Salmond v Sturgeon OH told me to shut up I know nothing!!

justasking111 · 2021-02-23T13:17:09+00:00

OH thinks I need educating before I comment to him about this. I said so did 6 women lie on the stand. He said Sturgeon and her partner lied so Salmond is innocent, he was found innocent. Basically was told to shut up until I knew more. So please someone educate me. Am I being unreasonable to question this media storm.

Original poster

justasking111 · 23/02/2021 13:46

Oh well guess you are all as stupidly ignorant as I am. Was hoping someone would know more than my OH

OP posts:

IsurviveonCoffeeandWinein2021 · 23/02/2021 13:49

There is a thread over on scotsnet about this. Sorry I don't know how to link but it's salmond v Sturgeon do you care if she is guilty I'm sure

Original poster

justasking111 · 23/02/2021 13:52

@IsurviveonCoffeeandWinein2021

There is a thread over on scotsnet about this. Sorry I don't know how to link but it's salmond v Sturgeon do you care if she is guilty I'm sure

I suppose I am galled that all the women who accused Salmond were lying and he was found to be innocent and free to go after Sturgeon and husband then. Maybe he is maybe he is not.

OP posts:

redheadwitch · 23/02/2021 13:55

Erm, sorry to spout the old MN cliché but you have a DH problem.

StatisticallyChallenged · 23/02/2021 14:04

Your DH sounds like a charmer!

StatisticallyChallenged · 23/02/2021 14:05

What do you want to know about the case?

TakeTheCuntOutOfScunthorpe · 23/02/2021 14:08

The facts are:

Sturgeon lied
Salmond was acquitted

What motivated the accusers to lie, I'm not sure.

Throwntothewolves · 23/02/2021 14:16

I think Salmond should get back in his box. He was declared innocent in court (whether he really is who knows), and that should be the end of it. But that's not enough for him. Now he's trying to bring down the Scottish Government, in particular Nicola Strurgeon, by accusing them of lying in order to destroy his reputation. He's even claimed that the Crown Office is not fit for purpose.

This is all about him and not anything to do with justice or righting wrongs. I think he is a narcissist who hates that his alleged behaviour was ever called into question, regardless of his apparent innocence and he won't stop until he gets what he wants, which is to destroy the reputation and careers of anyone he believes was involved in the investigation process.
He's already led the review committee a merry dance already by refusing to appear in court unless they do things as he dictates, even rescheduling dates and expecting everyone else to fit around him (as if the Scottish Government don't have enough on their plates at the moment). I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't appear tomorrow as planned.

StatisticallyChallenged · 23/02/2021 14:21

He's already led the review committee a merry dance already by refusing to appear in court unless they do things as he dictates

This is a pretty big misrepresentation.

Original poster

justasking111 · 23/02/2021 16:14

Nine women lied in court? That is extraordinary.

OP posts:

Maduixa · 23/02/2021 16:21

it sounds like neither of you has a clue (sorry - unless you have inside info it's all speculation at this stage and based on what you've posted you're both ignorant). But it was rude of him to tell you that you "need educating" or should "shut up"; I'd not stand for that.

Shoxfordian · 23/02/2021 16:24

He sounds like a knob

GreenlandTheMovie · 23/02/2021 16:26

Your partner needs educating in the correct terminology. No-one has been proved to be "lieing" and Salmond was found "not guilty", not "innocent". There is no such verdict as "innocent". There is a presumption in favour of innocence before being found guilty but it is not a court verdict.

Its very hard to provide sufficient evidence in sexual assault and/or rape cases, because they generally involve only 2 people being present, one of whom is the Accuser. Conviction rates are notoriously low. Theres plenty to discuss.

Your partner sounds incredibly rude.

ConstantlySeekingHappiness · 23/02/2021 16:29

Too many people seem to be confusing his acquittal with “innocence” or being “proved innocent”.

He wasn’t. His behaviour was despicable. And much of this is now a smokescreen to make people forget about that.

Just because he was acquitted doesn’t mean the complainers lied. Or that he’s innocent.

Stinkywizzleteets · 23/02/2021 16:31

He wasn’t found innocent, he was found not guilty. That isn’t an absolute declaration of innocence merely that they could not based on the evidence presented declare him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

I don’t know if he’s innocent or guilty and lucky. To be honest I can’t stand the man from my own dealings with him.

MaintainTheMolehill · 23/02/2021 16:34

I think Sturgeon was one of the women and now looks suspicious because she quite rightly doesn't want this known. Just a theory though.

You're dh doesn't sound like a very nice person.

BilboBercow · 23/02/2021 16:34

OP, I'm no Salmond supporter, I think he's a creep. I'm also normally someone whose first instinct is to believe women however there's a fair bit of coverage out there on the trial if you care to read about it.

For example the main accusation was proven to have been impossible. The woman in question wasn't even with Salmond the night she claimed he tried to rape her and this was backed up by multiple witnesses.

Some of the accusations don't in my opinion even meet the criteria for criminality. One of them was that he hugged a woman in a public place, another was that he "pinged" a curl on a woman's head, something she admitted was an in joke in her office and multiple other people had done the same thing without her complaining.

StatisticallyChallenged · 23/02/2021 16:42

@MaintainTheMolehill

I think Sturgeon was one of the women and now looks suspicious because she quite rightly doesn't want this known. Just a theory though.

You're dh doesn't sound like a very nice person.

I dont think this is likely as I recall seeing one of the reporters saying she was named on the witness list but never called - all of the women in the case gave evidence I believe.

Several of the complainants are close to her though.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 23/02/2021 16:47

We had a similar conversation last week and DH was reluctant to say that the obvious liar had done much damage to Sturgeon's stance whilst simultaneously allowing a not guilty verdict to be reached.

Neither of them come out of this well. And it's possible that some women have been let down by political manoeuvres, or a male politician has been brought low by the worst false accusation a woman can make. We'll never know now and that's despicable. On all counts.

StatisticallyChallenged · 23/02/2021 16:54

Agree @CuriousaboutSamphire. It appears there was a strength in numbers type approach to the case - these sort of accusations are almost always he said/she said. I don't mean that to invalidate them, but in most cases sexual assaults aren't in front of witnesses so there's often no 3rd party, and no physical evidence for these. Normally having multiple complainants all saying similar things would strengthen the case - they essentially corroborate each other's stories by independently testifying to similar experiences.

Here it has the opposite effect; it could be shown that (at least some, not sure how many) of the accusers were in contact with each other about the case, and some of the accusations like the one you mention did not hold water at all. Instead of strengthening the case they actually weakened it.

It's perfectly possible that he was guilty of some. We will never know

MaskingForIt · 23/02/2021 16:56

@Stinkywizzleteets

He wasn’t found innocent, he was found not guilty. That isn’t an absolute declaration of innocence merely that they could not based on the evidence presented declare him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

I don’t know if he’s innocent or guilty and lucky. To be honest I can’t stand the man from my own dealings with him.

This. There is a world of difference between being found innocent and being found not guilty. Not guilty just means they can’t prove it beyond reasonable doubt. It doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.

GreenlandTheMovie · 23/02/2021 21:34

@BilboBercow

OP, I'm no Salmond supporter, I think he's a creep. I'm also normally someone whose first instinct is to believe women however there's a fair bit of coverage out there on the trial if you care to read about it.

For example the main accusation was proven to have been impossible. The woman in question wasn't even with Salmond the night she claimed he tried to rape her and this was backed up by multiple witnesses.

Some of the accusations don't in my opinion even meet the criteria for criminality. One of them was that he hugged a woman in a public place, another was that he "pinged" a curl on a woman's head, something she admitted was an in joke in her office and multiple other people had done the same thing without her complaining.

I'm really not a fan of Nicola Sturgeon, but I would be astonished if she was involved in encouraging false criminal accusations. She would know there was no chance of them succeeding if false and it would be so likely to backfire.

Do you have a citation for a case report or a newspaper article link where this specific point that the accuser "wasn't with Sapmond the night she claimed he tried to raise her" is made?

What a waste of parliamentary time having to deal with all of these scandals it is.

LexMitior · 23/02/2021 21:40

For lawmakers the SNP dance a fine line around its requirements - Salmond I think is emboldened by the results of the criminal case, and in that sense, he can make Nicola Sturgeon's life very difficult. That verdict causes all sorts of problems because every other standard she will be judged to is subject to a far lesser standard of proof. He can therefore say what he likes without much comeback, safe in the knowledge that NS will have to deal with it. Obviously some great, great bitterness between them.

StatisticallyChallenged · 23/02/2021 21:56

Do you have a citation for a case report or a newspaper article link where this specific point that the accuser "wasn't with Sapmond the night she claimed he tried to raise her" is made?

I haven't seen one, single source as it's in a mix of testimony. But I think it's roughly summarised as:

Woman H says she was at a dinner with Salmond and celebrity, attempted rape took place afterwards
Witness (female) says H was not there, as she asked witness to attend on her behalf
Celebrity says H was there, but is a bit fuzzy and not testifying in person. They give a description of a female which could fit either witness or H, but is more likely to be the witness based on a very obvious missing detail. (the actual description isn't directly reported for obvious reasons)
there's no record of H being at Bute House, where it was supposed to have happened.

Have a look through reporters tweets from the time where they were live tweating, that has most of it.

GreenlandTheMovie · 23/02/2021 23:40

@StatisticallyChallenged

Do you have a citation for a case report or a newspaper article link where this specific point that the accuser "wasn't with Sapmond the night she claimed he tried to raise her" is made?

I haven't seen one, single source as it's in a mix of testimony. But I think it's roughly summarised as:

Woman H says she was at a dinner with Salmond and celebrity, attempted rape took place afterwards
Witness (female) says H was not there, as she asked witness to attend on her behalf
Celebrity says H was there, but is a bit fuzzy and not testifying in person. They give a description of a female which could fit either witness or H, but is more likely to be the witness based on a very obvious missing detail. (the actual description isn't directly reported for obvious reasons)
there's no record of H being at Bute House, where it was supposed to have happened.

Have a look through reporters tweets from the time where they were live tweating, that has most of it.

Thanks. I think its too early for the case report in HMA v Alexander Salmond. I seriously cannot read anything but case reports on court cases!

In the instance you mention, it sounds as though the evidence was too circumstantial and they couldn't reach the burden of proof required. Its extraordinarily difficult to convict in these cases without an admission by the Accused or some form of written messaging such as text, as there are unlikely to be witnesses.

I would hazard a guess that Alex Salmond is a highly difficult person to pin anything on, with years of political manoeuvering behind him and a large fighting fund raised by his supporters on Just Giving.