Author Topic: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.  (Read 1057 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12259
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #60 on: March 26, 2020, 08:21:PM »
   You don't accept the thrust of the conspiracy argument because you don't want to. Instead of ignoring the new facts, you would alter your opinion to include the new information if you were being honest.
   1) Your evidence free opinion that Salmond has no chance/intention of a political comeback is contradicted by reports even in mainstream media and statements by some leading SNP politicians.
   2) It is not debatable that some witnesses lied after swearing on oath. What kind of weak argument is this? It's just that you prefer to believe that defence witnesses rather than prosecution witnesses lied. It is also clear that many incidents were given a more sinister framing than the reality.
   3) You state, "To invade someone's space in the workplace by touching their hair, nose, buttocks, kissing on the lips, may seem trivial, but it would not be acceptable in any other day to day working environment..."
   The hair touching incident was known as some kind of running joke in the office. Others testified that all in the office tugged her tight curly hair which sprung back. It was a joke that all including the complainant were comfortable with. You may ask yourself why none of these other incidents involving others doing the same thing became sexual assault allegations some years after the event.
   The other incidents are similar or denied. Specifically the touching the buttocks allegation is absurd and again made years after the event.These are all allegations that some in the SNP had spent much time and resources acquiring by way of a huge fishing trip only to sit on them to deploy when required.
   The standard of proof required to smear someone in a political selection battle is decidedly lower than that required to convict in a criminal trial. Sexual allegations obtained by fishing, not reported despite being criminal, sat on to be used as required, case falls apart as prosecution tacitly accepts the defence evidence. Are you there yet, Steve? It was a political smear job to be deployed when Salmond makes his return to frontline politics.
    4) Your final point displays nothing but your unwillingness to accept the truth. What do you think the not proven verdict means? There were 13 jurors with 8 required for a majority verdict. So 8 or more of the 13 decided not guilty or not proven. At the most, 5 jurors thought him guilty. At least 8 didn't.

    Finally, I must admit given the definitions accepted by you, that I have probably been both the perpetrator and victim of a number of sexual assaults over the years. I have also witnessed other people committing sexual assaults by touching others noses and hair and even kissing on the lips unsolicited. Context is everything though, Steve, something the jury and others see but which passes you by, deliberately I suspect, although I don't entirely rule out the alternative.

     

   
 
I've no axe to grind at all. I've never even been to Scotland. The fact that witnesses give affidavits, wait months at home with the trial looming and then proceed to swear an oath on the Holy Bible means that I take all evidence seriously. It's true that second hand you can't look into witnesses' eyes, hear their tone of voice or hear the totality of the evidence.

Alex Salmond is finished in Scottish politics in a leading role. He had had enough of the job of SNP leader twenty years ago and only returned because John Swinney didn't connect with the electorate. Nicola Sturgeon has made astonishing progress as leader, she is popular and any idea that she has resorted to dirty tricks due to insecurity is in my view improbable.

As I have said several times now, when one becomes the victim of a sexual assault the first response is often to conceal it, possibly due to wanting it to go away, a sense of shame or not feeling that you are going to be believed. Once you have support or are told that the same thing has happened to others is often the time when you may come forward, sometimes years after the event.

It's high time we had a zero tolerance of these kinds of incidents. You may wish to read the following article: https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,sexual-crimes-in-scotland-reach-highest-level-since-records-began_10853.htm

To end on a touch of humour within this legal imbroglio: not proven I have been told means "not guilty, but don't do it again.."
« Last Edit: March 26, 2020, 08:22:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #61 on: March 29, 2020, 03:00:PM »
    NGB, a point on which I would appreciate your view.
    The non cross examination of any defence witnesses struck me as a tacit acceptance of their evidence by the prosecution. Evidence given directly contradicted prosecution evidence but it was not challenged. The members of the jury must also feel that there is a tacit acceptance by the prosecution that the evidence is accepted as true. This looks like the prosecution have conceded.
    As a barrister yourself, what is your view on this? Am I missing some wider legal tactic/manoeuvre?
   

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5068
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #62 on: March 29, 2020, 05:25:PM »
    NGB, a point on which I would appreciate your view.
    The non cross examination of any defence witnesses struck me as a tacit acceptance of their evidence by the prosecution. Evidence given directly contradicted prosecution evidence but it was not challenged. The members of the jury must also feel that there is a tacit acceptance by the prosecution that the evidence is accepted as true. This looks like the prosecution have conceded.
    As a barrister yourself, what is your view on this? Am I missing some wider legal tactic/manoeuvre?
   

The situation in England and Wales is exactly as you suggest.  Prosecution counsel is obliged to challenge in cross examination any witness whose evidence is as odds with the prosecution case.  It is different if it is only a character witness, but where the evidence concerns any of the material facts the obligation is clear.  If there really was no challenge it is very strange, suggesting a tacit acceptance of the veracity of the witness evidence.  There may be different evidential rules in Scotland (Scottish criminal law does have some differences with the law of England and Wales) but I doubt if there is any difference in this instance.  The prosecution realised in my view that this was a very weak case from the outset and I suspect they became uneasy during the trial when the extent of collusion between prosecution witnesses became clear, as well as the political motivation behind the case being brought.


Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15445
    • 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 #63 on: March 29, 2020, 05:56:PM »
the slegations sounded a bit bixare when i had a read of them.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2020, 06:33:PM by nugnug »

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #64 on: March 29, 2020, 06:03:PM »
The situation in England and Wales is exactly as you suggest.  Prosecution counsel is obliged to challenge in cross examination any witness whose evidence is as odds with the prosecution case.  It is different if it is only a character witness, but where the evidence concerns any of the material facts the obligation is clear.  If there really was no challenge it is very strange, suggesting a tacit acceptance of the veracity of the witness evidence.  There may be different evidential rules in Scotland (Scottish criminal law does have some differences with the law of England and Wales) but I doubt if there is any difference in this instance.  The prosecution realised in my view that this was a very weak case from the outset and I suspect they became uneasy during the trial when the extent of collusion between prosecution witnesses became clear, as well as the political motivation behind the case being brought.
   Thanks for that, NGB. I suspected that the prosecution had a creeping realisation of the weakness of the case which explained the non cross examination of material facts. I recognise your point about character witness evidence and obviously some of the defence case falls into this.
    However Ms. Ahmed Sheikh and Samantha Barber both gave evidence that Ms. H was not even in attendance when the alleged attempted rape happened. Neither was challenged.
   Karen Watt testified that Ms. B had not reported an incident to her that was claimed by Ms. B. She faced no cross examination.
   These are just a couple of examples of material facts crucial to the prosecution being contradicted but left to stand. The prosecution appeared to just roll over as soon as their narrative was challenged by the defence case with little to no resistance.
   I half expected the case to be withdrawn/thrown out without troubling the jury.
   

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #65 on: March 30, 2020, 02:11:PM »
    Some very illuminating details in Craig Murray's piece today. Well worth reading  https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/jaccuse-2/




Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15445
    • 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 #66 on: March 30, 2020, 06:45:PM »
i cant say i feel that much sympathy for him he helped create and vigrously defended the scottish injustice system so he can hardly complian when its used agianst him.

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #67 on: March 31, 2020, 12:25:AM »
i cant say i feel that much sympathy for him he helped create and vigrously defended the scottish injustice system so he can hardly complian when its used agianst him.
   He still does have faith in the justice system. The jury cleared him after hearing the evidence. His complaints are about the conspirators who were found out by the justice system.
    What point are you trying to make?

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13644
Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
« Reply #68 on: March 31, 2020, 12:33:PM »
   He still does have faith in the justice system. The jury cleared him after hearing the evidence. His complaints are about the conspirators who were found out by the justice system.
    What point are you trying to make?
From what I’ve seen of the Scottish justice System, it does seem effective and fair and willing to go against the establishment when necessary.  Finding this case really interesting.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15445
    • 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 #69 on: March 31, 2020, 08:12:PM »
From what I’ve seen of the Scottish justice System, it does seem effective and fair and willing to go against the establishment when necessary.  Finding this case really interesting.

i am afriad that is simply in the majority of cases.

and the fact it even got to court shows coruption in certen qauters.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15445
    • 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 #70 on: March 31, 2020, 11:09:PM »
what do you sturgeon now wants to abolish trail be juey is this just a cioncedence.

http://www.advocates.org.uk/news-and-responses/news/2020/mar/criminal-bar-strongly-against-draconian-proposed-measures

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15445
    • 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

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15445
    • 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 #72 on: April 25, 2020, 01:35:PM »
there picking on poor old criag now.

https://t.co/24teJpQmkD?amp=1