neil3728 Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Now he has been cleared, I fully believe the courts should go at the person who accused him of doing such a horrific crime. If he is completley not guilty then this girl must have lied to the police and to the court, she should be investigated for causing all this undue pain to this innocent man. Maybe my thoughst are a little harsh, but if a case can be put together with little phyisical evidence, other than the say so of a person, then that person must be held accountable for everything she has said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkield Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 I agree. He will always be viewed with an air of suspicion by many people, mud sticks and all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the poacher Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 I totally agree mate ....if this guy is really innocent ,his life now is ruined .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowmonster Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Agreed to easy to falsely accuse with no reprocussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
countryman Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Is it Freddie Star who is now suing the woman who accused him. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) Everyone should have te right to anonymity before a guilty verdict. Edited September 10, 2013 by aris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalconFN Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 It's a difficult one as, on the one hand, there may not be any physical evidence in some cases where abuse has happened but on the other an innocent man could have his life ruined. I haven't heard the details of this particular case but sometimes cases are thrown out, not because the person is clearly innocent, but because of a lack of evidence to proove guilt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRNDL Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) It is astonishing that a man can be publicly accused of such a terrible crime and then be found innocent by Jury. The lady in question should be sued to Mars and back...it is disgusting! Will he return to ITV??? Or has the damage already been done??? Edited September 10, 2013 by BRNDL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRNDL Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Everyone should have te right to anonymity before a guilty verdict. That is also difficult as without an identity available new evidence would be difficult to find, i.e from other victims that have not yet spoken out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 He's done for. John Leslie was never prosecuted for anything, neither was Barrymore and their careers are stone cold dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 It is astonishing that a man can be publicly accused of such a terrible crime and then be found innocent by Jury. The lady in question should be sued to Mars and back...it is disgusting! Will he return to ITV??? Or has the damage already been done??? You are talking out of your ****. What's astonishing? That the jury believed him and not the accuser. Just because he was found guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it. Just that they jury could not find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. So in your view everybody who makes an accusation should be sued if they are not believed. Utter tosh. If he wants to sue somebody then he should sue the CPS. They were the ones who decided to proceed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 In the case of rape i dont believe they can sue the victim. The victim is merely a witness, it is the CPS who brings the charges. This is why the victim is afforded anonymity while the accused is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hedd-wyn Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Well, personally I think he's a stinking pedo and should be hung at dawn! Only kidding, I wish him the best of luck and hope he continues to provide us with poor acting and dreadful storylines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Reading through the press, as the trial progressed, the prosecution seemed weak. Changing stories, extra detail emerging, prosecution witnesses contradicting each other. No surprise he was acquitted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRNDL Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) You are talking out of your ****. What's astonishing? That the jury believed him and not the accuser. Just because he was found guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it. Just that they jury could not find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. So in your view everybody who makes an accusation should be sued if they are not believed. Utter tosh. If he wants to sue somebody then he should sue the CPS. They were the ones who decided to proceed. 1. If your refer back to my post you will clearly see what I find astonishing. 2. He is innocent as decided by a Jury...there is nothing left to say. If you disagree with the jury then that is your affair... Also he was found not guilty... Edited September 10, 2013 by BRNDL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeredup Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 the way i see it is women who falsely cry rape should get the same sentence as a rapist!! its terrible the bloke gets dragged through the courts the press have him hung drawn an quartered and she remains anonymous!! also it makes a mockery of women who have been raped for real!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackstone Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 I've always followed the mantra of "no smoke without fire". It's a difficult case because it hasn't been proven that he's completely innocent, so the accuser hasn't necessarily lied either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalconFN Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Well, personally I think he's a stinking pedo and should be hung at dawn! Only kidding, I wish him the best of luck and hope he continues to provide us with poor acting and dreadful storylines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 I've always followed the mantra of "no smoke without fire". It's a difficult case because it hasn't been proven that he's completely innocent, so the accuser hasn't necessarily lied either. He doesn't have to prove his innocence. He is innocent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 I've always followed the mantra of "no smoke without fire". It's a difficult case because it hasn't been proven that he's completely innocent, so the accuser hasn't necessarily lied either. 12 people found him not guilty and that after hearing the evidence rather than assuming that there is no smoke without fire, I presume you still favor the ducking stool also. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno 357 Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Will he get his old job back on Corrie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 He has already been invited to discuss his return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackstone Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 He doesn't have to prove his innocence. He is innocent. I never said he had to prove his innocence. I'm well aware of how the legal system works. 12 people found him not guilty and that after hearing the evidence rather than assuming that there is no smoke without fire, I presume you still favor the ducking stool also. KW There's no need to be facetious. I'm in no way disputing the verdict. I'm just saying that from a practical viewpoint, this just means it can't be proved that he did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malik Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 Surely he can sue for damages and loss of earnings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ack-ack Posted September 10, 2013 Report Share Posted September 10, 2013 He has already been invited to discuss his return. His ROVERS return? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.