Author Topic: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.  (Read 1095 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12267
Re: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2020, 04:23:PM »
    One particular exchange stands out where what isn't discussed is more telling than what is, hinting at the wider untold story behind the sham proceedings.
    It was day 8 of the trial and the following exchange took place, copied directly from Craig Murray's blog;
 
    The final witness of the day was Ms Ann Harvey, who worked in the SNP whips’ office at Westminster from 2006-9 and 2011 to present. She had been present at the Glasgow East by-election. In response to a question from Gordon Jackson, she replied that she had witnessed nothing inappropriate there when Alex Salmond visited.

Gordon Jackson asked whether she had more recently been asked anything relevant? Ms Harvey replied that on 31 October 2017 she had received a series of 16 text messages to her private number asking for information and whether she could disclose anything about the past. Gordon Jackson asked what the messages said specifically and who they were from.

At this point, Alex Prentice rose for the prosecution and objected to this line of questioning. The jury was dismissed and a legal argument was held on the admissibility of this information. I am not allowed to report the legal discussion. In the end the judge ruled the evidence inadmissible and Ms Harvey was dismissed.


    There is a lot of evidence about Whatsapp groups "discussing" the allegations and strikingly similar language is used throughout by the different anonymous accusers. The accusers have lifelong anonymity orders. The text messages, which the prosecution do not want discussing in front of the jury, we can only guess at their nature and content. We can make a fairly educated guess, however, and it looks like fishing and collusion to me.
    A number of non anonymous women, as well as men, gave evidence for the defence which directly contradicted the prosecution witnesses evidence. Both versions could not be simultaneously true and not one was challenged or cross examined by the prosecution. How can any jury member find guilt after this?
     Who sent the messages and their content is to remain a secret.

 
The bottom line is that many of these alleged assaults of a sexual nature must have occurred, the Prosecution relying on their sheer number: thirteen charges against nine women.

You have to put yourself in the position of these women at the time, who were hired to further the highly controversial policy of Scottish independence, and its greatest asset and advocate, namely Alex Salmond. Should a woman sacrifice herself on the altar of sexual impropriety for the sake of the common good, not to mention a highly-paid, relatively secure job in a society where these are becoming few and far between.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2020, 04:23:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5068
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2020, 04:38:PM »
I have removed three recent posts from this thread.  We have to remember that the trial is ongoing and we do have to be mindful of the law relating to contempt of court.  I will restore the posts following the conclusion of the trial.  In the meantime please exercise restraint.

« Last Edit: March 21, 2020, 05:01:PM by ngb1066 »

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2020, 04:42:PM »
     Why did the prosecution not challenge the defence witnesses evidence that Ms. H was not even at Bute House when the alleged incident took place? They have accepted, without challenge, that this specific allegation couldn't be true.
     Both Samantha Barber, interestingly a friend of Ms. H, and Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh, give evidence that Ms. H was not at Bute House and that her allegations cannot be true. If you only read one side, Steve, then that is all that you will know.
     I was already aware of the story that you posted, as is everybody. Were you even aware that this is contradicted or didn't the Independent report that?
    Do you know what Samantha Barber and Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh said in evidence? Does it matter to you or are you happy to decide guilt only by hearing the prosecution side? No defence witnesses required.

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2020, 04:43:PM »
I have removed two recent posts from this thread.  We have to remember that the trial is ongoing and we do have to be mindful of the law relating to contempt of court.  I will restore the posts following the conclusion of the trial.  In the meantime please exercise restraint.
    Have I said something? :-[

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5068
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2020, 04:57:PM »
    Have I said something? :-[

No - It was three posts by another member.

« Last Edit: March 21, 2020, 05:00:PM by ngb1066 »

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2020, 05:07:PM »
No - It was three posts by another member.
    I realise that now having read back, NGB.

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15470
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2020, 07:49:PM »
is this the same alex salmond who more or less declared nat frazer guilty before his retrial.

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2020, 09:57:PM »
is this the same alex salmond who more or less declared nat frazer guilty before his retrial.
   What did he say?

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #23 on: March 23, 2020, 01:11:PM »
    Two jurors dismissed the remaining 13 informed by the judge that a 8 are still required for a verdict. Reasons for dismissal described as "various reasons".

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5068
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #24 on: March 23, 2020, 03:06:PM »
He has just been acquitted on all charges.


Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #25 on: March 23, 2020, 03:09:PM »
He has just been acquitted on all charges.
    Just read it myself, NGB. The fall out from this charade will be forthcoming.

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15470
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #26 on: March 23, 2020, 03:17:PM »
hes been cleared.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5068
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #27 on: March 23, 2020, 03:50:PM »
    Just read it myself, NGB. The fall out from this charade will be forthcoming.

I agree and it will be very interesting to hear the details.  I suspect Nicola S is not happy.




Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15470
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #28 on: March 23, 2020, 04:23:PM »
iwill watch with great intrest.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8333
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #29 on: March 23, 2020, 06:11:PM »
I agree and it will be very interesting to hear the details.  I suspect Nicola S is not happy.

Why would that be?