The Trial of Alex Salmond

[Justin Z]

12 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

As for the statute of limitations , you do know that it can take decades for people who have been abused to finally have the courage to disclose ?? Educate yourself a bit 

 

Zero desire within him to do that, only to reinforce what he already thinks.

[AlphonseCapone]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Innocence doesn't need to be proven, you're innocent right up until you're proven guilty.

If guilt can't be proven there should only be one possible verdict IMHO, not guilty.

 

I'm not sure if this is controversial or not but I'd opt for two verdicts, proven or not proven. I know in reality that's just new labels for guilty or not guilty but I think it better describes what a court and jury are trying to determine, has the crown proven their case or not. 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

1 hour 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.

Any pervert that's done this should be branded across their forehead.

[Justin Z]

6 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I'm not sure if this is controversial or not but I'd opt for two verdicts, proven or not proven. I know in reality that's just new labels for guilty or not guilty but I think it better describes what a court and jury are trying to determine, has the crown proven their case or not. 

 

Are there not different procedural rules regarding not proven and not guilty verdicts? I believe a not proven case can be brought again without restriction, whereas a not guilty verdict, there must be substantially new/important evidence introduced.

 

That's not to say I don't like your idea, 'cause I do, but there are practicalities to consider.

[davemclaren]

4 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Are there not different procedural rules regarding not proven and not guilty verdicts? I believe a not proven case can be brought again without restriction, whereas a not guilty verdict, there must be substantially new/important evidence introduced.

 

That's not to say I don't like your idea, 'cause I do, but there are practicalities to consider.

I don’t think the retrial thing is correct. 

[Justin Z]

Just now, davemclaren said:

I don’t think the retrial thing is correct. 

 

Okay thanks. I'll have a look.

[AlphonseCapone]

4 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Are there not different procedural rules regarding not proven and not guilty verdicts? I believe a not proven case can be brought again without restriction, whereas a not guilty verdict, there must be substantially new/important evidence introduced.

 

That's not to say I don't like your idea, 'cause I do, but there are practicalities to consider.

 

Legally it means exactly the same as not guilty but what you've described is a common misconception;

 

https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-jury-research-fingings-large-mock-jury-study-2/pages/8/

 

 

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Legally it means exactly the same as not guilty but what you've described is a common misconception;

 

https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-jury-research-fingings-large-mock-jury-study-2/pages/8/

 

 

Cool, thanks for finding that for me. While I was doing my own reading, I read that the way you've just outlined is how Scots law used to work, but a lawyer by the name of Robert Dundas successfully argued that juries had an ancient right to find not just "proven" and "not proven" verdicts but also a "not guilty" verdict. The trial was for murder and the facts showed the accused had killed the man, but also that he had done so accidentally, and ultimately the jury returned a verdict of "not guilty" for the first time in apparently a long time.

 

Interesting stuff.

 

Anyway, given that there's no procedural issues to deal with, and as long as you wouldn't have situations like the one described above, I like your idea.

[AlphonseCapone]

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

Cool, thanks for finding that for me. While I was doing my own reading, I read that the way you've just outlined is how Scots law used to work, but a lawyer by the name of Robert Dundas successfully argued that juries had an ancient right to find not just "proven" and "not proven" verdicts but also a "not guilty" verdict. The trial was for murder and the facts showed the accused had killed the man, but also that he had done so accidentally, and ultimately the jury returned a verdict of "not guilty" for the first time in apparently a long time.

 

Interesting stuff.

 

Anyway, given that there's no procedural issues to deal with, and as long as you wouldn't have situations like the one described above, I like your idea.

 

Ah that's interesting, cheers for that Justin, wasn't aware of the history of it. 

[JamesM48]

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

Zero desire within him to do that, only to reinforce what he already thinks.

Agree 

[Smithee]

4 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I'm not sure if this is controversial or not but I'd opt for two verdicts, proven or not proven. I know in reality that's just new labels for guilty or not guilty but I think it better describes what a court and jury are trying to determine, has the crown proven their case or not. 

I'd prefer 2 verdicts myself, but proven and not proven amount to exactly the same as guilty and not guilty IMO - the case was proven/not proven, so the accused was guilty/not guilty

[Mikey1874]

Going to take some calm heads and control to stop an all out civil war in the SNP. 

 

Those thinking Unionists lost here might need to review that. 

 

Maybe Joanna Cherry and Nicola Sturgeon can sit down and sort it out. 

[BarneyBattles]

7 hours 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 '.

A ‘statue’ of limitations 😂. The rest of your post is just as silly. 

[redjambo]

17 minutes ago, BarneyBattles said:

A ‘statue’ of limitations 😂. The rest of your post is just as silly. 

 

[Zlatanable]

 

[Space Mackerel]

2 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

Going to take some calm heads and control to stop an all out civil war in the SNP. 

 

Those thinking Unionists lost here might need to review that. 

 

Maybe Joanna Cherry and Nicola Sturgeon can sit down and sort it out. 

Why’s that? 

[jack D and coke]

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

41 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

 

[East Lothian Jambo]

14 hours ago, Zlatanable said:

 

Bell is pulling no punches. This has hardly even begun  

[luckydug]

22 hours ago, Cruyff said:

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. 

Just my opinion but I have always felt that if we abolished the 'not proven' verdict surely the jury would be more likely to aquit. After all not proven means that the prosecution have been unable to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise there is the danger of convicting someone who has not been proved to be guilty. 

[ri Alban]

3 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Just my opinion but I have always felt that if we abolished the 'not proven' verdict surely the jury would be more likely to aquit. After all not proven means that the prosecution have been unable to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise there is the danger of convicting someone who has not been proved to be guilty. 

Did they not used to be able to try you again, with more evidence, under not proven? 

[The Mighty Thor]

3 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

 

Still no sign? 🤔

[Cruyff]

48 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Just my opinion but I have always felt that if we abolished the 'not proven' verdict surely the jury would be more likely to aquit. After all not proven means that the prosecution have been unable to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise there is the danger of convicting someone who has not been proved to be guilty. 

It also means that the defence couldn't prove they were completely innocent. 

 

It maybe doesn't look good in a sex trial but if this were a murder trial and it was merely a case of a black or white, guilty or not guilty, then someone could be found guilty by a Jury for something that was "not proven" by the Prosecution as Guilty beyond reasonable doubt and "not proven" by the Defence as Innocent beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Of course, not proven attaches a suspicion of guilt but not guilty is an acquittal and clearance of charges. 

 

You simply cannot send folk to Jail for years upon years if there is doubt. That is why America has probably thousands of innocent folk in jail because they don't have a verdict like not proven. Jury's are therefore more likely to convict if the evidence leans towards guilty or better arguments are made by the prosecution even if the evidence against the defence is circumstantial, to the point in this Country that it may not even make it to court. 

 

Not proven could also be used where someone is suspected of being guilty, evidence has been heard but found at a later date to be contaminated or in admissible due to Police mistakes etc... But yet, Jury's have heard this evidence and therefore have already formed an opinion based on that. 

 

Now, I don't know if this is true or not but I think "not proven" was originally part of the old double jeopardy law. So if a Jury came to a verdict of not proven, they could be re-tried. If they came to a verdict of not guilty and then evidence came forward later that they were guilty, they could not be re-tried. 

[jack D and coke]

22 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Still no sign? 🤔

🙏🏼for tripper

[argyjambo]

1 hour ago, Cruyff said:

It also means that the defence couldn't prove they were completely innocent. 

 

It maybe doesn't look good in a sex trial but if this were a murder trial and it was merely a case of a black or white, guilty or not guilty, then someone could be found guilty by a Jury for something that was "not proven" by the Prosecution as Guilty beyond reasonable doubt and "not proven" by the Defence as Innocent beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Of course, not proven attaches a suspicion of guilt but not guilty is an acquittal and clearance of charges. 

 

You simply cannot send folk to Jail for years upon years if there is doubt. That is why America has probably thousands of innocent folk in jail because they don't have a verdict like not proven. Jury's are therefore more likely to convict if the evidence leans towards guilty or better arguments are made by the prosecution even if the evidence against the defence is circumstantial, to the point in this Country that it may not even make it to court. 

 

Not proven could also be used where someone is suspected of being guilty, evidence has been heard but found at a later date to be contaminated or in admissible due to Police mistakes etc... But yet, Jury's have heard this evidence and therefore have already formed an opinion based on that. 

 

Now, I don't know if this is true or not but I think "not proven" was originally part of the old double jeopardy law. So if a Jury came to a verdict of not proven, they could be re-tried. If they came to a verdict of not guilty and then evidence came forward later that they were guilty, they could not be re-tried. 

It''s not the defence''s job to prove innocence, that''s the job of the prosecution. If they can't, then the verdict will be either not guilty or not proven.

[Smithee]

3 hours ago, luckydug said:

Just my opinion but I have always felt that if we abolished the 'not proven' verdict surely the jury would be more likely to aquit. After all not proven means that the prosecution have been unable to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise there is the danger of convicting someone who has not been proved to be guilty. 

Just for the record, Not Proven is an acquittal. 

[Cruyff]

20 minutes ago, argyjambo said:

It''s not the defence''s job to prove innocence, that''s the job of the prosecution. If they can't, then the verdict will be either not guilty or not proven.

🤔

[Normthebarman]

The prosecution have to prove guilt. The defence don't actually have to do anything. 

[ADAM]

They didn't convict him of criminal acts, but accusations of sleazy behaviour stand. His own QC said: "he was old school tactile", "behaved badly & inapporpiately towards women". Salmond is symptomatic of a 70s sex pest attitude towards women, at best he's sleazy. He should be no where near politics.

 

Defending him is like standing up for Trump. They're 'two peas in a pod' in their attitude to women. He's finished politically.

[Dawnrazor]

1 minute ago, ADAM said:

He's finished politically.

I'd like to agree with but I can seen him at the SNP in some capacity.

[SpruceBringsteen]

3 minutes ago, ADAM said:

They didn't convict him of criminal acts, but accusations of sleazy behaviour stand. His own QC said: "he was old school tactile", "behaved badly & inapporpiately towards women". Salmond is symptomatic of a 70s sex pest attitude towards women, at best he's sleazy. He should be no where near politics.

 

Defending him is like standing up for Trump. They're 'two peas in a pod' in their attitude to women. He's finished politically.

 

I'm no a Salmond or SNP fanboy, but I really find it hard to square the argument that because he's a sleazeball that he's finished. If anything it seems to be a massive plus point now.

[JackLadd]

The upshot of the verdict is if no third party witness to gross sexual misconduct in the workplace then no prosecution even if multiple woman are involved, especially if not reported immediately. The one caveat might be if violence is involved that leaves any physical sign of abuse, but overall this verdict could mean open season for serial abusers and fewer cases making it to court. 

[davemclaren]

13 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

The upshot of the verdict is if no third party witness to gross sexual misconduct in the workplace then no prosecution even if multiple woman are involved, especially if not reported immediately. The one caveat might be if violence is involved that leaves any physical sign of abuse, but overall this verdict could mean open season for serial abusers and fewer cases making it to court. 

Unless you heard all the evidence and the judge’s summing up you really can’t assume that. 

[weehammy]

2 hours ago, SpruceBringsteen said:

 

I'm no a Salmond or SNP fanboy, but I really find it hard to square the argument that because he's a sleazeball that he's finished. If anything it seems to be a massive plus point now.

I’m certain he’s not finished, at least as a background manipulator of his disciples, but I can’t see how being exposed as ‘sleazy’ can be considered a plus point!

[JackLadd]

3 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Unless you heard all the evidence and the judge’s summing up you really can’t assume that. 

 

The people celebrating the verdict here are doing so because they are Salmond supporters that wanted him let off. They don't care about the wider consequences for abusers escaping criminal liability for gross sexual misconduct. I don't see how any similar case without witnesses or physical signs of abuse can go to court in Me Naw Scotland. Salmond would have been in jail if he'd been a regular nobody (my opinion), but that the verdict has consequences for future cases is surely fact.

[davemclaren]

16 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

The people celebrating the verdict here are doing so because they are Salmond supporters that wanted him let off. They don't care about the wider consequences for abusers escaping criminal liability for gross sexual misconduct. I don't see how any similar case without witnesses or physical signs of abuse can go to court in Me Naw Scotland. Salmond would have been in jail if he'd been a regular nobody (my opinion), but that the verdict has consequences for future cases is surely fact.

Equally, people were pre-celebrating, for political reasons, that he was going to get convicted. Neither was particularly pleasant to read. Only the jurors know why they didn’t think him guilty after hearing all the evidence and the judge’s summing up of the legal points. I doubt who he was influenced them. 

[East Lothian Jambo]

3 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

I'd like to agree with but I can seen him at the SNP in some capacity.

Not whilst the odd couple retain power at top of SNP 

[Dawnrazor]

2 minutes ago, East Lothian Jambo said:

Not whilst the odd couple retain power at top of SNP 

I think that's who he'll have in his sights, I've obviously nothing to base this on other than a hunch, I don't know him, never met him, I just think he'll be out to prove a point now and he won't be bothered about who he gets rid of.

I would not be surprised in the slightest if in twelve months he's the party leader again. 

[The Real Maroonblood]

44 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

The people celebrating the verdict here are doing so because they are Salmond supporters that wanted him let off. They don't care about the wider consequences for abusers escaping criminal liability for gross sexual misconduct. I don't see how any similar case without witnesses or physical signs of abuse can go to court in Me Naw Scotland. Salmond would have been in jail if he'd been a regular nobody (my opinion), but that the verdict has consequences for future cases is surely fact.

Absolute pish.

[East Lothian Jambo]

24 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

I think that's who he'll have in his sights, I've obviously nothing to base this on other than a hunch, I don't know him, never met him, I just think he'll be out to prove a point now and he won't be bothered about who he gets rid of.

I would not be surprised in the slightest if in twelve months he's the party leader again. 

Rule nothing out. I don't think Sturgeon will be leader in 12 months time 

[Justin Z]

56 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Absolute pish.

 

Indeed. A classic case of somebody being unable to conceptualise that other people will come to different conclusions and act accordingly based on different priorities in life, different ways of thinking, etc.

[SpruceBringsteen]

2 hours ago, weehammy said:

I’m certain he’s not finished, at least as a background manipulator of his disciples, but I can’t see how being exposed as ‘sleazy’ can be considered a plus point!

 

It's done neither Trump nor Johnson the slightest bit of harm is my point...

[ri Alban]

The jury heard every bit of evidence, from every witness and from every witness, they seen every single expression. We read what the Media published. So folk coming to their own conclusions either way, need to stop.

Yes, tripper needs ripped but, in seriousness, this Man's life was put under threat and he'll probably come with a vengeance for whomever did this to him and rightly so.

 

Oh and I'm sure if someone in the newspaper prints otherwise, they'll end up in the dock themselves. 

[The Real Maroonblood]

9 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

Indeed. A classic case of somebody being unable to conceptualise that other people will come to different conclusions and act accordingly based on different priorities in life, different ways of thinking, etc.

Obviously that poster is of the hard of thinking.

There are lots of politicians I don’t particularly like including Salmond.

I certainly wouldn’t  find them guilty of a crime because I didn’t agree with their politics.

[Pans Jambo]

[ri Alban]

[jambos are go!]

Has Salmond showed any repentance for his sleazy behavior? He needs to.

[ri Alban]

Just now, jambos are go! said:

Has Salmond showed any repentance for his sleazy behavior? He needs to.

Get aff yer knees!

[The Real Maroonblood]

19 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

Has Salmond showed any repentance for his sleazy behavior? He needs to.

Dry your eyes.

[The Roller]

27 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

Has Salmond showed any repentance for his sleazy behavior? He needs to.