Jump to content
Trapper John McIntyre

The Trial of Alex Salmond

Recommended Posts

merrymac
On 06/03/2020 at 23:31, Suso Santana said:

Been told they've got him hands down. Going to jail. 

Hands down what would be the question ? 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Gentleman
On 07/03/2020 at 19:14, AlimOzturk said:

Just don't think he is capable of getting a fair trial due to who he is. His political history will surely play a huge part in any of the jurors decision. Sure they can screen them and the judge can issue instructions but that doesnt guarantee no bias. 

 

The.system we have in place is not fit for purpose  

Under Scots law, jurors aren't screened. Obviously they're vetted for eligibility, but not for things like poltical associations etc.

There's lots of peculiarities in Scots Law compared to other countries in the 'Angloshere', who all tend to follow English law influences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable

So that was day 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cruyff

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) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874

Defence is most of it was consensual.

 

And some of it didn't happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dawnrazor

Whats the odds on a "Not Proven" result?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lemongrab
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trapper John McIntyre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboAl
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboAl
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboAl
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
manaliveits105
1 hour ago, Trapper John McIntyre said:

Image

:vrwow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
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.    

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spirt of 98
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
Posted (edited)

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

Edited by Victorian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dawnrazor

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trapper John McIntyre
43 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

:vrwow:

Nicky seems to be absent at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
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? 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dawnrazor
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JackLadd

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboAl
1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

A complainer's uncorroborated answers in court is evidence.    

 

 

But not proof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboAl
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gorgiewave
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XB52
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?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spirt of 98
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gjcc
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboAl
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboAl
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SE16 3LN
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SE16 3LN
Just now, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

I think those days are gone in the Scottish Judiciary. 

Not convinced

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboAl
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy

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
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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...