. The defendant's guilt was irrelevant because the CPS and the prosecutor failed to make their case. The first charge was mentioned twice in open court; an afterthought to make the case seem stronger. We found unanimously not guilty on that one as we all agreed that the prosecution had not offered any evidence apart from character evidence. The second count, the more serious offence of the pair, we were hung 8 hours favouring 8-4 not guilty before being dismissed.
It may very well be that a crime was committed, but the case put forward by the CPS more often than not is so unbelievably flimsy as to be pointless. The statistics are interesting. Of the attrition rate of 10% of reported rapes which are taken forward and prosecuted, 50% of these lead to conviction. With the quality of some of the cases I've watched, frankly that figure seems rather high.
If every trial was as poorly prosecuted as the Bill Roache/Michael Le Vell "test cases", then some genuinely guilty people are going to walk away free men.
Oh and a word on juries - it is a terrifying thought to believe that one's liberty can be placed in such careless hands. One juror, a - and I quote - "feminist young person social worker" took one look at the rap sheet on the bench in front of her, then one look at the defendant in the dock and whispered to me "guilty". This was before the opening speeches. There were three people who didn't care, would rather have been at work - and made that very vocal - and one who spoke very broken English and didn't understand what was going on. He just voted what the person next to him voted; I know this, because I suggested we all switch seats after six hours of deliberating...
I think maybe all this spotlight right now on the CPS is a good thing; Roache isn't the only case being tried with minimal chance of conviction in our courts at the moment. Put the time and money in, and do it right - but please stop wasting tax-payers money on these grotesque sideshows; the public want justice on sexual crime, not to lose faith in the Crown Prosecution Service's ability to keep dangerous sexual predators off our streets.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*In particular, the psychology of barrister selection. I would approximate that over half of the rape/sexual assault cases I've witnessed involving minors or adults as allegedly committed by a man are defended in court by a female barrister. Furthermore, it is entirely probable that a certain type of defence will be offered (obviously depending on specific case circumstances) by a female barrister - and a very different approach taken by a male counterpart.
Example scenario, based on two similar cases I have seen over the years:
"Miss A gets a taxi ride back to Mr B's house, having just met at a party. She has consumed alcohol, and was seen kissing and dancing with Mr. B at the party by witnesses. Several days later, she reports that she was forcibly raped."
Female barrister presents solicitor's case; a young woman gets drunk, and uncharacteristically (as the prosecution will be very keen to establish to the jury) goes home with a complete stranger. The two have consenting sexual intercourse. That is not disputed in court. Mr B contends that he basically "humped and dumped" Miss A, ending their "affair" after just a few days. Out of spite, feeling used and hurt, Miss A makes a false rape allegation to get her own back.
Female barrister cross-examines Miss A gently and in an understanding tone; she feels she can trust talking to a woman, she'll understand right? Miss A finds herself defending why it took her 48 hours to report the alleged crime to the police. She "didn't think" to not get a shower and lose DNA evidence. Asks her if she has ever stubbed her toe, or walked into furniture. Of course, everyone has done this; if Miss A answers "no" the the jury will know she is lying, if she answers "yes" then the defence counsel can claim that's how the bruises on her legs came about - she was drunk, after all.
Male barrister (of the white, middle-aged variety) presents case; Miss A is a slut, who picks up men at parties that she hardly knows. Goes with them back to their house. Kisses and dances provocatively with them in front of dozens of witnesses. Obviously, she was asking for it - what does she think is going to happen if you go back to a strangers house. Men have needs, am I right? Cross-examination asks what she was wearing that night - how low was her top? Was she showing any leg? Has she ever slept with a man she just met before or was Mr. B a one-off (objected - it doesn't matter, that was a giant "you're a dirty slut" aside to the jury). Says she was drunk, consented.
What is really eye-opening is how often defences are recycled by defending counsel - and for that matter, how motive is crudely recycled by the prosecutor in sexual crime cases time after time. There's nothing bespoke about trial by jury!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Horton hears a few
Banned
- Dec 3, 2012
- 325
Long post