Alex Salmond - acquitted of all 14 charges

[rabbitsnose]

Just now

Unbelievable and actually very scary to be a female in Scotland now

Scot here, and yes - I am very wary of anyone talking about "a female".

Wow

Joanna Cherry's statement here:

twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1242110086593613828?s=19

Not proven for one of them. That’s not ‘not guilty’.

It was not proven for one of them. Really disappointed in this though.

That's a joke. My dd was murdered 4 yrs ago, he walked free on a Not Proven verdict. At the time the Scottish Government had plans in place according to my local SNP councillor to do away with this verdict.

So they all lied ? And the male civil servants who organised chaperones to ensure no women worked alone with him for years were lying? Sleazy bastard.

@ParkheadParadise I’m so sorry for your loss. It’s a terrible verdict and it should be done away with. They say it every time and yet nothing is done.

@Ohdeariedear

It's materially the same thing. There's a decent argument for keeping it and doing away with 'not guilty' instead, after all, burden of proof in courts rests with the prosecution, so in some ways 'not proven' is a more concise and accurate summation in certain cases.

Ten women.

TEN WOMEN

Fuck sake

The reality is that 50% of the jury would be snp voters. They were never going to find their messiah guilty. He was never going to be convicted.

It's so depressing.

Ffs

Not proven for one of them. That’s not ‘not guilty

It's splitting hairs and dancing on a pinhead. It's a pointless option which should be done away with.

It's not evidence in any way, but I personally know someone who works closely with him who said that he is well known for being very 'handsy' and they'd no doubt there was truth in what's been alleged. The jury will have been at least 50% SNP supporters so it'll have been utterly unfair anyway. Shocking.

Not remotely surprising. Prosecution case was farcical from start to finish. Only reasonable outcome. Restores some faith in trial by jury

I haven't really followed the case. Can you explain what was farcical in your view? That Joanna Cherry is a supporter of Salmond is interesting...it would suggest that not all is as it may initially seem?

Joanna Cherry getting much predictable abuse now......

Ten women.TEN WOMEN.Fuck sake

Not having been in the courtroom it is difficult to know how the trial proceeded. But a jury is bound only to make a judgment on the evidence as presented to them. There are very stringent rules and regulations about reaching a verdict. Feelings are not permissible evidence.

An enquiry in due course sounds like the most sensible course of action.

I have been watching the SNP on Twitter and it’s pretty obvious there’s a group very close to Nicola Sturgeon who are working together very closely and have been trying very hard to silence GC voices in the party by various underhand methods. Are all those expressing frustration with this verdict 100% certain something similar has not occurred here?

that wings over scotland piece is interesting reading....

I haven't really followed the case. Can you explain what was farcical in your view?

Ten women said he groped them. Civil servants said women shouldn't work alone with him in Bute house & should be chaperoned. Even his defence admitted he was a sleazy shit - just not to the extent of it being a crime. And Joanne Cherry thinks its OK because he has been found not guilty? Is it fuck OK.

@Justhadathought

The Prosecution couldn't provide a single material witness to any of the events, this despite several of them having taken place at public events, the defence did provide witnesses who testified that they saw nothing untoward take place, and the prosecution declined to question any of them. They also failed spectacularly by alleging things like the ban on lone-working with Salmond, but being completely unable to substantiate that, while the defence provided several witnesses who said there was nothing if the kind in place. The prosecution also couldn't prove beyond a doubt that a few of the complainants were even present at the places/times they claimed to be when the alleged events took place, yet the defence provided evidence that suggested they were not.

I'm making no claims about whether the events did or did not actually take place, but it's clear just from the limited reporting coming out of the court that all the prosecution had was the testimony of the complainants themselves, and they did nothing at all to refute the defence's presentation of contradictory testimony and evidence.

I don't see how any jury could have competently come to any other decision that to acquit.

I also find it amusing that the people are happy to make ridiculous statements like '50% of the jury would be SNP voters' simply because they didn't come up with the desired verdict. Presumably the 50% who are not SNP voters aren't a problem. We keep getting told that Unionists are the 'sensible majority', yet all that was required to convict Salmond here was a simply majority agreement.

This is a failure due to a flimsy prosecution case, the fact the jury evidently understands 'burden of proof' lies with the complainants and the prosecution team, and nothing more. It beggars belief that people believe this is a politically driven verdict. I say that as someone who is not an SNP voter and fully expected a conviction before the trial began.

Is it because a guilty verdict under Scottish law would require corroboration? Eg someone else who witnessed it?

The Prosecution couldn't provide a single material witness to any of the events, this despite several of them having taken place at public events, the defence did provide witnesses who testified that they saw nothing untoward take place, and the prosecution declined to question any of them

Thanks for the detailed run-down.......It does sound like a very shaky case......That doesn't mean he's not acted in a sleazy and inappropriate way, though - so it's not as if the complainants have been found to be lying - just that the burden of proof was not there.

I wonder why/who decided to bring the case in the first instance? Surely it could have been dealt with internally? Any insight?

The prosecution also couldn't prove beyond a doubt that a few of the complainants were even present at the places/times they claimed to be when the alleged events took place, yet the defence provided evidence that suggested they were not.

I was rather taken back by this as well.

I’d be more appalled if he did make a political comeback after admitting he’d been overly tactile etc.

I didn’t think he’d get found guiltily - in fact I was surprised Weinstein went down, due to the need for a third party witness to get convictions in most cases of this nature...