East Lothian Jambo Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 4 hours ago, Trapper John McIntyre said: Todays character witness for the defence...(under investigation for financial impropriety involving a trust fund set up to help a vulnerable person) Has she been struck off by Law Society yet? As stupid as she is horrible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 Still waiting on a peep about this trial on the MSM. *achooooooo 😁😁😁 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 I have to admit i can’t stand that Tasmina Sheikh woman. Opportunist and seriously untrustworthy imo. Would sell her own mother for a bit of the limelight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flecktimus Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-8/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Lothian Jambo Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 4 hours ago, jack D and coke said: I have to admit i can’t stand that Tasmina Sheikh woman. Opportunist and seriously untrustworthy imo. Would sell her own mother for a bit of the limelight. In fairness she's very principled lady. Only ever been a member of Tories, Labour & SNP. Very single minded in her political ideology Salmond is scraping the barrel if that's what he feels stands between liberty and the pokey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SE16 3LN Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 21 minutes ago, East Lothian Jambo said: In fairness she's very principled lady. Only ever been a member of Tories, Labour & SNP. Very single minded in her political ideology Salmond is scraping the barrel if that's what he feels stands between liberty and the pokey 😀 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 50 minutes ago, East Lothian Jambo said: In fairness she's very principled lady. Only ever been a member of Tories, Labour & SNP. Very single minded in her political ideology Salmond is scraping the barrel if that's what he feels stands between liberty and the pokey Do you normally get jailed for touching someone on the face? Or the arm or the leg? The attempted rape is her word against his as far as I can see. Im not saying he did or he didn’t but surely you don’t go to jail for my word against yours? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Lothian Jambo Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 11 minutes ago, jack D and coke said: Do you normally get jailed for touching someone on the face? Or the arm or the leg? The attempted rape is her word against his as far as I can see. Im not saying he did or he didn’t but surely you don’t go to jail for my word against yours? I'm commenting on TAS as a character witness If there is no conviction there will questions asked about how this situation came to trial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 39 minutes ago, East Lothian Jambo said: I'm commenting on TAS as a character witness If there is no conviction there will questions asked about how this situation came to trial Ah ok👍🏼 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 19, 2020 Author Share Posted March 19, 2020 5 hours ago, East Lothian Jambo said: Prosecutor invites jury to convict Salmond Mr Prentice told the jury: “I invite you to convict Alexander Salmond of all that is on the indictment.” Mr Prentice said: “This case is not about plot and political conspiracy. “It’s about a powerful man who abused his power to satisfy his sexual desires with impunity.” He said the women who gave evidence against him were “reliant on an abuser for opportunities and career development”. Mr Prentice said Salmond “intimidated, humiliated, degraded and created an offensive environment”. He described the women as “courageous” who spoke out about the “abusive conduct of the former first minister”. He said they had to “put up” with Salmond’s behaviour to “keep the employment they so dearly loved”. Mr Prentice said Woman A told how she “came to expect” the behaviour from Salmond where he kissed her on the lips. He said that was a “pretty sad indictment of what was going on”. Mr Prentice said witnesses had described Salmond as a “tactile person”. He said: “It’s not a licence to grope women.” Mr Prentice said “people who commit crimes of all sorts generally try to avoid” witnesses. He cited Salmond reaching out to touch the hair of Woman D in a lift when his hand was batted away by a male civil servant. Mr Prentice said there was an “emerging pattern of brazen conduct”. He added: “(Salmond) did it because he could.” Mr Prentice said there was an “ongoing course of conduct” with the “common theme” of a “sexual predator with escalating gravity”. Mr Prentice is discussing the allegations around Woman F. Salmond is accused of assault with intent to rape her in a bedroom at Bute House. The prosecutor remarked upon her evidence that Salmond said, ‘Get on the bed’. Mr Prentice said they were “really chilling words”. He asked if it was a “consensual” encounter, which Salmond told the court it was, then “why would she tell anyone?” He said she’d told colleagues about it and Salmond apologised to her. Mr Prentice has raised the notion that there was a “conspiracy to prevent Mr Salmond from returning to politics”. He asked: “What was the purpose of this conspiracy? Who was to gain by it?” Mr Prentice said the accusers were both SNP party members and career civil servants. He said Salmond had said he didn’t plan to return to politics Mr Prentice said “power and sexual gratification are not necessarily separate in my submission”. He said “these women effectively had no one to turn to” and “they felt they could not speak out and expose what had been taking place”. Addressing the jury, he added: “They do now.” Mr Prentice invited the jury to convict Salmond of the charges. The prosecutor ended his submission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milky_26 Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 11 minutes ago, weehammy said: Mentions of Petrocelli and Perry Mason in here reveal the age of certain posters. Today’s prize goes to the first to give the names of the actors who played these giants of the courtroom (without looking up Wiki) raymond burr for perry mason i think, dont know petrocelli Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 19, 2020 Author Share Posted March 19, 2020 17 minutes ago, milky_26 said: raymond burr for perry mason i think, dont know petrocelli Barry Newman? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 19, 2020 Author Share Posted March 19, 2020 1 minute ago, Zlatanable said: So is that the trial finished, and the jury are doing their thing now? His defence does his closing speech tomorrow then its up to the jury Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 33 minutes ago, Trapper John McIntyre said: Barry Newman? Is the correct answer. He is still building his hoose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 7 hours ago, East Lothian Jambo said: In fairness she's very principled lady. Only ever been a member of Tories, Labour & SNP. Very single minded in her political ideology Salmond is scraping the barrel if that's what he feels stands between liberty and the pokey She'll maybe pick-up Alex's show on Russia TV, if he ends up in the clink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Lothian Jambo Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 7 minutes ago, Yoda said: She'll maybe pick-up Alex's show on Russia TV, if he ends up in the clink. Heard her interviewed a few times by Andrew Neil. She's a grotesque individual Hasn't got a clue what she is. Always crawling up Nippy's crack. Think that ship has sailed for her Maybe she'll become a Tory again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Lothian Jambo Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 I see Mrs Salmond was in court today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Lothian Jambo Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 14 minutes ago, Trapper John McIntyre said: His defence does his closing speech tomorrow then its up to the jury Tin Pale? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Jambo Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 He could get sent down for 5 years and it will be lucky to make the 6 o’clock news at all. Any other time this is all we would hear about and instead most folk forget it’s going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Jambo Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 Just now, Zlatanable said: He also could be found 'not guilty' etc. The jury haven't deliberated yet. Either way it won’t make the news Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 34 minutes ago, Trapper John McIntyre said: His defence does his closing speech tomorrow then its up to the jury The other thing before the jury is that the judge will address the jury. That can include advising which charges are still to be considered. Also whether a majority decision is acceptable. Retrial anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 I'm going for a not proven verdict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Fredrickson Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 1 hour ago, weehammy said: Mentions of Petrocelli and Perry Mason in here reveal the age of certain posters. Today’s prize goes to the first to give the names of the actors who played these giants of the courtroom (without looking up Wiki) Did he ever get his house finished? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malinga the Swinga Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 27 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said: The other thing before the jury is that the judge will address the jury. That can include advising which charges are still to be considered. Also whether a majority decision is acceptable. Retrial anyone? The judges direction was the most complicated piece of the trial I was on jury for. Took about 3 hours and a lot of concentration and so hard to understand the small but important points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 29 minutes ago, John Findlay said: I'm going for a not proven verdict. Ah, the SFA Compliance Officer involved then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Fredrickson Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 9 minutes ago, Zlatanable said: 'His wife Maggie and he lived in a house trailer in the country while waiting for their new home to be built (it was never completed over the course of the series).' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrocelli ( it lasted 2 series) Only 2 series? That and Starsky & Hutch seemed to be on every week when I was wee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malinga the Swinga Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 4 minutes ago, Carl Fredrickson said: Only 2 series? That and Starsky & Hutch seemed to be on every week when I was wee Took turns with Cagney & Lacey, Ironside and Kojak. We're on Saturday nights before Sportscene. Youngsters don't know what they are missing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 19, 2020 Author Share Posted March 19, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, East Lothian Jambo said: Tin Pale? Prentice summing up was pretty good and the fact Eck's old mate Alex Bell, a defence witness, made a damning comment about being worried about a woman who was alone with Salmond may prove significant. I believe all nine women. Why would they lie? But its up to the jury. Edited March 19, 2020 by Trapper John McIntyre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flecktimus Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 3 hours ago, weehammy said: Mentions of Petrocelli and Perry Mason in here reveal the age of certain posters. Today’s prize goes to the first to give the names of the actors who played these giants of the courtroom (without looking up Wiki) Perry Mason : Ironside Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
been here before Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 17 hours ago, Space Mackerel said: Still waiting on a peep about this trial on the MSM. *achooooooo 😁😁😁 You cant have been looking too hard... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c4lkkjr9k12t/alex-salmond-case https://news.stv.tv/tag/alex-salmond-trial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 19, 2020 Author Share Posted March 19, 2020 1 minute ago, weehammy said: Also remembered for the great original version of Vanishing Point. He was in The Limey with Terence Stamp too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Mackerel Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 11 hours ago, been here before said: You cant have been looking too hard... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c4lkkjr9k12t/alex-salmond-case https://news.stv.tv/tag/alex-salmond-trial I don't read BBC propaganda and I haven't watched STV since Gladiators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 On 18/03/2020 at 15:41, Justin Z said: Haha Jesus, what is it with you and outdated American television references? A defence lawyer will do whatever is necessary to zealously defend their client, as they are ethically bound to do. Dannie Boy's statement is the correct way to interpret all of this. You can be all the things those witnesses have described, and still be lecherous and potentially, to an unlawful extent. It's up for the jury to decide if that's so in any particular case, but to simply disregard the need to boost your client's character to the jury, using witnesses who will describe positive and neutral behaviour they saw, would be gross malpractice. Defence lawyers and ethics ...... in the same sentence. their "job" is to get their client off, not see that justice is done. nowt ethical about that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambogaza Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 Is there reasonable doubt? That's the threshold for each charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 20, 2020 Author Share Posted March 20, 2020 Salmond is back in the dock in front of the jury as the trial resumes. Gordon Jackson QC, acting for Salmond, has begun his closing speech. Mr Jackson referred to Woman H’s evidence that she “wished the first minister was a better man” as she wouldn’t have to be here. The QC said it was “true” and in some sense if Salmond was a better man then himself and the jury “wouldn’t be here”. Mr Jackson said he wasn’t here to suggest Salmond “couldn’t have been a better man”. He added: “That would be a waste of my time.” Mr Jackson said if was about whether Salmond was guilty of “serious, sometimes very serious, criminal charges”. Mr Jackson said Woman F - whom Salmond is accused of assaulting with intent to rape - provides the “most obvious example where his behaviour was not good”. He said Salmond isn’t accused of not being a “better man”, or that he “behaved inappropriately”, or that he “should have known better”, but that he “intended to rape her”. Mr Jackson said they were both fully clothed with their feet on the floor and Salmond said ‘good night’ after she got up and went to leave. He added: “How they turned into intent to rape - don’t ask me.” Mr Jackson said the prosecution “never pinpointed a day” in May 2014 when Woman H was at Bute House when Salmond is accused of assaulting her. He said Salmond told how he and Woman H had a “bit of how’s your father before then”. Salmond is accused of attempting to rape her in June 2014 at Bute House after a dinner. Mr Jackson said a businesswoman gave evidence that she didn’t see Woman H at the meal. He added: “She said, categorically, she wasn’t there.” Mr Jackson said politics was a “murky, murky world”. He referred to women making allegations against Salmond who had been in contact with each other. The QC added: “There’s something going on but I can’t prove it - I can smell it.” Mr Jackson referred to Woman C and the charge where Salmond is accused of touching her leg in a car. He said he didn’t believe it happened. But such behaviour would be considered “inappropriate” from Salmond. He said it was “never thought to be anything criminal at all and, hey presto, it’s a crime in this indictment.” Mr Jackson referred to the allegation that Salmond touched the backside of Woman K. He described it as a charge to “bolster” the two charges which are “serious” - the intent to rape and attempted rape - which are “rubbish”. He added: “This is scary.” Mr Jackson moved on to Woman G whose backside Salmond allegedly touched in a restaurant. He said it was moving from the “comparatively trivial to the very”. Mr Jackson is discussing the evidence of Woman A and suggested there was “something devious” and “something not that straightforward”. Woman A was communicating with other accusers of Salmond, he said. Mr Jackson said he didn’t know what her role was, but there was “something that didn’t smell right”. Mr Jackson told the jury “please draw the line between being a bit inappropriate” and “serious sexual crimes”. Mr Jackson said “nobody is above the law” but “equally” it was true that “no one is below the law”. Salmond, he said, was “entitled not to be convicted of anything unless there was clear evidence”. The QC said Salmond was the “Marmite man” in politics and he would be surprised if the jurors didn’t have an opinion of him as a politician. But the allegations against him had been going on for a long time and it was “time to bring it to an end” Judge Lady Dorrian is addressing the jury. Lady Dorrian said the jury could decide whether witnesses were “truthful or untruthful, accurate or mistaken”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 20, 2020 Author Share Posted March 20, 2020 So according to the defence, the 'victims' are part of a conspiracy to bring down Eck. Why? He doesn't know. But something smells. What? He doesn't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 Noteworthy that no senior SNP politician, past or present, gave evidence in the trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 6 minutes ago, jambos are go! said: Noteworthy that no senior SNP politician, past or present, gave evidence in the trial. All too busy trying to work out how to pretend the policy of "no women solo working with Eck" was either 1- OK 2- deniable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 20, 2020 Author Share Posted March 20, 2020 5 minutes ago, jambos are go! said: Noteworthy that no senior SNP politician, past or present, gave evidence in the trial. Its the kind of trial where if he's found guilty, there may be more women out there who may now come forward. If not, they'll stay silent. If its Not Proven, its a bad as guilty. Hopefully the SNP will tear each other to shreds either way. Scotland's shame and embarrassment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 20, 2020 Author Share Posted March 20, 2020 1 minute ago, doctor jambo said: All too busy trying to work out how to pretend the policy of "no women solo working with Eck" was either 1- OK 2- deniable Exactly. As the defence guys says, it stinks alright. Stinks of an SNP cover up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Trapper John McIntyre said: Exactly. As the defence guys says, it stinks alright. Stinks of an SNP cover up. no matter the verdict- if you had people aware of what was going on and putting in place policies to minimise the chance of someone raping/molesting people when you had a strong suspicion that it was going on - then that is criminal, regardless of their political persuasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 20, 2020 Author Share Posted March 20, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, doctor jambo said: no matter the verdict- if you had people aware of what was going on and putting in place policies to minimise the chance of someone raping/molesting people when you had a strong suspicion that it was going on - then that is criminal, regardless of their political persuasion. Lets hope the jury take this into account. From what I was able to see there was nothing recorded when the defence was presenting their witnesses that there was any mention of this policy. There may have been when the reporters were ordered to stop taking notes. Who knows. Edited March 20, 2020 by Trapper John McIntyre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 20, 2020 Author Share Posted March 20, 2020 Jury on lunch till 1,50pm then they start deliberations. Eck's arse will be flapping... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 2 hours ago, doctor jambo said: Defence lawyers and ethics ...... in the same sentence. their "job" is to get their client off, not see that justice is done. nowt ethical about that Everything ethical about ensuring that every individual subjected to the criminal justice system is competently and zealously represented, actually. That all procedures required by law, when the full force of the state is wrought against an individual, are followed, to the letter. That's the definition of seeing justice done in a free society. I realise some people would prefer the Soviet approach, gulags included, I much prefer the way we do it in our various countries with a shared legal heritage, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 1 hour ago, Trapper John McIntyre said: So according to the defence, the 'victims' are part of a conspiracy to bring down Eck. Why? He doesn't know. But something smells. What? He doesn't know. They have hinted at some political conspiracy but haven't been clear. Collusion is suggested. But Police interview witnesses separately. They gave their evidence in court separately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 5 minutes ago, Justin Z said: Everything ethical about ensuring that every individual subjected to the criminal justice system is competently and zealously represented, actually. That all procedures required by law, when the full force of the state is wrought against an individual, are followed, to the letter. That's the definition of seeing justice done in a free society. I realise some people would prefer the Soviet approach, gulags included, I much prefer the way we do it in our various countries with a shared legal heritage, thanks. What, when you know someone is guilty trying to eke out a technicality? Difference between representing someone, and trying to get them off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, doctor jambo said: What, when you know someone is guilty trying to eke out a technicality? Difference between representing someone, and trying to get them off Incorrect. If the state is guilty of breaking the law in attempting to deprive said person of their right to freedom, how in the world is that "eking out a technicality"? That is the definition of holding the government and machinery of a so-called free society to account. If said government and machinery don't want criminals walking free, they need to follow the ****ing procedures put in place to protect the rights of everyone, guilty and not guilty alike. The intent of these procedures is to entitle everyone to a complete and zealous representation of their interests when they are pitted against the full force of the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 Maybe not anything new Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Caine Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 56 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said: They have hinted at some political conspiracy but haven't been clear. Collusion is suggested. But Police interview witnesses separately. They gave their evidence in court separately. I suspect this will end with either a full acquittal or `Not proven` verdicts. Alternative is time inside and a listing on the Sex Offenders register. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Lothian Jambo Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 (edited) Something not right with his insinuation that charges have been brought against him for political motive. Its probable, indeed quite likely that some of the alleged victims have similar political views to Mr Salmond Of course the reality is the political beliefs of the women he has allegedly attacked are irrelevant. Appears a pitiful attempt on part of AS to act as a diversion tactic I expect this will end in acquittal or not proven outcome Edited March 20, 2020 by East Lothian Jambo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3,388
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.