OK, the title is sarcastic but surely I can’t be the only one who finds it ironic that the Judge, on the first day of William Roache’s child abuse trial, told the jury that they must distinguish between the actor and the fictional character Ken Barlow and yet the defense have called Roache’s on screen wife and son as defense witnesses?
From 14th January
A judge tells jurors that they have to distinguish between Coronation Street actor William Roache, who is on trial accused of sex offences, and his fictional character Ken Barlow.
Mr Justice Holroyde QC said they should not confuse the “real person” and the part he has played on the ITV soap opera for more than half a century.
And from today…
Actors from Coronation Street have arrived to give evidence in the trial of fellow star William Roache, who is accused of a string of sexual offences.
Anne Kirkbride, who as Deirdre Barlow is on-screen wife to Roache’s character Ken Barlow, Chris Gascoyne – his son Peter Barlow in the ITV soap – and actress Helen Worth, who plays Gail Platt, are expected to give evidence in Roache’s defence.
Roache, 81, denies two counts of raping a 15-year-old girl in east Lancashire in 1967, and four indecent assaults involving four girls aged between 11 or 12 and 16 in the Manchester area in 1965 and 1968.
theneedleblog 
Did you know he was a druid? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/coronation-street-ken-barlow-actor-1772476
what i cant understand is why wait until some one dies before exposing them, both jimmy saville and robin gibb boasted of a thousand kiddy-shags,
how come the wrd never got out when they were alive ?
evidence of good character of any other witness (such as the victim) is inadmissable at common law and should not be raised at trial. It is said to be ‘oath helping’ i.e. adduced to bolster the credibility of the evidence given by the witness/victim. Surely if the evidence of the On Screen Wife of the supposed good character of the defendant (smh) only serves to shift the balance in favour of the defendant (again) and would appear to make the justice system (again) prejudicial to victims. In this instance and I would argue in all celebrity trials (farces) this has 2 fold effect, as the good character of the On Screen Wife represented to the jury as the On Screen Wife is also being taken into account.
This is true but I think all trials allow character witnesses celebrities can’t be an exception and his witnesses have known him for a very long time.
Imo character witnesses shouldn’t be allowed I think they can distract attention from the charge.
I agree pippakin, just because you appear to be a nice bloke does not mean you are not a predator, especially when given a pattern showing EVIDENCE of said behaviour. Also why would anyone make up such allegations when the status of a victim/survivor is given no badge of honour or even credence
I had an old freind who was a lighting engineer at the BBC, he said as i remember it he was washing his hands in the toilets when in stormed jimmy savile and began swearing and cursing and washing his dick in the sink, he said he was forcing a young lad to be sodomised and the lad in terrible fear shit himself, jimmy said it was all over his white trousers, then he composed himself and turning to the lighting engineer said if you tell anyone, i am a mameber of mossad and they will get you good and proper
If you have to provide a character reference when applying for a job then it follows that a character reference may be useful in a court of law. Still, life imitating art or what!
ive never understood the relevance of character witnesses. does the fact someone says hes a nice guy make him innocent.
does the fact that someone runs him down make him guilty i cant see how there relevant to the facts of the case.
Historic sex abuse allegations are almost impossible to defend oneself against. Anyone can accuse anyone of sexually abusing them 30 years ago. How can the accused possibly mount a legal defence? The likelihood of having an alibi all those years later is incredibly remote – particularly since the claims are usually generic and placed within a time period, rather than on a particular date.
The only way somebody who is falsely accused – and while many, perhaps even the majority of cases are legitimate, it would be beyond foolish to deny that some accusations are false – can defend themselves is by presenting evidence of their character.
I fail to see the relevance of these peoples contributions; on this basis the alleged victims ought to have equal opportunity to have favourable representations as their motivations and integrity are also under attack from the defence lawyers. Unless someone is an actual witness to an alleged incident then in my layman’s opinion they are pointless.
Character witnesses. It’s all he’s got..Dierdre and Gail can say how they haven’t been groped and whatshisname can say how he never thought Ken was very rapey. In fairness, how do you defend yourself when there is no evidence apart from someone’s word from 40 years ago?
I really find it very difficult to understand what relevance the views of a defendant’s work colleagues are in a trial involving sexual assault and rape. It would be interesting to know if any research has been done on what opinions the friends and colleagues of convicted peadophiles held about them before they were convicted. Is it really possible for ‘Deirdre’ to know what ‘Ken’ was getting up to on a weekend, especially if ‘Ken’ was keen to keep it quiet?
Moreover, if a creepy weirdo DJ can groom a whole nation into believing he is a kind, loveable, charitable sort of guy, how much easier must it be for an actor to similarly ‘groom’ a handful of his workmates?
Mabe he could bring oyston and hall his freinds as good character witness
“I really find it very difficult to understand what relevance the views of a defendant’s work colleagues are in a trial involving sexual assault and rape.”
The alleged sexual assaults and rapes occurred at work, he is accused of having used his work to attract his accusers and those accusers claim they were seen on-set by cast and crew – so it is entirely relevant.
If his colleagues have got evidence that is material to the case, then that’s a different matter. My difficulty is understanding the relevance of the views of a “character witness” in regards to a person’s sexual habits. People successfully hide such things from their nearest and dearest, so hiding it from work colleagues must be very easy.
There is also something about the whole idea of having character witnesses that snacks of class discrimination. If you can get a local magistrate to testify that you are a good sort of chap then that counts for more than the opinion of mate who happens to be unemployed.
Turning adults into proxy victims by claiming they’ve been “groomed” seems not only insulting to child victims but also a convenient cop-out for those who should have been looking out for children’s interests. It’s probably likely that a lot of adults chose to look away or played down anything they saw either because it would have been easier on their own pride than admitting they had been stupid enough to be taken in or because they didn’t consider it a problem until the wind changed and everyone decided it was a very big problem indeed.
I was borrowing the phrase “groomed a nation” from a recent Police report. I agree with your sentiments entirely.
Might it not be considered odd if he did not call people he has known for so long and are probably his friends as character witnesses?
Reblogged this on Oyia Brown.