Alex Salmond - acquitted of all 14 charges

[rabbitsnose]

Just now

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

It would appear that the trans activists are having a field day tearing into Joanna Cherry.

Not being familiar with the machinations of the Scottish parliament - can you explain whether/if there is a particular 'bloc' in the house of which Cherry and Salmond may be a part?

Rape Crisis Scotland believe he was guilty:

www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/news/news/statement-on-salmond-verdict/

Standard outcome for these kind of offences, v sadly.

@Justhadathought

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

Who knows?

It's clear the original investigation by the Scottish Government was completely mishandled by civil servants, and it's astounding that those responsible have not yet faced any sanctions. As for who brought the case about, you need to remember that these allegations are allegations of criminality, so it was always going to involve the police. With regards to claims of internal SNP witch-hunts and stitch-ups, again, who knows. It's a party that was been riven by factionalism and internal disagreements since the 70's, yet nobody seems to be clear on exactly who is gunning for, or an ally of, any other member.

can you explain whether/if there is a particular 'bloc' in the house of which Cherry and Salmond may be a part?

Salmond and Cherry were at Westminster. According to the Wings piece, none of the accusations were from his time there.

I'm so disappointed. He's known for this, absolutely widely known.

10 different women say same pattern but are rejected as liars.

Unbelievable

Rape Crisis Scotland believe he was guilty

I think there must be very few people who don't believe he was guilty of deeply inappropriate and sleazy behaviour.......yet that doesn't necessarily translate to a successful prosecution.

This was always going to be the outcome. This trial went ahead to save face and no other reason. I dont like the man at all and certainly dont support the S.N.P. but as there was not one piece of physical evidence, Salmond could not be found guilty.

10 different women say same pattern but are rejected as liars

It is tempting to come to that conclusion, but that is not how verdicts are reached. They have to be reached on the balance of evidence. You can't prosecute someone simply because you don't like them.

I sat in one a pretty horrendous murder trial some years ago.......and right up until the moment of the verdict - it was always with very nervous uncertainty whether he would be found guilty...even though it seemed obvious he was......... That the accused was clearly a nasty piece of work, & involved in criminality of all sorts, in itself, was not enough to prosecute. And he had a brilliant defence barrister.

He was found guilty on the evidence alone - of which there was sufficient to reach a sound verdict.

Another self entitled Pale Male and Stale gets away with it FFS! I thought the tide had turned in favour of women ,after Harvey Weinstein being jailed but obv not in Scotland! WTAF is going on up there ?

Eck is a grabbyhands drunken shit who lies as easily as he breathes. That does not in itself make him a criminal.

I assumed the prosecution were going to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour here, but all they did was list the allegations each of which then had to be considered separately, meaning only one possible outcome.

This is not saying the witnesses were liars. This is the criminal standard of proof. In the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of the doubt goes to the defence.

This ought to have been dealt with by an internal disciplinary process on a civil standard. But they botched that.

As the Sky reporter said, now its Team Nicola versus Team Everyone Else in the SNP.

I think Jimmy Saville would've been exonerated by that Jury!

Jesus blubbed.

I think the issue is it was his word against theirs, there was no evidence, and the prosecution had to prove beyond all reasonable doubt he was guilty. Which it seems they didn’t do. Also seems there was a lack of any form of corroboration, or any witnesses to some of rhe events which should have been witnessed, as well as questions over whether even the women were there when it occured.

Whatever this is, something really fucking dodgy is going on. Either it’s what he says it is, sturgeon and her cronies went after him, or he is guilty but the prosecution simply failed due to lack of evidence and they did a shit job, or it’s a bit of both and the truth lays somewhere in the middle.

I was really shocked though, not sure I’ve seen this level of accusations, with so many different women, and the accused be basically exonerated like that. It’s very odd indeed.

Apparantly he is not just going to make a come back but he’s coming after sturgeon to make her life difficult. Likely doesn’t want to be leader, but he wants to fuck with her. Definitely some very bad blood there.

Not being familiar with the machinations of the Scottish parliament - can you explain whether/if there is a particular 'bloc' in the house of which Cherry and Salmond may be a part?

'Blocs' in the SNP - yes.

WTF Joanna Cherry?! No mention at all in her statement that his own defence obviously thought he fell well below acceptable standards of behaviour. It’s obvious he was an utter sleazebag - ‘drunken uncle’ behaviour I’ve heard it described as. Because obviously that’s OK. That’s what women should be prepared to put up with. Am sickened and am stunned and disappointed with Joanna Cherry.

Not being familiar with the machinations of the Scottish parliament - can you explain whether/if there is a particular 'bloc' in the house of which Cherry and Salmond may be a part?

Neither Salmond or Cherry are in Holyrood. Cherry is in Westminster but like Salmond did when he was an MSP /MP she is hoping to get a Holyrood seat (Ruth Davidson's at next election) and stay in both Parliaments and draw 2 salaries. They are both despicable in that regard.

As for a "bloc" - that's really funny. If you are in the SNP- you are in a bloc anyway. It's the "dae whit ye're telt" bloc.

Am sickened and am stunned and disappointed with Joanna Cherry

Well I could have told you that she would let you down. I'm not in the least bit surprised.

Joanna Cherry is a QC. I'd imagine one thing at the forefront of her view of this matter is that cases go to court on sound evidence and that guilty verdicts should only come when the evidence passes the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt.

These things are important no matter how sleazy Salmond is.

I don't doubt there are Sturgeon and Salmond blocs. I'd be wary of letting Team Salmond portray themselves as Team GC though. Doubt this is the main reason for the schism.

I believe them. I do not believe Salmond.

My heart is breaking for these women right now.

His defence team did a better job than the prosecution. I'm amazed that someone in Crown Office didn't see where this was going.

I honestly think if you're not Scottish/don't live in Scotland, you can't appreciate the schism that Independence has caused in Scottish society.

I have heard people say, before the trial began, "I would love to be on that jury so that I could find him not guilty."

Also, his behaviour, to anyone even remotely connected to Scottish politics or media is widely known.

Some of the most compelling testimony, IMO, was from victims saying "I couldn't say anything, he was the First Minister. Or, "I couldn't say anything, it would have lost us the Yes vote."

HOWEVER, at the same time, I don't think the prosecution did itself any favours by trying to establish a pattern of behaviour using eg the hair pulling thing.

Also, I think all parties agreed to rush the trial through because of the cv crisis and that meant useful cross-examination time was missed.

All in all, a bad day for women and justice in Scotland.

I believe them. I do not believe Salmond.

Well, yes. I haven't followed the case but are they really suggesting that a load of women agreed to perjure themselves in a conspiracy to defame him?

Those poor women are going to have their life made hell by the nats now. Craig Murray threatened time name them all during the trial.

It was well known even before these accusations that Salmond was a sleazy arse. Surely he can't make a comeback now?!

Well, yes. I haven't followed the case but are they really suggesting that a load of women agreed to perjure themselves in a conspiracy to defame him?

Yes!! Yes they are!! Lots are saying it was a political conspiracy!!