Jump to content
Trapper John McIntyre

The Trial of Alex Salmond

Recommended Posts

Victorian
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.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redjambo
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SE16 3LN

I hope to god all ten woman are misleading the courts because the picture they are painting is shocking.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboAl
15 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.     

I agree if the evidence comes from a 3rd party but when the witness and the victim are one and the same person I feel that is, or should be, a different matter.

I would not be happy with corroborative evidence being a decisive factor when it comes from another (alleged, at this stage) victim.  To reiterate, and bearing in mind everyone is innocent until PROVED guilty, I think there needs to be something more substantive before we send someone to prison.

BTW I am not saying you are wrong in law nor am I seeking to make any case on Salmond's behalf.  If he is proved to be guilty he deserves to go down.  If however he goes down and he is in fact innocent as charged, that cannot be right.

Share this post


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

I agree if the evidence comes from a 3rd party but when the witness and the victim are one and the same person I feel that is, or should be, a different matter.

I would not be happy with corroborative evidence being a decisive factor when it comes from another (alleged, at this stage) victim.  To reiterate, and bearing in mind everyone is innocent until PROVED guilty, I think there needs to be something more substantive before we send someone to prison.

BTW I am not saying you are wrong in law nor am I seeking to make any case on Salmond's behalf.  If he is proved to be guilty he deserves to go down.  If however he goes down and he is in fact innocent as charged, that cannot be right.

 

I get what you're saying but the other point is that seemingly independent corroboration is not necessarily much better than a cross-corroborated acceptance of individuals' word against a defendant.     Each instance of independent corroboration is different to another.    One example might be a direct,  close quarters,  eye-witness account to corroborate a complaint.     Another might be something less concrete.    A split second glimpse.    A partially obscured glance.    A sound heard.     There is a spectrum of different types of eye(ear) witness accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
weehammy
3 hours ago, SE16 3LN said:

I hope to god all ten woman are misleading the courts because the picture they are painting is shocking.  

The Gang of Ten!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deodato
On 07/03/2020 at 11:11, manaliveits105 said:

Not just his reputation but anyone who worked closely with him 

That's a lot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable
Posted (edited)
On 07/03/2020 at 11:30, jack D and coke said:

That’s pretty much exactly what I reckon might happen such is the divide now. 
I mean could you imagine Tripper on the jury or a few other of the rabid unionists on here?  
Hes guilty already as far they’re concerned and someone in a high place has already told Suso he’s defo going down likesay :lol: 

But wouldn't that work the other way too?

 

edit- #SNPBad for instance

Edited by Zlatanable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke
4 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

But wouldn't that work the other way too?

 

edit- #SNPBad for instance

That’s pretty much what I said man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable
3 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

That’s pretty much what I said man. 

ok.

It's just you phrased it solely from your, side in your comment. (I thought you meant people who believed in Scottish Independence are pure, clean and honest. And people who disagree with Scottish independence were biased, corrupt and stupid. or something like that)

 

I also think Scotland has divided, and that division is about Scottish Independence. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboAl
5 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

I get what you're saying but the other point is that seemingly independent corroboration is not necessarily much better than a cross-corroborated acceptance of individuals' word against a defendant.     Each instance of independent corroboration is different to another.    One example might be a direct,  close quarters,  eye-witness account to corroborate a complaint.     Another might be something less concrete.    A split second glimpse.    A partially obscured glance.    A sound heard.     There is a spectrum of different types of eye(ear) witness accounts.

I think we know all of that.  I'm merely saying that evidence from a 3rd party is likely to carry more weight but substantive evidence can come in other forms as well eg a hidden camera, a tape recording etc.

I may add that I do not know AS, I have never voted for or against him:  I am merely amazed that anyone can be sent down simply on this basis ie only AS and the alleged victim were present in each case (unless the court learns otherwise) and so it is  one person's word against another's as to whether each act was consensual.  I also wonder why it took so long for the complaints to come to light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Del Monty
9 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

I think we know all of that.  I'm merely saying that evidence from a 3rd party is likely to carry more weight but substantive evidence can come in other forms as well eg a hidden camera, a tape recording etc.

I may add that I do not know AS, I have never voted for or against him:  I am merely amazed that anyone can be sent down simply on this basis ie only AS and the alleged victim were present in each case (unless the court learns otherwise) and so it is  one person's word against another's as to whether each act was consensual.  I also wonder why it took so long for the complaints to come to light.

Do you think the same about Weinstein?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke
6 hours ago, Zlatanable said:

ok.

It's just you phrased it solely from your, side in your comment. (I thought you meant people who believed in Scottish Independence are pure, clean and honest. And people who disagree with Scottish independence were biased, corrupt and stupid. or something like that)

 

I also think Scotland has divided, and that division is about Scottish Independence. 

 

 

 

No I didn’t I highlighted his comment about No voters desperate to see he was guilty and Yes voters desperate for him not to be. 
I have never anywhere suggested, even once that indy supporters and what you say and unionists the opposite. 
You could say Scotland is divided about the union. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboAl
9 hours ago, Del Monty said:

Do you think the same about Weinstein?

 

Haven't followed that case very closely but what happens legally in USA is not necessarily parallel to UK law (or Scots Law).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i8hibsh

I absolutely despise the guy and he is poles apart to where I stand politically and we see the world very differently.  That been said I hope he gets a fair trial which in this modern age is not a sure thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian

My god,   talking about peoples' recollections of things and the way their minds operate earlier... I'm currently dealing with a loon who is adamant there's something missing off a piece of equipment my company just repaired.    Something I know for a fact does not even exist.   He says it does and was present when handed to us.    The diagram for it shows no such thing.    Another example of the same piece of equipment has no such thing.    I know why he thinks there's a missing piece but he cannot be convinced.    Closed mind.    Absolutely 100% convinced.

 

He now demands we source and replace the missing component.    That doesn't exist.

 

A perfect example of why witness testimony is not necessarily really worth much.    

 

Good luck to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z
11 hours ago, Zlatanable said:

ok.

It's just you phrased it solely from your, side in your comment. (I thought you meant people who believed in Scottish Independence are pure, clean and honest. And people who disagree with Scottish independence were biased, corrupt and stupid. or something like that)

 

I also think Scotland has divided, and that division is about Scottish Independence. 

 

 

You would interpret perfectly clear, reasonable language in that way.

 

Perhaps you should reflect on why that is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
weehammy

The Mrs tells me any woman would be hot for a ‘sloppy kiss’ from fat Alex’.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trapper John McIntyre

Prosecutor Alex Prentice QC asked Woman F about her earlier comment that going to police about the alleged December 2013 bedroom incident would’ve been “completely unthinkable”.

He asked her why.

Woman F said she didn’t want to “risk the outcome of the referendum” on Scottish independence.

If the incident “got into the public domain”, she said, it could’ve been used against the government and had an impact on the vote.

She said: “I felt a huge responsibility.”

Woman F said she didn’t want her own “personal” position to influence the referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trapper John McIntyre

Woman G said: “A lot of allowances were made for Mr Salmond due to the volatility of his nature.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trapper John McIntyre

Gordon Jackson says these were things that were “thought of as nothing at the time”, which years later have become a “criminal thing”. Woman G says they were serious enough so staffing arrangements were changed so women were not allowed to work alone with Alex Salmond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horatio Caine

Is AS's wife attending this trial?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian

Prosecution have done a good job so far in demonstrating the patterns of behaviour and the similarities in the details of each instance and of how Salmond was viewed in terms of his character.    They'll be very pleased with the testimony given.     Defence have skirted around the margins in trying to discredit the claims.    A bit half-arsed tbh.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dawnrazor
1 minute ago, Victorian said:

Prosecution have done a good job so far in demonstrating the patterns of behaviour and the similarities in the details of each instance and of how Salmond was viewed in terms of his character.    They'll be very pleased with the testimony given.     Defence have skirted around the margins in trying to discredit the claims.    A bit half-arsed tbh.    

Where are you getting this information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
1 minute ago, Dawnrazor said:

Where are you getting this information?

 

The reports and direct quotes in the public domain.     :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dawnrazor
Just now, Victorian said:

 

The reports and direct quotes in the public domain.     :)

 

👍 sounds like you were there😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
Just now, Dawnrazor said:

👍 sounds like you were there😁

 

No I've just read the quoted questions and answers.    I think the prosecution are well on top at this stage.    Defence haven't laid a glove on the witnesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboAl
7 hours ago, Victorian said:

My god,   talking about peoples' recollections of things and the way their minds operate earlier... I'm currently dealing with a loon who is adamant there's something missing off a piece of equipment my company just repaired.    Something I know for a fact does not even exist.   He says it does and was present when handed to us.    The diagram for it shows no such thing.    Another example of the same piece of equipment has no such thing.    I know why he thinks there's a missing piece but he cannot be convinced.    Closed mind.    Absolutely 100% convinced.

 

He now demands we source and replace the missing component.    That doesn't exist.

 

A perfect example of why witness testimony is not necessarily really worth much.    

 

Good luck to me.

Salmond must be guilty then if this guy's recollection re the missing part is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
Just now, JamboAl said:

Salmond must be guilty then if this guy's recollection re the missing part is wrong.

 

That's a rather silly comment.    It's an analogy that shows just how ludicrously wrong a memory can be.    I'm sure that was patently obvious to most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboAl
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

That's a rather silly comment.    It's an analogy that shows just how ludicrously wrong a memory can be.    I'm sure that was patently obvious to most.

It was obviousto me that it was meant to be an analogy but I thought almost irrelevant.  I apologise if i offended you.

In that instance you claim to be right and probably are as you have substantive evidence

1. The part does not exist

2.  The diagram supports your case.

Would you agree?

Edited by JamboAl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
24 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

It was obviousto me that it was meant to be an analogy but I thought almost irrelevant.  I apologise if i offended you.

In that instance you claim to be right and probably are as you have substantive evidence

1. The part does not exist

2.  The diagram supports your case.

Would you agree?

 

It shows how utterly convinced people can be in their recollection.    It is relevant.    I raised it as it was a topic from earlier in the thread and the query happened today.    It was a coincidence that the two occured close together.

 

Just forget it if you think it's irrelevant.    No big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian

As another example,    I reckon about maybe half a dozen times we have been told with complete conviction that we have returned the wrong item to people.    We take careful precautions to ensure this is impossible and can prove the items do belong to people.    None of that can convince those persons because they've already made up their minds on the matter.    It's quite incredible when you attempt to walk people through the process of assuring them of the facts and they just shut down.    Refuse to look at screens,  paperwork,  the item.       Scary behaviour.

Share this post


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

 

It shows how utterly convinced people can be in their recollection.    It is relevant.    I raised it as it was a topic from earlier in the thread and the query happened today.    It was a coincidence that the two occured close together.

 

Just forget it if you think it's irrelevant.    No big deal.

With respect it may have assisted in showing how memory may be questionable but surely that would apply to the "victims" as well as anyone else and more so with the time gap between the alleged incident(s) and the police approach.

Your analogous case seemed to be settled by 2 decisive factors

1. The part does not exist

2.  The diagram supports your case.

These factors allow judgment to be made on substantive evidence rather than "you said/he said" verbal tennis with the more plausible and convincing person winning..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trapper John McIntyre
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Dawnrazor said:

👍 sounds like you were there😁

If you're a Twitterati, look up Philiip Sim of the BBC. He posts direct testimony as it happens.  The Daily Record Live also posts direct. 

 

Seeing some of the stuff coming through is both fascinating and utterly appalling.

 

I agree with Vic. Eck's briefs are relying on the 'it was just a friendly cuddle' line of defence. 

 

This is 2020 Thank God.

Edited by Trapper John McIntyre

Share this post


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

With respect it may have assisted in showing how memory may be questionable but surely that would apply to the "victims" as well as anyone else and more so with the time gap between the alleged incident(s) and the police approach.

Your analogous case seemed to be settled by 2 decisive factors

1. The part does not exist

2.  The diagram supports your case.

These factors allow judgment to be made on substantive evidence rather than "you said/he said" verbal tennis with the more plausible and convincing person winning..

 

Good lord.    I'm not even concerned re my example.  I KNOW the outcome of that as it should be straightforward to deal with.    Thar was not the point.    Again... the point is about the person's recollection of the appearance of the item.    Hopelessly wrong,   yet utterly convinced.

 

I agree about your point re the victims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dawnrazor
1 minute ago, Trapper John McIntyre said:

If you're a Twitterati, look up Philiip Sim of the BBC. He posts direct testimony as it happens.  The Daily Record Live also posts direct. 

 

Seeing some of the stuff coming through is both fascinating and utterly appalling.

 

I agree with Vic. Eck's briefs are relying on the 'it was just a friendly cuddle' line of defence. 

 

This is 2021 Thank God.

I'm not on Twitter but the wife is, I'll get her to look it up👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trapper John McIntyre
1 minute ago, Dawnrazor said:

I'm not on Twitter but the wife is, I'll get her to look it up👍

Slight typo in the date there. Fixed it in the original post.

 

Must be the excitement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboAl
8 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Good lord.    I'm not even concerned re my example.  I KNOW the outcome of that as it should be straightforward to deal with.    Thar was not the point.    Again... the point is about the person's recollection of the appearance of the item.    Hopelessly wrong,   yet utterly convinced.

 

I agree about your point re the victims.

Your point is about recollection and you agree it applies equally to the accuser, victim and 3rd parties.  That in itself takes us no further forward so we need something more substantial to achieve a fair settlement.  Yes/No?

Share this post


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

Your point is about recollection and you agree it applies equally to the accuser, victim and 3rd parties.  That in itself takes us no further forward so we need something more substantial to achieve a fair settlement.  Yes/No?

 

No.   The law provides the ability to convict as described much earlier in the thread.     I agree that testimony from both sides can be deeply flawed but it can be enough to convict.    Even if there is no independent corroboration for each victim's claim.     

 

Should that be enough to convict?    I don't know but the law says it is.    It's a very robust legal system and must have been very carefully considered by highly learned people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horatio Caine
31 minutes ago, Trapper John McIntyre said:

If you're a Twitterati, look up Philiip Sim of the BBC. He posts direct testimony as it happens.  The Daily Record Live also posts direct. 

 

Seeing some of the stuff coming through is both fascinating and utterly appalling.

 

I agree with Vic. Eck's briefs are relying on the 'it was just a friendly cuddle' line of defence. 

 

This is 2020 Thank God.

They stayed up according to Salmond's team.  It was just the trousers that were down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trapper John McIntyre
11 minutes ago, Horatio Caine said:

They stayed up according to Salmond's team.  It was just the trousers that were down.

The very image of a statesman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diadora Van Basten

I wouldn’t like to be judged by a jury. 
 

The one I was on changed it’s verdict completely after reviewing a piece of evidence they had already seen which was pretty inconclusive.

Share this post


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

 

No.   The law provides the ability to convict as described much earlier in the thread.     I agree that testimony from both sides can be deeply flawed but it can be enough to convict.    Even if there is no independent corroboration for each victim's claim.     

 

Should that be enough to convict?    I don't know but the law says it is.    It's a very robust legal system and must have been very carefully considered by highly learned people.

If that is the case then so be it but IMO it is unfair that anyone should be convicted on the balance of probability by a jury.

 

Re your last sentence, I would prefer a fair system to a robust one (whatever "robust" means in context) and it is a totally flawed system if even one person loses his/her liberty and reputation by a majority of a randomly selected section of the community, no matter how highly learned the people are who have considered it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
manaliveits105

Is there a woman K ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874
21 hours ago, Horatio Caine said:

Is AS's wife attending this trial?

 

The lady in the middle behind his lawyer 

 

 

IMG_20200313_132059.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trapper John McIntyre

Woman J said Salmond “disappeared“ at one point and returned wearing “casual clothes”.

She said he was wearing “light-coloured chinos” and a “sports jumper”.

Woman J said she went to the toilet and when she returned to the sitting room Salmond was “lying on the floor” and working on a speech.

She said: “I froze actually. I was very taken aback.”

The witness said Salmond asked her to join him on the floor.

She went onto the floor but left a “distance” between them.

Woman J said: “There was no way I was going to lie next to him.

Woman J said “out of the blue” Salmond asked her “have you seen that zombie movie?”

She said she was “taken aback” as she “didn’t have a clue what he was talking about”.

He didn’t name the film.

She said Salmond stood and said “get up”.

Woman J said Salmond “stretched his arms out towards me for a second or two and did an impression of a zombie walking towards me.”

Woman J said Salmond put his hands on her shoulders.

She said he kissed her cheek then “moved me again” to kiss the other cheek.

The witness said: “Then he leaned in to kiss me on the lips.”

She said she then broke his hold with her arms.

Woman J said she was in “complete shock” and agreed she felt “frightened.”

She said Salmond went into his study, acting like nothing had happened.

Woman J said Salmond said they would work on paperwork in his study.

The witness said she wanted to leave but “I didn’t feel I could”.

In the study, she said she commented that it was cold.

She said Salmond responded she “shouldn’t have bare legs”.

The witness said she replied she was wearing tights.

She said Salmond said: “‘Oh yes’ and put his hand on my leg”.

She said she felt “shocked”.

Woman J said Salmond told her he was going to bed.

She told the court she had needed to continue working.

She said Salmond suggested she could “stay over”.

The witness said: “I thought there was no way in hell I was staying over.

“I just said thanks but I’ll need to get myself home.”

She said Salmond left the room.

She finished her work and left Bute House.

Woman J said she felt “quite emotional” about what had happened.

The next day she woke up and felt like she’d had a “nightmare”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tynieman

Christ, the details coming out certainly don’t look great for Salmond.

 

if it turns out to be true, it really goes to show that you really don’t know someone’s true character until you’re behind closed doors.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horatio Caine
36 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

The lady in the middle behind his lawyer 

 

 

IMG_20200313_132059.jpg

The lady on the left is his sister.  The caption says the lady behind is a `supporter`.  Mrs S must be at least in her eighties and possibly older.

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...