Jump to content

The Trial of Alex Salmond


Trapper John McIntyre

Recommended Posts

The defence will probably rip that testimony to shreds in cross examination. Very harrowing and probably true but a top lawyer will tear that to smithereens. 

 

However..... Throw away the feckin key, his "special defence" :rofl:= Guilty (imo) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Trapper John McIntyre

    108

  • Space Mackerel

    75

  • Justin Z

    63

  • Beast Boy

    55

Tommy Brown
3 hours ago, Cruyff said:

The defence will probably rip that testimony to shreds in cross examination. Very harrowing and probably true but a top lawyer will tear that to smithereens. 

 

However..... Throw away the feckin key, his "special defence" :rofl:= Guilty (imo) 

 

 

Always liked him.

 

Demon drink and huge ego is most likely giving him a horrible downfall to his respect.

 

Astonishing what politicians believe what they can get away with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Whats the odds on a "Not Proven" result?

A not proven is highly likely.  14 of them on other hand...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Special defence of consent seems a very risky strategy.   Especially since it covers three of the complainers.     It's an admission that some sort of activity took place and also shows a pattern of activity.    The defence depends on the jury believing that consent was present in multiple instances.    High risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trapper John McIntyre
48 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Special defence of consent seems a very risky strategy.   Especially since it covers three of the complainers.     It's an admission that some sort of activity took place and also shows a pattern of activity.    The defence depends on the jury believing that consent was present in multiple instances.    High risk.

More like desperation.

 

The lady, Woman H stuck to her guns and sounded lika a credible witness. A brave person.

 

All ten witnesses/victims can't be lying. The cops and prosecution know what they're doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
1 hour ago, Dawnrazor said:

Whats the odds on a "Not Proven" result?

 

If it was the SPFL Compliance Officer then I'd agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Trapper John McIntyre said:

More like desperation.

 

The lady, Woman H stuck to her guns and sounded lika a credible witness. A brave person.

 

All ten witnesses/victims can't be lying. The cops and prosecution know what they're doing.

 

I think it places a lot of faith in the jury adhering to the instructions to only consider courtroom evidence and not to form opinions and assumptions.    But jurors are people who most likely will form opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trapper John McIntyre
Just now, Victorian said:

 

I think it places a lot of faith in the jury adhering to the instructions to only consider courtroom evidence and not to form opinions and assumptions.    But jurors are people who most likely will form opinions.

 Numbers are numbers. But I'm sure the defence will give it their best....

 

You just have to wonder if there are any more women out there who havent yet came forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Trapper John McIntyre said:

 Numbers are numbers. But I'm sure the defence will give it their best....

 

You just have to wonder if there are any more women out there who havent yet came forward.

 

My own opinion is that his apparent pattern of behaviours indicate more instances.    Unfortunately including a high probability of one or more 'successful' instances of his behaviours.    Something beyond an attempted rape.    I think others may well come forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trapper John McIntyre
Just now, Victorian said:

 

My own opinion is that his apparent pattern of behaviours indicate more instances.    Unfortunately including a high probability of one or more 'successful' instances of his behaviours.    Something beyond an attempted rape.    I think others may well come forward.

 

Keep lawyers in fees for years this could...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Special defence of consent seems a very risky strategy.   Especially since it covers three of the complainers.     It's an admission that some sort of activity took place and also shows a pattern of activity.    The defence depends on the jury believing that consent was present in multiple instances.    High risk.

Surely only the plaintiff and the defendant would know if it were consensual.  A pattern could develop whether or not consent was given.

In other words, in the absence of firm evidence (eg a witness, visual or audio proof etc) to the contrary, it has to be legally wrong to convict him, whether actually guilty or not, unless he pleaded guilty at some stage.  That said, it would be foolishly irresponsible for the Crown to proceed to trial if they did not have something more than victim statements to go on.

It will be interesting to see how things pan out as I reckon the outcome will have consequences for other cases of a similar, or near similar, nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JamboAl said:

Surely only the plaintiff and the defendant would know if it were consensual.  A pattern could develop whether or not consent was given.

In other words, in the absence of firm evidence (eg a witness, visual or audio proof etc) to the contrary, it has to be legally wrong to convict him, whether actually guilty or not, unless he pleaded guilty at some stage.  That said, it would be foolishly irresponsible for the Crown to proceed to trial if they did not have something more than victim statements to go on.

It will be interesting to see how things pan out as I reckon the outcome will have consequences for other cases of a similar, or near similar, nature.

 

Declaring there was consent = he took part in some kind of activity.   He was there.   The complainer was there.    It relies on the jury being convinced that consent was present.

 

A prosecution can proceed without any more than a complainers word against the defendant if there are multiple complainers.    The absence of independent corroborations can be linked together in cross-corroboration via the Moorov principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Victorian said:

 

Declaring there was consent = he took part in some kind of activity.   He was there.   The complainer was there.    It relies on the jury being convinced that consent was present.

 

A prosecution can proceed without any more than a complainers word against the defendant if there are multiple complainers.    The absence of independent corroborations can be linked together in cross-corroboration via the Moorov principle.

When he says it was consensual, he is admitting he was there and that the complainants were also.  Not sure that is an issue.  I doubt if the number of complaints is an issue either.  If they have no firm evidence 10 x 0 is still nothing.

It is a sad day day for Scottish justice if someone is sent to prison based solely on what a juror(s) believe.  In each of the cases it is one person's word against another's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JamboAl said:

When he says it was consensual, he is admitting he was there and that the complainants were also.  Not sure that is an issue.  I doubt if the number of complaints is an issue either.  If they have no firm evidence 10 x 0 is still nothing.

It is a sad day day for Scottish justice if someone is sent to prison based solely on what a juror(s) believe.  In each of the cases it is one person's word against another's

 

I refer you to my second paragraph.    The Moorov principle.    I suggest you read about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

I refer you to my second paragraph.    The Moorov principle.    I suggest you read about it.

I have read it (now) and the Crown may well proceed on that basis.

However, and I am no lawyer, my reading is that where there is evidence of one crime, that may be used to justify a charge/conviction in another case closely linked in time and nature. 

As I said earlier, the Crown would be foolish to proceed unless they have something stronger than victim statements to go on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

I have read it (now) and the Crown may well proceed on that basis.

However, and I am no lawyer, my reading is that where there is evidence of one crime, that may be used to justify a charge/conviction in another case closely linked in time and nature. 

As I said earlier, the Crown would be foolish to proceed unless they have something stronger than victim statements to go on.

 

A complainer's uncorroborated answers in court is evidence.    

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

spirt of 98
1 hour ago, JamboAl said:

I have read it (now) and the Crown may well proceed on that basis.

However, and I am no lawyer, my reading is that where there is evidence of one crime, that may be used to justify a charge/conviction in another case closely linked in time and nature. 

As I said earlier, the Crown would be foolish to proceed unless they have something stronger than victim statements to go on.

The Moorov Doctorine Is used for a series of crime with only one eye witness. Certain crimes generally only have one witness ie rape and domestic violence. 
 

The Police now often review cases where people have been accused multiple times of domestic violence but there was insufficient evidence to charge the accused. The Police the use the Moorov to report theses crimes. One incident the corroborates the other. 
 

Credible witness statements from several unconnected people complaining about one accused committing a similar crime against them is powerful evidence. 

Edited by spirt of 98
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why defence counsel will try to demonstrate collusion or infer it between complainers.

Edited by Victorian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will this be a once in a generation trial or, if he doesn't like the result will he demand another one in a couple of years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trapper John McIntyre
43 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

:vrwow:

Nicky seems to be absent at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
5 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Will this be a once in a generation trial or, if he doesn't like the result will he demand another one in a couple of years?

 I’m still waiting till is okay to stick my private parts in a dead heads pig head? 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trapper John McIntyre
Just now, Space Mackerel said:

 I’m still waiting till is okay to stick my private parts in a dead heads pig head? 
 

 

You mean you haven't tried it yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 I’m still waiting till is okay to stick my private parts in a dead heads pig head? 
 

 

I'm sure with the money you constantly brag about having, you'll find someone to oblige, what about the last guy to to leave the Sexual Nuisance Party for sexual deviance, he'll sort you out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The testimony so far is damning on Salmond. Another 8 woman still to be heard. They're either all liars or Salmond is guilty. I never liked Salmond. A smug arrogant man. I know for a fact he wasn't liked by the staff in Bute House, whereas his predecessor Jack McConnell was well liked. Justice should be served without fear or favour. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spirt of 98 said:

The Moorov Doctorine Is used for a series of crime with only one eye witness. Certain crimes generally only have one witness ie rape and domestic violence. 
 

The Police now often review cases where people have been accused multiple times of domestic violence but there was insufficient evidence to charge the accused. The Police the use the Moorov to report theses crimes. One incident the corroborates the other. 
 

Credible witness statements from several unconnected people complaining about one accused committing a similar crime against them is powerful evidence. 

What you say is obviously sufficient to get the case(s) to Court.

Is it sufficient to achieve a guilty verdict?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JamboAl said:

What you say is obviously sufficient to get the case(s) to Court.

Is it sufficient to achieve a guilty verdict?

 

I don't know the ins and outs of the witness testimony or of the law, but I think the chances of the prosecution having made a schoolboy misunderstanding of what counts as evidence in law, and what's needed for a conviction, is nil. I'd be surprised if they haven't thought of every possible evidential or legal weakness in their case and how to overcome it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Trapper John McIntyre said:

Nicky seems to be absent at the moment.

I know you're loving this trial but you don't honestly expect the FM to be commenting on an ongoing trial do you?? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

spirt of 98
8 hours ago, JamboAl said:

What you say is obviously sufficient to get the case(s) to Court.

Is it sufficient to achieve a guilty verdict?

I would say it is a all that is required is for the Jury to believe guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 
 

If enough unconnected credible witness say an accused did similar things the accused is pretty screwed as the Jury would have no reason to doubt the evidence. I am sure his defence team will do everything possible to defend the case and question the credibility of the evidence  

Edited by spirt of 98
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trapper John McIntyre
1 hour ago, XB52 said:

I know you're loving this trial but you don't honestly expect the FM to be commenting on an ongoing trial do you?? 

  Yes, I'm sure the sudden absence  of her usual wall to wall, morning, noon and night coverage on the BBC and STV can be rationally explained. Maybe she's  looking for Deek Mackay or spending more time with her lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Trapper John McIntyre said:

  Yes, I'm sure the sudden absence  of her usual wall to wall, morning, noon and night coverage on the BBC and STV can be rationally explained. Maybe she's  looking for Deek Mackay or spending more time with her lawyers.


It’s as if there’s been a sudden outbreak of something that’s taken up some more of her time or something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JamboAl said:

What you say is obviously sufficient to get the case(s) to Court.

Is it sufficient to achieve a guilty verdict?

 

Yes.  I've been in a jury that did convict on the basis of the Moorov principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gorgiewave said:

 

I don't know the ins and outs of the witness testimony or of the law, but I think the chances of the prosecution having made a schoolboy misunderstanding of what counts as evidence in law, and what's needed for a conviction, is nil. I'd be surprised if they haven't thought of every possible evidential or legal weakness in their case and how to overcome it.

I agree and that's why I think the prosecution must have more than just statements from the complainants.

In addition, his defence claims alibi against one of the charges.  If that is found to be true, then doubt starts to appear in the prosecution case even if one swallow does not make a summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

I agree and that's why I think the prosecution must have more than just statements from the complainants.

In addition, his defence claims alibi against one of the charges.  If that is found to be true, then doubt starts to appear in the prosecution case even if one swallow does not make a summer.

 

No.    The complainers individually provide answers to questions in court and that becomes evidence that the jury deliberates on.    This is quite sufficient for a jury to decide a verdict on each given indictment.     They will also need to decide whether or not the Moorov principle is something to apply in their deliberations.    Then otherwise uncorroborated evidence can be cross-corroborated to reach a guilty verdict on one or more indictments.     

 

The special defence of alibi on one indictment will not necessarily impact on the other indictments,   should that indictment ultimately be not guilty.    But it could cast a lot of doubt and influence the jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

No.    The complainers individually provide answers to questions in court and that becomes evidence that the jury deliberates on.    This is quite sufficient for a jury to decide a verdict on each given indictment.     They will also need to decide whether or not the Moorov principle is something to apply in their deliberations.    Then otherwise uncorroborated evidence can be cross-corroborated to reach a guilty verdict on one or more indictments.     

 

The special defence of alibi on one indictment will not necessarily impact on the other indictments,   should that indictment ultimately be not guilty.    But it could cast a lot of doubt and influence the jury.

I would hope so if I were an innocent person in the dock.

While not doubting your point about the multiplicity factor, I look at the case of the ex Newcastle player(Nile Ranger) who was found not guilty as eventually it came down to his word or the complainant's as to whether the act was rape or consensual.  Although that was a single case, in an English court and alcohol was involved, I cannot see the fairness just because more than one person complains.  IMO a case should be decided on something more substantive than the balance of probability in a juror's judgment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh

Personally I think trial by a jury of your peers passed it's sell by date a long time ago. I believe it should be a panel of three judges or sheriffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Personally I think trial by a jury of your peers passed it's sell by date a long time ago. I believe it should be a panel of three judges or sheriffs. 

Depends if you're in the lodge or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
Just now, SE16 3LN said:

Depends if you're in the lodge or not.

 

I think those days are gone in the Scottish Judiciary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

I think those days are gone in the Scottish Judiciary. 

Not convinced

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
1 minute ago, SE16 3LN said:

Not convinced

 

Lots of senior RC's in the Judiciary nowadays. Too many for it to be a haven for Masons. Of course they'll still be there no doubt but is the whole Masonic thing not dying a death? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JamboAl said:

I would hope so if I were an innocent person in the dock.

While not doubting your point about the multiplicity factor, I look at the case of the ex Newcastle player(Nile Ranger) who was found not guilty as eventually it came down to his word or the complainant's as to whether the act was rape or consensual.  Although that was a single case, in an English court and alcohol was involved, I cannot see the fairness just because more than one person complains.  IMO a case should be decided on something more substantive than the balance of probability in a juror's judgment.

 

 

It's not really any more potentially unsafe as a complaint corroborated in a statement and in court by a third party witness,   if that witness has not told a true and accurate account of it.     This could be for a variety of reasons.     Seemingly independent corroboration can very easily by something very different in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

It's not really any more potentially unsafe as a complaint corroborated in a statement and in court by a third party witness,   if that witness has not told a true and accurate account of it.     This could be for a variety of reasons.     Seemingly independent corroboration can very easily by something very different in reality.

IMO if a judgment is potentially unsafe, the accused should NOT be found guilty.  Culpability should be beyond question, as, apart from a possible prison sentence, the accused's reputation will be lost or doubted for ever if it turns out he was in fact innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A senior official in the Scottish Government has told day three of the Salmond trial how the former First Minister kissed her on the lips and touched her chest and buttocks when they were working together.Woman A said in 2008, there was a four-week period when she would meet the First Minister almost every day. 

“He would come to greet me, giving the impression he was going to give me a kiss on the cheek and he would normally end up kissing me on the lips.”

Advocate depute Alex Prentice QC asked; “Did you encourage that?”

Woman A also described how Mr Salmond sometimes put his hand on her back and slid it to the side of her chest or to her buttocks.

She said: “I remember he put his hand on my back walking along the street and slid it down to be on my bum and left it there.”

Mr Prentice asked if she believed it was accidental or deliberate.

She said: “I took the view it was deliberate. I had been around other politicians and no one else dd it. There was no need for it.”

She said she had not told Mr Salmond to stop touching her.

She said: “I liked my job, I wanted to do my job well. I didn’t know him very well. He was the most powerful man in the country. I didn;t know what would happen if I said ‘Get off’. I had experienced some volatile mood swings.”


https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmond-trial-woman-claims-former-first-minister-gave-her-very-sloppy-kisses-2447147
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JamboAl said:

IMO if a judgment is potentially unsafe, the accused should NOT be found guilty.  Culpability should be beyond question, as, apart from a possible prison sentence, the accused's reputation will be lost or doubted for ever if it turns out he was in fact innocent.

 

In practice you can never have a completely safe verdict when it's arrived at from witness evidence.    The verdict is simply a judgement of who is being believed and who isn't.     People give false and / or inaccurate evidence to the police and in court all the time.    A jury member is tasked to decide if a defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.    If a juror decides that prosecution witness evidence is compelling enough to be believed then they'll tend to vote guilty.

 

Seemingly independent corroboration adds a lot of weight to witness evidence but it isn't guaranteed to be truthful or accurate.    People lie and some are very convincing.     People recall details really poorly and some are convinced they're 100% sure.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

In practice you can never have a completely safe verdict when it's arrived at from witness evidence.    The verdict is simply a judgement of who is being believed and who isn't.     People give false and / or inaccurate evidence to the police and in court all the time.    A jury member is tasked to decide if a defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.    If a juror decides that prosecution witness evidence is compelling enough to be believed then they'll tend to vote guilty.

 

Seemingly independent corroboration adds a lot of weight to witness evidence but it isn't guaranteed to be truthful or accurate.    People lie and some are very convincing.     People recall details really poorly and some are convinced they're 100% sure.     

 

As once illustrated by our science teacher at school when one of the other teachers ran in and started shouting about something, had a quick argument with our teacher, and then ran out again. Our teacher turned around to us and said "Ok, grab a piece of paper. Now... what colour hair did the guy have? Was he wearing glasses? What were the first words out of his mouth? etc.". Now, this was us with fresh memories of the incident. It was eye-opening how wrong many of us were about the simple facts of what had just happened.

 

On the other hand, if something traumatic happens to you, perhaps a more proper image of the moment is etched in your memory, I have no idea. The only thing I know, as illustrated by that lesson, is that folk's memories of events can be rather dodgy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

As once illustrated by our science teacher at school when one of the other teachers ran in and started shouting about something, had a quick argument with our teacher, and then ran out again. Our teacher turned around to us and said "Ok, grab a piece of paper. Now... what colour hair did the guy have? Was he wearing glasses? What were the first words out of his mouth? etc.". Now, this was us with fresh memories of the incident. It was eye-opening how wrong many of us were about the simple facts of what had just happened.

 

On the other hand, if something traumatic happens to you, perhaps a more proper image of the moment is etched in your memory, I have no idea. The only thing I know, as illustrated by that lesson, is that folk's memories of events can be rather dodgy.

 

Absolutely.    One can believe a clear memory of something is beyond any doubt and it can easily turn out to be very different.    I think details can be mixed up or scrambled without one's belief in the memory becoming weaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...