The Trial of Alex Salmond

[Costanza]

It was sad to see some wanting a prosecution and thus by extension,  wanting women to have been sexually assaulted just to take down a high profile nationalist figure. 

 

Also sad that some folk all over this thread throughout the trial,  seem to lack the cajones to front up when the result hasn't gone their way.

 

The irony is that this decision will actually be more likely to cause major issues in the SNP with Salmond set to sue the Government and statements from Salmond acolytes like Joanna Cherry and the Wings Over Scotland knobhead, suggesting some dark arts at the very highest level of the SNP, including the FM in trying to get Salmond sent down.

[Costanza]

4 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

I don't think anyone wanted women to be sexually assaulted. 

Hmm. So no one wanted him to be guilty? Not the take I took from some posts on this thread.

[JudyJudyJudy]

On 23/03/2020 at 16:53, graygo said:

 

A jury decided that 9 women lied in court so that's what happened. It kind of renders your points redundant.

Exactly he’s been found not guilty / not proven so that’s that . He is legally innocent . I know that many unionists are seething at that verdict ! 

[JudyJudyJudy]

On 23/03/2020 at 17:06, JackLadd said:

 

The jury were either sympathisers, morons or both is my takeaway. I knew fine well they would let him walk, posted as much on Friday. The not guilty verdicts are a disgrace though. 9 woman branded liars because of cult of personality.

You ever been on a jury ? I have . I was on a serous case a few years back . The thing I remember clearly from the judge summing up was that is jurors had to be absolutely certain of the guilt of the accused , no “ maybes “ or “ possibilities” to return a verdict of guilty . Beyond all reasonable doubt . The accused in my case was found not guilty too . I resent you saying the jury were “ morons “ or similar .  Believe me juries go through the evidence with a fine tooth comb and take the matter seriously . 

Edited March 25, 2020 by JamesM48

[ƒιѕнρℓαρѕ]

14 minutes ago, weehammy said:

...and ‘not proven’ on one.

Which is of course one of the two acquittals available in Scotland, wouldn't want anyone suggesting it wasn't an acquittal.

[ri Alban]

4 hours ago, Zlatanable said:

So was this whole thing a deep state operation?

I kinda wish Alex Salmond could just show his evidence now. 

Soon enough. The world is sick ATM, so let's get it well, first.

[JudyJudyJudy]

8 hours ago, Zlatanable said:

Why are you saying 'he’s been found not guilty / not proven' about all this ?

He was found not guilty on 12 charges. 

 

Why are you saying 'not proven'?

 

Apology ?  ! Not proven on one of the charges 

[Space Mackerel]

12 hours ago, JamesM48 said:

You ever been on a jury ? I have . I was on a serous case a few years back . The thing I remember clearly from the judge summing up was that is jurors had to be absolutely certain of the guilt of the accused , no “ maybes “ or “ possibilities” to return a verdict of guilty . Beyond all reasonable doubt . The accused in my case was found not guilty too . I resent you saying the jury were “ morons “ or similar .  Believe me juries go through the evidence with a fine tooth comb and take the matter seriously . 

 

Exactly this.

I sat through 8 days of listening to some horrific child abuse charges and culminating with one charge child rape. We all knew that the guy was guilty but all the evidence was circumstantial, at best. Most jurors were unanimous that he HAD done it but the proof just wasn't there.

He ended up by sticking himself in by taking the stand where he should've shut his mouth, one slip of the tongue sent him down.

[Cruyff]

14 hours ago, JamesM48 said:

You ever been on a jury ? I have . I was on a serous case a few years back . The thing I remember clearly from the judge summing up was that is jurors had to be absolutely certain of the guilt of the accused , no “ maybes “ or “ possibilities” to return a verdict of guilty . Beyond all reasonable doubt . The accused in my case was found not guilty too . I resent you saying the jury were “ morons “ or similar .  Believe me juries go through the evidence with a fine tooth comb and take the matter seriously . 

This is why we have "not proven" and "not guilty" in this Country. Which is as fair as it gets. 

[jambogaza]

5 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

This is why we have "not proven" and "not guilty" in this Country. Which is as fair as it gets. 

 

Mon the Scots law.

[manaliveits105]

Not proven on an attempted rape charge so  he is obviously now da man to lead the country to independence or work under cherry 

budge up Nicky - Alex on the warpath 

[i8hibsh]

59 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

This is why we have "not proven" and "not guilty" in this Country. Which is as fair as it gets. 

 

 

It is horrendous.  "Not proven" will forever leave a cloud of suspicion and you will always be on trial.  It means 'we know you are guilty but we just can't prove it'.  There are so many changes i'd make to Scots law.  My main one is to have a strict statue of limitation in place.  None of this 'He fondled me on the back of a bus on a spring day back in '74 '.

[Norm]

3 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

It is horrendous.  "Not proven" will forever leave a cloud of suspicion and you will always be on trial.  It means 'we know you are guilty but we just can't prove it'.  There are so many changes i'd make to Scots law.  My main one is to have a strict statue of limitation in place.  None of this 'He fondled me on the back of a bus on a spring day back in '74 '.

Ah. So it's OK to sexually assault someone as long as they did it ages ago?

 

"Ach, you auld scamp. The evidence clearly and undeniably shows you raped a shit ton of women/kids/puppies. Lucky for you it was in the 70s though. Off you go, ya wee devil! And stop raping things!" 

[i8hibsh]

Just now, Normthebarman said:

Ah. So it's OK to sexually assault someone as long as they did it ages ago?

 

"Ach, you auld scamp. The evidence clearly and undeniably shows you raped a shit ton of women/kids/puppies. Lucky for you it was in the 70s though. Off you go, ya wee devil! And stop raping things!" 

 

 

Oh ffs no, it is NEVER ok to sexually assault someone.  Jesus christ.

[Norm]

16 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

Oh ffs no, it is NEVER ok to sexually assault someone.  Jesus christ.

But its okay to let sex beasts get away with it if it happened in the 70s?

 

"Sorry about you getting raped, old sport, awful state of affairs. And we'd really like to see the person who raped you get punished, honestly we do. It's just that it happened in the 70s, which is, you know, quite far back. Yes, yes, we know there's a mountain of evidence, witness statements, forensics and so forth but, well, unfortunately, there's nothing we can do. Here's a phone number for some counselling."

Edited March 25, 2020 by Normthebarman

[Cruyff]

13 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

It is horrendous.  "Not proven" will forever leave a cloud of suspicion and you will always be on trial.  It means 'we know you are guilty but we just can't prove it'.  There are so many changes i'd make to Scots law.  My main one is to have a strict statue of limitation in place.  None of this 'He fondled me on the back of a bus on a spring day back in '74 '.

No it isn’t. 

 

It means that it couldn't be proven.

 

How many people are sitting in American prisons with 100 year sentences that are completely innocent because in the eyes of the US system, you are guilty or not guilty?

 

Guilty here means "beyond reasonable doubt". 

 

You cannot send someone to prison on circumstantial evidence. If someone is absolutely guilty there will be enough evidence to convict. 

[AlphonseCapone]

19 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

It is horrendous.  "Not proven" will forever leave a cloud of suspicion and you will always be on trial.  It means 'we know you are guilty but we just can't prove it'.  There are so many changes i'd make to Scots law.  My main one is to have a strict statue of limitation in place.  None of this 'He fondled me on the back of a bus on a spring day back in '74 '.

 

**** off, why would you want that? If someone raped someone 70 years ago then they should absolutely be able to be tried for it if there is subsequently enough to take it to trial. Under your proposed solution, all those cases that were subsequently solved thanks to break throughs in forensic science might not have been able to be closed. 

[i8hibsh]

19 minutes ago, Normthebarman said:

But its okay to let sex beasts get away with it if it happened in the 70s?

 

"Sorry about you getting raped, old sport, awful state of affairs. And we'd really like to see the person who raped you get punished, honestly we do. It's just that it happened in the 70s, which is, you know, quite far back. Yes, yes, we know there's a mountain of evidence, witness statements, forensics and so forth but, well, unfortunately, there's nothing we can do. Here's a phone number for some counselling."

 

 

You don't get it do you? With each year the trial will become more and more distorted.  Eye witnesses die, forget things, people die, evidence can degrade etc etc.  The likelihood of a fair trial after decades are slim to none.  It also forces the victim to act sooner thus making it more likely for justice and no other victims.

[i8hibsh]

15 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

**** off, why would you want that? If someone raped someone 70 years ago then they should absolutely be able to be tried for it if there is subsequently enough to take it to trial. Under your proposed solution, all those cases that were subsequently solved thanks to break throughs in forensic science might not have been able to be closed. 

 

 

Read up on it AC.  Read up on cases regarding it in the States etc.

 

I have.  The benefits are overwhelming.

Edited March 25, 2020 by i8hibsh

[i8hibsh]

Yeah, I want to try this rape case but 5 of the key witnesses are dead and the DNA evidence has degraded so no profile can be found and the building it allegedly happened in is now a football stadium.

 

Edited March 25, 2020 by i8hibsh

[Boris]

1 minute ago, i8hibsh said:

Yeah, I want to try this rape case but 5 of the key witnesses are dead and the DNA evidence has degraded so no profile can be found

 

 

So if no evidence how on earth would it get to court?

 

Hardly a gleaming example of why there should be a statute of limitations...

[ƒιѕнρℓαρѕ]

3 hours ago, weehammy said:

I’m not.

Never said you were, just making sure no-one's thinking otherwise.

 

 

[i8hibsh]

2 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

So if no evidence how on earth would it get to court?

 

Hardly a gleaming example of why there should be a statute of limitations...

 

 

Woooosh

 

It would get to court if it was tried near the time of the fact as all the eye witnesses would have it fresh in their minds, they would be alive and physical evidence would be fresh. Or alleged fact even.

Edited March 25, 2020 by i8hibsh

[i8hibsh]

After 50 years and you have nothing really in regards to eye witness testimony, physical evidence or indeed anything how on earth could anyone justify a sentencing based on it? 

[Boris]

Just now, i8hibsh said:

 

 

Woooosh

 

It would get to court if it was tried near the time of the fact as all the eye witnesses would have it fresh in their minds, they would be alive and physical evidence would be fresh. Or alleged fact.

 

Yeah, I get that, but what has that to do with statutes of limitation?

[Boris]

Just now, i8hibsh said:

After 50 years and you have nothing really in regards to eye witness testimony, physical evidence or indeed anything how on earth could anyone justify a sentencing based on it? 

 

I think you find it hard to get a conviction, doesn't mean there should be a statute of limitation.  There may be cases where there are witnesses, evidence etc  Why shouldn't they be brought to trial?

[i8hibsh]

Just now, Boris said:

 

Yeah, I get that, but what has that to do with statutes of limitation?

 

 

It gives an expiry date.  It says speak up now or no justice shall never be seen.  Why the **** do 100 women come out only once a predator has been ousted.  That just makes it look like a withchunt.  If you speek up straight away you can prevent another person being victimised.

 

It is fair for both parties - the accused and the accuser.

[i8hibsh]

2 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

I think you find it hard to get a conviction, doesn't mean there should be a statute of limitation.  There may be cases where there are witnesses, evidence etc  Why shouldn't they be brought to trial?

 

 

As I said, after each passing year a case gets more hazy and distorted.

[Norm]

15 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

You don't get it do you? With each year the trial will become more and more distorted.  Eye witnesses die, forget things, people die, evidence can degrade etc etc.  The likelihood of a fair trial after decades are slim to none.  It also forces the victim to act sooner thus making it more likely for justice and no other victims.

I think you're the one who doesn't get it. Of course there's historic trials where evidence is flimsy. In those cases, the vast majority of the time people aren't convicted or the trial doesn't go ahead. What you're proposing means even if the evidence is overwhelming that a crime occurred, there's no prosecution because it happened 40-50 years ago. 

[Justin Z]

i8 giving a masterclass in my new axiom for life: "If my view is the polar opposite from i8hibsh, there's a really very decent chance I'm doing the right thing".

[i8hibsh]

I only want this for sexual crime by the way.  

[Justin Z]

Just now, i8hibsh said:

I only want this for sexual crime by the way.  

 

And why, oh why, could that be?

[i8hibsh]

Just now, Justin Z said:

i8 giving a masterclass in my new axiom for life: "If my view is the polar opposite from i8hibsh, there's a really very decent chance I'm doing the right thing".

 

 

Orange man bad

[Justin Z]

Just now, i8hibsh said:

Orange man bad

 

[Norm]

3 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

I only want this for sexual crime by the way.  

Eh? So someone allegedly chores a sweetie from Woolies in the 70s, we should prosecute them? But touch up a lassie and it's nah, we're all good? 

Edited March 25, 2020 by Normthebarman

[leginten]

I’m guessing that someone in Edinburgh is about to bring a case about the serial disappearance of knickers from clothes-lines back in the 1980s.

[i8hibsh]

1 minute ago, Normthebarman said:

Eh? So someone allegedly chores a sweetie from Woolies in the 70s, prosecute them? But touch up a lassie? Nah, we're all good? 

 

 

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, leginten said:

I’m guessing that someone in Edinburgh is about to bring a case about the serial disappearance of knickers from clothes-lines back in the 1980s.

 

Possibly inappropriate behaviour around schoolies in uniforms on several buses throughout the city as well.

[Norm]

Just now, i8hibsh said:

 

 

Did you or did you not just say you would only want a statute of limitations on sex crimes? 

[gjcc]

1 minute ago, leginten said:

I’m guessing that someone in Edinburgh is about to bring a case about the serial disappearance of knickers from clothes-lines back in the 1980s.

I can see it now. “Nicked Nick the Knicker Nicker in poor Nick in the Nick”

[Angry Haggis]

5 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

After 50 years and you have nothing really in regards to eye witness testimony, physical evidence or indeed anything how on earth could anyone justify a sentencing based on it? 

 

Circumstantial evidence? Recent example springs to mind Suzanne Pilley murder case? 

[Justin Z]

Just now, Angry Haggis said:

Circumstantial evidence? Recent example springs to mind Suzanne Pilley murder case? 

 

Good point. Rape/murder though and it's too bad, statute of limitations ran out.

[Norm]

3 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Good point. Rape/murder though and it's too bad, statute of limitations ran out.

No, no, no. You just don't get it, do you? The murderer part can get prosecuted. It's just the rapey part that we can't prosecute. 

Edited March 25, 2020 by Normthebarman

[AlphonseCapone]

28 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

Read up on it AC.  Read up on cases regarding it in the States etc.

 

I have.  The benefits are overwhelming.

 

I've read about the opposite in the states, where evidence comes to light and they can't do anything. 

 

Remember, a case should only go to trial if there is enough evidence.

 

Do you want a limit on all crimes or specific ones? 

[Norm]

1 minute ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I've read about the opposite in the states, where evidence comes to light and they can't do anything. 

 

Remember, a case should only go to trial if there is enough evidence.

 

Do you want a limit on all crimes or specific ones? 

Just the rapey ones, apparently. 

[AlphonseCapone]

There is decades old physical evidence being held all across the world. Who knows what forensic breakthrough could bring those back into play? 

 

Barely anyone saw DNA evidence coming until it did. And it solved so many old cases. Now we take it for granted.

[AlphonseCapone]

1 minute ago, Normthebarman said:

Just the rapey ones, apparently. 

 

😬 Genuinely worried about the potential reasons behind that. 

[Beast Boy]

1 hour ago, i8hibsh said:

strict statue of limitation

Don’t think it’d last too long:

 

[Justin Z]

31 minutes ago, Normthebarman said:

No, no, no. You just don't get it, do you? The murderer part can get prosecuted. It's just the rapey part that we can't prosecute. 

 

 

Read up on it though. He totally knows what he's talking about when it comes to American law.

[AlphonseCapone]

I hope Trapper is OK though, getting worried about his disappearance. 

 

#someonefindtrapper