William Roache Cleared of All charges
 

He claims they all agreed to have sex.
And none under age?


The Judge warned the jury
its not about the part he plays
its about him.


http://news.sky.com/story/1194815/wi...hoto-to-victim


http://media.skynews.com/media/image...-1-522x293.jpg



Roache trial told to ignore Ken Barlow role
Coronation Street actor is on trial at Preston
crown court for sex offences,
including two counts of raping a 15-year-old girl
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...onation-street

This was way back in the 60s, right? He would have been quite young himself...

This spate of historical rape cases just seems so disingenuous to me; I know it's horrible to suggest that actual victims are liars because there's been a "trend" but why would you wait 50 years to report a rape? I mean come on...

He's 81, the alleged offense was in 1967, so he would have been 35. Not that young, tbh...

I think the additional allegations span 1964 to 1968, so age 32 - 36, with the girls being aged 12 to 15. At this point it really DOES seem like they were all "at it" though - 30-something year old TV personalities banging their teenage groupies.

I'm dubious about most claims of all-out rape but the issue of course is informed consent. I think most of these men probably did take advantage of their status and manipulate young girls into sexual activity. Celebrity then wasn't what it is now... they probably didn't think their personal lives would ever end up under a microscope.

For me too long has passed. The 60s and 70s were different times, just watch Benny Hill to see what people thought was acceptable and funny. For me this is a waste of judicial time and does real rape cases no favours - same goes with DLT

He sent a signed note to a "victim" ???

Yeah right..........did you read the note, there was NOTHING untoward on it, all strictly above board in fact the perfect note you would expect from a TV star of the time.

not rude or smutty or sexually suggestive in any way...just a note

How the hell can this possibly be used as evidence for the "Prosecution" ???

You must be joking right................

You say that. but then look at the Saville case

Then again, if it weren't for modern interpretations of historical incidents, we wouldn't have had any kind of justice for people like Alan Turing who was a victim of what people thought was acceptable at the time; but by today's standards isn't at all. Perhaps that's why so many people have only come forward now, having seen other people take the first step... I don't know. I find it all a bit unrealistic but I don't feel comfortable saying that too loudly because I don't want to belittle anyone who has been the victim of a serious crime. Michael Le Vell was cleared of any wrong doing, it was a girl crying wolf - not everyone who's accused of sex crimes is guilty.

I know, but that was the one that sparked it all. This became a phenomenon and, whether justified or not, a celebrity smear campaign after the initial Savile claims.

Perhaps the women are coming forward now as they believe they will be listened to due to operation Yewtree?
Very different to in the 60's and 70's.
I wonder just how many girls and women did not report rape at the time.

Yeah... I guess being born in the 90s and growing up in the age of information and in a time where there are human rights breakthroughs all around the world and here in my own country, I find it hard to fathom why a woman would keep the fact she was raped to herself for 40 years; but then I don't know what life was like back then... and I know how scary something like that must be, to go to the police about something so scary and have to relive it... I'm just amazed at the sheer numbers of people coming forward

I do agree. I'm sure most people have heard of the casting couch showbiz mentality, groupies have always existed, a rape is a terrifying incident - not something to be dragged up 50 years later.

What will we get next? Rockstar groupies claiming non-consent because they were too drugged out of their heads to give informed consent?

Savile was pure evil, I wouldn't apply that label to most of those that have been retrospectively accused under operation yewtree.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...17_634x596.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...99_634x821.jpg
[Gift: The jury in the trial of Coronation Street actor
Bill Roache was shown this signed photo, allegedly
sent to a 14-year-old girl who has accused
him of indecent assault in the 1960s]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2qZS3nMrS


He started young
on children.


He is Guilty

Not an innocuous letter from a "star" to a fan? I see nothing incriminating in that letter.

Nothing in that letter could possibly incriminate him.

More likely to be used as evidence for the defence rather than the prosecution........!!!!

I ca't even make out what that letter says

"Thank you for your marvellous letter and the nice things you said in it. I am enclosing a photo which I hope you like.

I am away for 3 weeks now but I would like a letter from you waiting for when I get back.

Write to me when you start school again and tell me more.

Love, Bill."

Note: The letter, which is allegedly from the star, now 81, was addressed from Granada TV and asked her to write back 'when you start school again'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2qZYOqQhv

Thats his line

hhmmm it's not incriminating but it does prove that he was in contact with the girl and was aware she was underage. I assume they'd have more evidence then just that letter though and tbqh if he did do something with her, I hope they find out and he's convicted for it because she was only 14, i don't care how much time has passed, times were different back then, it could have been extremely difficult for her to do anything

Addressing it from Granada TV would seem to suggest that's where the girl's letter was sent.

Maybe she was not actually aware of his home address, which casts some doubt on whether she had been there.

Fanmail?

Well, it seems like her letter was their first correspondence though so she probably hadn't been at that stage (not saying that she ever was but you know, just trying to look at it from both sides of the fence)

Yes, that's what it looks like, that's why I'm saying that they probably have more to go on then just that letter. What the letter does prove is that he knew what age she was, if they have more to back the claims up

I agree with looking at it from both sides like you Niamh, maybe he is guilty, but there is nothing in the evidence presented to us yet that would suggest so...it is awfully difficult to bring about an historic conviction like this :(