Ian Watkins Case Update: Find Out Why He Is Being Remanded + Why He Is the Only One of Three Suspects Being Named
Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:12:58
On New Year's Eve, Ian Watkins, the lead singer of Lostprophets, was remanded into custody in his native Wales until March, facing charges of conspiring to rape a one-year-old and of possessing child porn and extreme animal porn, among other things.
Fans and the media are fiercely divided over the case and the charges. Our unwavering position has been (and remains) that Watkins is innocent until proven guilty. That said, we think the charges are reprehensible and if they are proven to be true, which is up to a judge and jury, then we believe he should get what he deserves. But until guilt is proven, we remain neutral and present the facts as best we can.
Some readers have contacted us to ask us why he is being remanded and why he was denied bail, as well as to question why he is the only one of three suspects being named in the press, since they didn't understand the laws of another country.
Well, we neither did we, and we received answers and will share them to further educate and illuminate. We thank our anonymous sources many times over for providing details and insight; it is invaluable and appreciated.
We've also had discussions about the details of the legal process and the system, since we are not lawyers and, as we said, are not well-versed in laws outside of our country.
Here's what we learned. Our sources tell us Watkins has been remanded to ensure he does not offend again and that he could very well be considered a flight risk as he may own property outside of the U.K.
Also, the reason he has been named publicly, while the other two female perpetrators he is being charged with remain anonymous, is because all victims of sex crimes (such as rape) are granted anonymity for life. Therefore, it is highly likely that the women charged along with the "Last Train Home" singer are the mothers of the two children he is alleged to have conspired to sexually abuse. Naming those women would identify and "out" the victims and since they are protected by law, the restrictions are in place on naming them.
So that certainly explains several aspects of the case, and it now makes sense.
Are you following this case? Have you formed an opinion?