Jeremy Bamber Forum

OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Other high profile cases => Topic started by: nugnug on May 22, 2019, 10:34:AM

Title: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on May 22, 2019, 10:34:AM
what i would like to know is did he excercise his right to a solicter the same right he tried to deny to other people.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-47001028?SThisFB&fbclid=IwAR3-D3xq7uwpM9zCqtDFh7wNGXAXkG4efJ3WkefCN4rzrt3NdL1Y7EAH2wI
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on May 22, 2019, 04:41:PM
what i would like is did he excercise his right to a solicter the same right he tried to deny to other people.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-47001028?SThisFB&fbclid=IwAR3-D3xq7uwpM9zCqtDFh7wNGXAXkG4efJ3WkefCN4rzrt3NdL1Y7EAH2wI
Apparently there had been a previous investigation into some of the allegations in 2003, though it had been handled badly and some of the pertinent emails may have been destroyed, according to Scotland's chief civil servant, Leslie Evans. It's all very strange. Of course the allegations will have to be tested in front of a jury, but we should give Salmond the right of presumed innocence until found guilty.

I don't know what you mean about denying the right of others to engage a solicitor.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on May 22, 2019, 04:56:PM
Apparently there had been a previous investigation into some of the allegations in 2003, though it had been handled badly and some of the pertinent emails may have been destroyed, according to Scotland's chief civil servant, Leslie Evans. It's all very strange. Of course the allegations will have to be tested in front of a jury, but we should give Salmond the right of presumed innocence until found guilty.

I don't know what you mean about denying the right of others to engage a solicitor.

in scotland you did not have an atomatic right to a solicter when qustioned a supreme court rulling changed that and salmond bitterly opsed the decisn.

so under those crcumstances id like to know if he excercised the right he treid to deny other people/
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on May 22, 2019, 05:00:PM
in scotland you did not have an atomatic right to a solicter when qustioned a supreme court rulling changed and salmond bitterly opsed the decisn.

so under those crcumstances id like to know if he excercised the right he treid to deny other people/
Yes I suppose looking at it like that it does seem hypocritical. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/oct/27/detention-without-access-lawyer-scotland-ends
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 17, 2020, 09:26:PM
Is Alex Salmond a sex pest..https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51926614
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 18, 2020, 11:14:AM
craig murray has an intresting take on it.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-7/
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: David1819 on March 18, 2020, 05:51:PM
Is Alex Salmond a sex pest..https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51926614

It seems like the same pattern as Cosby and Weinstein.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 19, 2020, 07:35:PM
craig murray has an intresting take on it.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-7/
To accept one's own mortality..

In many ways it would be the same familiar story women have endured for centuries: rape allegations, kissing lips, touching hair, fondling buttocks, all dismissed as horseplay by a figure who could be the man down the pub, the guy next door, the man in the street or for that matter, the local Catholic priest.

But this isn't just any ordinary man. In 2014 he came within a whisker of leading a nation of five million to independence for the first time in 300 years, a Robert the Bruce-type figure, destined to liberate the Scots from their English yoke. A clue came when he described one of his victims as Ursula Andress, whom, one recalls, emerged from the crystal-clear waters of the Caribbean in white bikini and conch, no doubt succumbing to Alex's James Bond charm, as his self-deception at Bute House and other loci in the course of his employment continued, using his position and status to garner sexual fringe benefits from women unable or unwilling to answer back.

As the trial continues, with his 82-year-old spouse no doubt paraded in the public gallery at the behest of Defence barristers and a glimmer of hope with some inconsistencies in Prosecution evidence, he could do worse than to recall the Seven Ages of Man speech given by Jacques in Shakespeare's As You Like It, to accept his own mortality, stage three being the lover, but the message contained therein as the trial continues at the Edinburgh High Court is that there comes a time when "all succumb to second childishness and mere oblivion, sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."  https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-8/
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 20, 2020, 06:14:PM
Craig Murray was barred from the courtroom yesterday: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/the-long-dark-night-of-the-soul/

Is it my imagination or was this the offending piece:

The day was dramatic enough, mostly consisting of Alex Salmond in the witness stand giving evidence. That evidence was startling. He stated that some of the accusations were deliberate fabrications with a political purpose. He specifically accused Ms A of fabrication, and of recruiting and encouraging five of the other accusers also to make fabrications against him. Crucially he described Ms A, whom he accused of orchestrating the fabrications, as extremely close to Nicola Sturgeon, and did so in terms so graphic and detailed that I cannot repeat them as it would identify Ms A.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 20, 2020, 11:11:PM
Craig Murray was barred from the courtroom yesterday: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/the-long-dark-night-of-the-soul/

Is it my imagination or was this the offending piece:

The day was dramatic enough, mostly consisting of Alex Salmond in the witness stand giving evidence. That evidence was startling. He stated that some of the accusations were deliberate fabrications with a political purpose. He specifically accused Ms A of fabrication, and of recruiting and encouraging five of the other accusers also to make fabrications against him. Crucially he described Ms A, whom he accused of orchestrating the fabrications, as extremely close to Nicola Sturgeon, and did so in terms so graphic and detailed that I cannot repeat them as it would identify Ms A.
    No details have been given for the alleged "possible contempt". It is more likely that Mr.Murray's reporting has presented both the prosecution and defence cases and reported proceedings accurately. His reporting on both this case, and the circus that passes for due process in the Assange  farce, has been invaluable. The BBC, Guardian et al have been very selective in their reporting of events in a way that is beneficial to the prosecution and detrimental to the defence. The coverage in the media, as with Assange, is so jarringly biased that anyone with an above room temperature IQ should see through it.
    Read Craig Murray's daily report of proceedings and it is eye opening if you have been relying on MSM coverage.
    One of the most startling aspects, to me at least, was the questioning of the witnesses called by the defence. Despite several witnesses giving evidence that directly contradicted prosecution witness claims, none of them were cross examined by the prosecution. They were not challenged on their evidence even though it could not be true if the prosecution claims were true.
    From Craig Murray's blog;
   
That concluded the day’s proceedings. It was a day on which defence witnesses directly contradicted evidence from the accusers on a number of key points, most importantly but by no means solely on the question of whether Ms H was present at all at the event where she claimed to have been the victim of attempted rape. It was also given in evidence that people had not reported incidents they said they had reported, and there was no civil service policy against women working alone in the evening with Alex Salmond – which claim had been one of the MSM’s most lurid headlines.

     Read the full coverage for the details of this but it is telling that you would know none of this if you relied on the BBC, Guardian and the rest of the MSM.
   
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 20, 2020, 11:33:PM
im not salmond fan i want him to be guilty but i do wonder if hes being set up here.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 21, 2020, 12:35:AM
im not salmond fan i want him to be guilty but i do wonder if hes being set up here.
   Regardless of anyone's view of Salmond the evidence should be weighed objectively. I have gone beyond wondering if Salmond is being set up. It is a show trial and the case against is so threadbare that it should never have made it to court.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 21, 2020, 02:18:AM
   Regardless of anyone's view of Salmond the evidence should be weighed objectively. I have gone beyond wondering if Salmond is being set up. It is a show trial and the case against is so threadbare that it should never have made it to court.

i am coming to that veiw myself.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 21, 2020, 04:14: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.

 
Title: Re: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 21, 2020, 04:15:PM
This is the worst alleged incident and might stand alone from all the other allegations of "high jinks", inappropriate as they all may be. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/alex-salmond-rape-trial-woman-h-sexual-assault-scotland-a9393021.html

It's the same old story of perpetrator and victim, hunter and hunted, by a man in a position of power, made randy by overwork and unable to fulfil his natural sexual desires through the marital relationship, he set out to conquer women who may well have been overawed at his position and were resolved politically on the same goal. Did Salmond really feel no sense of impropriety or wrongdoing during these alleged assaults, or should the women involved have been grateful for his attentions, flattered that the first man about to lead an independent Scotland since 1707 was spending time with them as companion, rather than what may be nearer the truth: that of an enervated 58-year-old middle-aged man looking like thousands of others down the pub of a weekend.
Title: Re: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk 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.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 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.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo 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.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo 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? :-[
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 21, 2020, 04:57:PM
    Have I said something? :-[

No - It was three posts by another member.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 21, 2020, 05:07:PM
No - It was three posts by another member.
    I realise that now having read back, NGB.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 21, 2020, 07:49:PM
is this the same alex salmond who more or less declared nat frazer guilty before his retrial.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo 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?
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo 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".
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 23, 2020, 03:06:PM
He has just been acquitted on all charges.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo 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.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 23, 2020, 03:17:PM
hes been cleared.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 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.



Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 23, 2020, 04:23:PM
iwill watch with great intrest.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: David1819 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?
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 24, 2020, 12:19:AM
Why would that be?
There was an intimation that she had conducted a lesbian relationship with one of the plaintiffs.

Now where are my three posts..
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 12:55:AM
There was an intimation that she had conducted a lesbian relationship with one of the plaintiffs.

Now where are my three posts..
    Alex Salmond has,I think, directly named NS as being behind the plot. Perhaps read Craig Murray or the Grouse beater and you may get a somewhat fuller picture than is available in MSM.
     Whatsapp groups "discussing" the allegations. Discussing may be a euphemism for conspiring, perhaps. Read a full account of the court proceedings including defence arguments and you would know. Fishing texts referred to in court which prosecution didn't want discussing. Lesbian relationships, real or imagined, are not what is referred to here.
    Alex Salmond in his speech today refers to the matters not to be discussed in court which the defence wanted put before the court. He also said all will be revealed in time. 
    It's politics, Steve, nobody cares about lesbian relationships. It's the machiavellian plotting and the usual tactic to bring down those seen as troublesome, sexual allegations. This time it backfired and there really will be a price to pay for the plotters.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 12:58:AM
There was an intimation that she had conducted a lesbian relationship with one of the plaintiffs.

Now where are my three posts..
   I also suspect that there will be a flurry of legal letters to many publications after their "reporting" of proceedings. That probably explains where your posts are.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 01:52:AM
    But I want to make one thing quite clear. This is not a case where the major accusations failed because of the difficulty of proving what happened with two people alone in a room. In such cases it is often right to feel real and profound sorrow for the accuser with no means of proof. This was a case where there was very real evidence, from third party after third party, of certain accusers telling definite and deliberate lies. A case where eye witnesses stated categorically that claimed events did not happen. A case where eye witnesses testified people were not physically present when claimed. A case where witnesses testified that reports had not been made, and policies not instituted, as claimed by the prosecution.

A limited amount of evidence was also heard of some of the accusers conspiring together with others, including through a Whatsapp group created for the specific purpose, to fabricate and forward those lies. The vast bulk of evidence on this specific issue of conspiracy was excluded by the court both in pre-trial hearings and by dismissal of witnesses or evidence in the trial itself but, as Alex Salmond indicated from the court steps, will be out in due time.

It is also important to note that two thirds of the accusers – and indeed precisely those two thirds who were involved in lies, fabrications and conspiracy – were and are senior members of the SNP, very much part of the party machine, very much close to the leadership and especially involved in the non-independence related agenda that has taken over the party. With one exception, they are in highly paid party nominated jobs now with the tab picked up by the taxpayer. What we learned in the trial about careerism and self-promotion among those earning a very fat living out of the party’s current domination of Scottish politics was really very unedifying indeed.

That a party which has such a wonderful and committed membership – a membership who make me proud to be a member alongside them – should play host to a parasitic and highly paid professional elite with no discernible interest in Independence is a truly remarkable phenomenon. What we saw revealed in court was a procession of members of the political class who would just have happily have made their careers in the old corrupt Scottish Labour Party if it was still in charge. A major, major clearout is needed.

    Steve, the above from Craig Murray today may offer the insight that currently evades you.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 24, 2020, 05:47:AM
    But I want to make one thing quite clear. This is not a case where the major accusations failed because of the difficulty of proving what happened with two people alone in a room. In such cases it is often right to feel real and profound sorrow for the accuser with no means of proof. This was a case where there was very real evidence, from third party after third party, of certain accusers telling definite and deliberate lies. A case where eye witnesses stated categorically that claimed events did not happen. A case where eye witnesses testified people were not physically present when claimed. A case where witnesses testified that reports had not been made, and policies not instituted, as claimed by the prosecution.

A limited amount of evidence was also heard of some of the accusers conspiring together with others, including through a Whatsapp group created for the specific purpose, to fabricate and forward those lies. The vast bulk of evidence on this specific issue of conspiracy was excluded by the court both in pre-trial hearings and by dismissal of witnesses or evidence in the trial itself but, as Alex Salmond indicated from the court steps, will be out in due time.

It is also important to note that two thirds of the accusers – and indeed precisely those two thirds who were involved in lies, fabrications and conspiracy – were and are senior members of the SNP, very much part of the party machine, very much close to the leadership and especially involved in the non-independence related agenda that has taken over the party. With one exception, they are in highly paid party nominated jobs now with the tab picked up by the taxpayer. What we learned in the trial about careerism and self-promotion among those earning a very fat living out of the party’s current domination of Scottish politics was really very unedifying indeed.

That a party which has such a wonderful and committed membership – a membership who make me proud to be a member alongside them – should play host to a parasitic and highly paid professional elite with no discernible interest in Independence is a truly remarkable phenomenon. What we saw revealed in court was a procession of members of the political class who would just have happily have made their careers in the old corrupt Scottish Labour Party if it was still in charge. A major, major clearout is needed.

    Steve, the above from Craig Murray today may offer the insight that currently evades you.
I'm still not sure why this is the case. The "he said she said" scenario is always the most difficult to prove. I'm sorry if I got hold of the wrong end of the stick as far as Nicola Sturgeon was concerned. We have to acknowledge the verdict of the jury, who sat through the whole trial and the totality of the evidence. I'm just not sure the reason why nine women would lie in court when Mr. Salmond was out of the SNP mainstream and surely no threat to Nicola Sturgeon's leadership of the party.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 24, 2020, 09:13:AM

Now where are my three posts..

I restored them immediately after I posted about the acquittals.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 12:26:PM
I'm still not sure why this is the case. The "he said she said" scenario is always the most difficult to prove. I'm sorry if I got hold of the wrong end of the stick as far as Nicola Sturgeon was concerned. We have to acknowledge the verdict of the jury, who sat through the whole trial and the totality of the evidence. I'm just not sure the reason why nine women would lie in court when Mr. Salmond was out of the SNP mainstream and surely no threat to Nicola Sturgeon's leadership of the party.
    It wasn't a case of he said, she said. It was they plotted, conspired and lied. Fishing texts, around 400 were sent out fishing for allegations. Alleged victims were shown not to be even present when supposed to be and incidents were deliberately misconstrued. The tactic is to have so many similar accusations and innuendo that the hard of thinking assume they must all be true. You fell for it and now discuss it as if you are informed. Scratch below the surface, show some curiosity and you would be surprised.
    Read the full accounts of the proceedings, including the defence. The verdict was totally expected by those following the trial, it wasn't expected by those who only read MSM. the accusations should never have made it to court.
    This is just the beginning of the story, all will be revealed in time.
   
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: David1819 on March 24, 2020, 01:22:PM
    It wasn't a case of he said, she said. It was they plotted, conspired and lied. Fishing texts, around 400 were sent out fishing for allegations. Alleged victims were shown not to be even present when supposed to be and incidents were deliberately misconstrued. The tactic is to have so many similar accusations and innuendo that the hard of thinking assume they must all be true. You fell for it and now discuss it as if you are informed. Scratch below the surface, show some curiosity and you would be surprised.
    Read the full accounts of the proceedings, including the defence. The verdict was totally expected by those following the trial, it wasn't expected by those who only read MSM. the accusations should never have made it to court.
    This is just the beginning of the story, all will be revealed in time.
   

Do you think the same applies to Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstien?
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 24, 2020, 02:44:PM
Do you think the same applies to Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstien?

theres a slight diffrence they were convicted.

and cosby more or less admited guilt.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: David1819 on March 24, 2020, 03:02:PM
theres a slight diffrence they were convicted.

and cosby more or less admited guilt.

Last I heard about Cosby, he was appealing.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 03:38:PM
Do you think the same applies to Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstien?
    There is no comparison to be made between the cases.
    Salmond has been the victim of political dirty tricks which failed. There are going to be huge repercussions and people involved will be exposed. This is not a speculative opinion. Salmond himself told us this on the court steps yesterday.
    It is noticeable that the believe women brigade don't believe the numerous women who testified that the allegations were untrue and that the supposed victim of an attempted rape was not even present when the alleged offence took place.
    None of these women were even cross examined by the prosecution despite the fact that their evidence was, by definition, untrue if the allegations were true. Not challenged. The evidence given left to stand without challenge.
    Some people lied in the trial. This is certainly true because all accounts cannot simultaneously be true. The jury of 15 reduced to 13 and made up of 8 women and 5 men in Edinburgh which is a unionist stronghold and not Salmond friendly territory found on the evidence presented that the accusers were lying. This was without being able to see the plotting texts and messages that were not to be discussed or seen, but will be in good time.
     Salmond was rightfully cleared. Those who conspired in this failed conspiracy have yet to face their reckoning. 
Title: Re: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 04:35:PM
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.
   I suggest that first of all you acquaint yourself with the Moorov Doctrine. In a nutshell, it is a rule in Scottish Law that witnesses corroborate each other if a course of conduct is established.
     A political rival makes an allegation of attempted rape. Evidence presented and unchallenged in court proves that she wasn't there.
     Texts and messages are sent out to hundreds of women who had worked with Salmond asking about their contacts with him. What you call the multiple assaults of a sexual nature, after this epic fishing expedition, were in fact a small handful of exaggerated and invented claims designed to convince the easily convinced that there is no smoke without fire. The sheer number of them makes them true and the easily led have no need to know the details of the individual charges or the Moorov Doctrine.
     
Title: Re: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 24, 2020, 05:04:PM
   I suggest that first of all you acquaint yourself with the Moorov Doctrine. In a nutshell, it is a rule in Scottish Law that witnesses corroborate each other if a course of conduct is established.
     A political rival makes an allegation of attempted rape. Evidence presented and unchallenged in court proves that she wasn't there.
     Texts and messages are sent out to hundreds of women who had worked with Salmond asking about their contacts with him. What you call the multiple assaults of a sexual nature, after this epic fishing expedition, were in fact a small handful of exaggerated and invented claims designed to convince the easily convinced that there is no smoke without fire. The sheer number of them makes them true and the easily led have no need to know the details of the individual charges or the Moorov Doctrine.
   
In what sense was she a political rival? Do you really think he could make a comeback at 65-years-old? I have read what is available online about the case and it wasn't proven that Witness H wasn't present at the dinner at Bute House-in fact the unnamed celebrity stated that she was there, in contradiction to the Defence witness who didn't see her that evening and who also claimed she had told her she wouldn't be there in a telephone conversation.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I wonder why so many witnesses would lie on oath? Of course this "horseplay" or invading other women' space could be interpreted differently if you're a bloke, but the attempted rape allegation stands alone in its seriousness.
Title: Re: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 05:27:PM
In what sense was she a political rival? Do you really think he could make a comeback at 65-years-old? I have read what is available online about the case and it wasn't proven that Witness H wasn't present at the dinner at Bute House-in fact the unnamed celebrity stated that she was there, in contradiction to the Defence witness who didn't see her that evening and who also claimed she had told her she wouldn't be there in a telephone conversation.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I wonder why so many witnesses would lie on oath? Of course this "horseplay" or invading other women' space could be interpreted differently if you're a bloke, but the attempted rape allegation stands alone in its seriousness.
   There are plenty of political rivalries within parties, Steve. One of the allegations came only after Alex Salmond recommended another candidate to stand as SNP prospective MP. Years after the alleged event and after saying that it would be great to work with Alex again. After being overlooked she remembered a years old never previously mentioned allegation. Gordon Jackson, Salmonds QC, was correct when he said, "It stinks". Political direction and strategies are constantly disagreed on. The number was pathetic given the number of fishing messages. The unnamed actor was not allowed to be cross examined. Their concoction was a pack of lies and proven to be so.
    Salmond still has a weekly show on RT and is a constant thorn in the side of the UK establishment. I would not write a comeback. Whatever your opinion of Alex Salmond, he is a very effective and persuasive politician. A bit too effective for the liking of some.
    Your continued insinuations of his guilt are inappropriate.
Title: Re: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 24, 2020, 05:39:PM
   There are plenty of political rivalries within parties, Steve. One of the allegations came only after Alex Salmond recommended another candidate to stand as SNP prospective MP. Years after the alleged event and after saying that it would be great to work with Alex again. After being overlooked she remembered a years old never previously mentioned allegation. Gordon Jackson, Salmonds QC, was correct when he said, "It stinks". Political direction and strategies are constantly disagreed on. The number was pathetic given the number of fishing messages. The unnamed actor was not allowed to be cross examined. Their concoction was a pack of lies and proven to be so.
    Salmond still has a weekly show on RT and is a constant thorn in the side of the UK establishment. I would not write a comeback. Whatever your opinion of Alex Salmond, he is a very effective and persuasive politician. A bit too effective for the liking of some.
    Your continued insinuations of his guilt are inappropriate.
Didn't he say he should have been more careful about their space? Why did he tell Ms F a story about a penis? He is a sex pest if nothing else.
Title: Re: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 05:55:PM
Didn't he say he should have been more careful about their space? Why did he tell Ms F a story about a penis? He is a sex pest if nothing else.
   Why did Ms. F retell the tale later with much joviality, if it constituted some nefarious intent when AS told it? Why do you ignore the context that he related the same tale to all visitors to Bute House when showing them around, male and female? What is this story, Steve, that constitutes the label of sex pest so we can all judge? Do you know, or is the fact that it had a penis in it the extent of your knowledge?
    Saying that you should be more careful of people's space means what, exactly, in your imagination?
    It's just innuendo.
    Calling him a sex pest is probably libellous.
     
 
Title: Re: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 24, 2020, 06:03:PM
   Why did Ms. F retell the tale later with much joviality, if it constituted some nefarious intent when AS told it? Why do you ignore the context that he related the same tale to all visitors to Bute House when showing them around, male and female? What is this story, Steve, that constitutes the label of sex pest so we can all judge? Do you know, or is the fact that it had a penis in it the extent of your knowledge?
    Saying that you should be more careful of people's space means what, exactly, in your imagination?
    It's just innuendo.
    Calling him a sex pest is probably libellous.
   
As I say you have to put yourself in the position of these women, probably overawed by Mr. Salmond's status and not wishing to rock the boat. It's quite common for allegations of abuse not to be reported at the time. If a victim after a passage of time feels that there's a chance of being believed then that's the time they are more likely to come forward.

As for the Alex Salmond innuendo, I'll leave that to your imagination as to what he would have liked to have happened with these women.
Title: Re: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 06:13:PM
As I say you have to put yourself in the position of these women, probably overawed by Mr. Salmond's status and not wishing to rock the boat. It's quite common for allegations of abuse not to be reported at the time. If a victim after a passage of time feels that there's a chance of being believed then that's the time they are more likely to come forward.

As for the Alex Salmond innuendo, I'll leave that to your imagination as to what he would have liked to have happened with these women.
  I think Craig has answered this (to some extent). The allegations were never intended to fall into the hands of Polis Scotland.
The allegations were to be held in a file in SNP headquarters, to be used only if Salmond attempted a comeback. This aspect is clear from the testimony in Court. If Salmond submitted himself as a candidate, headquarters would contact the branch and warn of “worrisome allegations in secret files”.
The stories were shoddily flung together with repeated use of curious wording among the conspirators (shots of wine) because they weren’t supposed to be forensically dissected in a Court of Law.
The existence of the conspiracy in the form of the Whatsapp group was only uncovered by the Polis when the conspirators phones were examined (I don’t know how Craig is sure of this aspect). When the Polis uncovered the internal SNP allegations, the conspirators were compelled to stand by them or face possible repercussions.
In short, the conspirators were too clever by half.
Genius has its limitations, stupidity is not thus encumbered.

     The above is a comment from Craig Murray blog today by a commenter calling him/herself Vivion O'Blivion and should offer some clues as to what you are missing.
     A jury with a majority of women in a city against independence found AS not guilty.
     
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 06:36:PM
     The messages which couldn't be discussed in court because they weren't from a complainer. Who do you think sent them? What is their content?
     Who is Nicola Sturgeon married to? What is his position in the SNP?
     Not saying that they are connected, just some questions that spring to mind.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 24, 2020, 09:34:PM
     The messages which couldn't be discussed in court because they weren't from a complainer. Who do you think sent them? What is their content?
     Who is Nicola Sturgeon married to? What is his position in the SNP?
     Not saying that they are connected, just some questions that spring to mind.

You make very powerful points gringo.  This will not go away and the repercussions of this within the SNP are going to be huge.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 11:06:PM
You make very powerful points gringo.  This will not go away and the repercussions of this within the SNP are going to be huge.
    Thanks, NGB. I have followed with more than a passing interest since the accusations were made. The ultimate aim of this conspiracy was to have AS jailed for a long time. He will respond forcefully and effectively in my view.
    Personally, I have some time for AS but regardless of ones view of him, as I said earlier, he is a very able and effective political operator who scares the shit out of the UK establishment.
    The end of this trial marks the beginning of the real story.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: maggie on March 25, 2020, 09:23:AM
    Thanks, NGB. I have followed with more than a passing interest since the accusations were made. The ultimate aim of this conspiracy was to have AS jailed for a long time. He will respond forcefully and effectively in my view.
    Personally, I have some time for AS but regardless of ones view of him, as I said earlier, he is a very able and effective political operator who scares the shit out of the UK establishment.
    The end of this trial marks the beginning of the real story.
Thanks gringo, very interesting.  Must admit have not followed the case closely for various reasons but am quite open to your thinking, you obviously have followed the case closely.  Many questions to be asked and answered but sure there will be a huge effort to bury the truth with corona virus.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 25, 2020, 03:40:PM
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/03/25/the-trial-of-alex-salmond-what-only-the-jury-knows/
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 26, 2020, 01:35:AM
    There is absolutely nothing of substance in any of your posts on this thread, Steve, just innuendo and articles which are shallow. You are aware of one side of the story, as usual, and only half of that.
   Your innuendo regarding what you refer to as, "a story about a penis" made in an earlier post shows that you care little for facts. I gave you the opportunity to clarify what this tale was but you have declined to do so. The relating of this tale by AS was an example used by you to show the reasoning behind  your un/balanced views that he is,according to you, a sex pest.
   The story is in fact about a drunk (unnamed to us) journalist who was passed out and exposed beneath the picture where the tale was related. Other witnesses made clear that this tale was told to all visitors who AS invariably showed around Bute House whilst relating it's history.
   To reduce the story and context so much that you end up with the sleazy innuendo that you, and others, draw from this says more about you than AS, if you think about it.
   I would say it was a story about a drunk journalist exposing himself unwittingly.
   To you it's a story about a penis.
   Revealing isn't it.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 26, 2020, 01:50:AM
http://archive.is/aDdVn 

    Very enlightening for those interested.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 26, 2020, 08:01:AM
    There is absolutely nothing of substance in any of your posts on this thread, Steve, just innuendo and articles which are shallow. You are aware of one side of the story, as usual, and only half of that.
   Your innuendo regarding what you refer to as, "a story about a penis" made in an earlier post shows that you care little for facts. I gave you the opportunity to clarify what this tale was but you have declined to do so. The relating of this tale by AS was an example used by you to show the reasoning behind  your un/balanced views that he is,according to you, a sex pest.
   The story is in fact about a drunk (unnamed to us) journalist who was passed out and exposed beneath the picture where the tale was related. Other witnesses made clear that this tale was told to all visitors who AS invariably showed around Bute House whilst relating it's history.
   To reduce the story and context so much that you end up with the sleazy innuendo that you, and others, draw from this says more about you than AS, if you think about it.
   I would say it was a story about a drunk journalist exposing himself unwittingly.
   To you it's a story about a penis.
   Revealing isn't it.
You see I don't accept the thrust of the conspiracy argument that these allegations have been made to prevent Alex Salmond from returning to some kind of prominent position in Scottish politics. His career in that domain was effectively over after the No vote in the referendum of 2014. Leaving aside why someone would lie after swearing on the Holy Bible it's the sheer number of allegations by nine separate women which is perturbing. 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 such as a school or factory and I don't see why it's brushed off just because of the position he held.

It's interesting to note that the allegation of rape was the one charge where the "not proven" verdict was returned.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: susan on March 26, 2020, 02:03:PM
Hi Gringo thanks for posting this article I found it very interesting and I cannot wait for his book.  I must add I was delighted he was found "not guilty" some of the evidence I heard was ridiculous. Stay safe my friend.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 26, 2020, 03:39:PM
Hi Gringo thanks for posting this article I found it very interesting and I cannot wait for his book.  I must add I was delighted he was found "not guilty" some of the evidence I heard was ridiculous. Stay safe my friend.
   The book is hotly anticipated, Susan. The evidence was ridiculous because it was never meant to be exposed to the rigorous questioning a trial would bring.
    Questions that remain are why were the SNP leadership sitting on information that was supposedly criminal, but was only to be used if necessary? When would it be necessary? Why, if the allegations were criminal, were they not reported to the police? The case was a shambles and the not guilty verdicts were not unexpected to those following the trial.
    The media, as usual, had their own narrative ready and the reporting was so one sided and biased that it is no surprise that many expected guilty verdicts.
    The jury heard all the evidence. They saw the allegations fall apart, they saw that the prosecution basically conceded the case by having no questions for the defence witnesses, whose accounts could not be true if the accusers were to be believed. All of the defence evidence destroying the credibility and truthfulness of the prosecution allegations. Left to stand, unchallenged. That is conceding defeat but I don't remember the media mentioning any of this.
    The prosecution was in tatters by the end of the trial but none of this was reported impartially by any mainstream media outlet.
    Anyone left clinging to the media narrative still, do so only because they want it to be true.
    Keeping safe, hope you are too.
     
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 26, 2020, 03:40:PM
Thanks gringo, very interesting.  Must admit have not followed the case closely for various reasons but am quite open to your thinking, you obviously have followed the case closely.  Many questions to be asked and answered but sure there will be a huge effort to bury the truth with corona virus.
    Truth is patient, Maggie.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 26, 2020, 07:42:PM
You see I don't accept the thrust of the conspiracy argument that these allegations have been made to prevent Alex Salmond from returning to some kind of prominent position in Scottish politics. His career in that domain was effectively over after the No vote in the referendum of 2014. Leaving aside why someone would lie after swearing on the Holy Bible it's the sheer number of allegations by nine separate women which is perturbing. 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 such as a school or factory and I don't see why it's brushed off just because of the position he held.

It's interesting to note that the allegation of rape was the one charge where the "not proven" verdict was returned.
   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.

     

   
   
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk 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.."
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo 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?
   
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 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.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 29, 2020, 05:56:PM
the slegations sounded a bit bixare when i had a read of them.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo 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.
   
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo 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/



Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug 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.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo 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?
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: maggie 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.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug 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.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug 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
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on April 01, 2020, 10:40:AM
the scum we call journilists.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/sunday-herald-investigates-my-home-and-finances/
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on April 25, 2020, 01:35:PM
there picking on poor old criag now.

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