Alex Salmond - acquitted of all 14 charges

[rabbitsnose]

Just now

@testing987654321

There's no requirement for anyone to have perjured themselves for a defendant to be found not guilty. If that were the case then practically every trial which reaches a 'not guilty' verdict would be followed by perjury proceedings.

It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that the jury simply weren't convinced by the prosecution case to the standard required for a conviction, or that the alleged events simply didn't amount to the criminal events they've been presented as, or that (as was put in court) events which were inconsequential at the time have retroactively been bulked up into allegations of criminal actions by people with an agenda.

There's really no need at all to suggest that all 10 women were outright liars. That's wholly compatible with a 'not guilty' verdict.

Yes, well, as we know, women lie. They lie about sexual assault and rape all the time. And if several women lie by telling the same story about the same man committing the same offence against them, then what can you do but find the poor man not guilty.

Utterly and absolutely ridiculous. Those poor women. And for the rest of us... we're no further on than we ever were. When it's all boiled down, what a man says goes.

This has been a very political case from the start. I was neither a fly on the wall when the assaults were supposed to happen, nor do I know the ins and outs of the case, but I don't automatically believe every accusation of sexual assault, especially when there is political gain to be made by it.

Outside of these circumstances I agree that it is very rare for a woman to make up such allegations.

Really good statement from Rape Crisis. The wingsoverscotland piece was utter bullshit. Without a stain on his character? I don’t fucking think so.

Not the first time the prosecution has seen to it that a guilty verdict was impossible to reach. There is a rather long history of it.

@JKScot4 if you actually read the ‘evidence’ it wasn’t exactly solid, I’m mystified why the PF even took to court.
He said/she said cases can go either way. What's with the use of the 'evidence' like that?....ah are you a sympathiser for wee Eck?

Bold fail there!

How many women saying the same thing before he's found guilty as there is a pattern of abuse.

Not 10, apparently.

15?
20?
50?

Guidelines would be good for women so we know how to raise complaints of sexual abuse.

Just one proven beyond doubt usually does the trick.

Well with Bill Cosby it took about 50 I think?

Was surprised. Weinstein was found guilty and also surprised by this.

Why can't patterns of behaviour be taken into account? It was how they got warboys (eventually).

@BeetrootRocks

www.scottishlegal.com/article/exclusive-lord-glennie-questions-straitjacket-of-moorov-doctrine

There's been a fair old to-and-fro over whether Moorov is applicable in the case of the Salmond trial or not.

I think it would have helped the prosecution case, in this regard, had they produced anything similar to the Weinstein trial, where, for example, several women were independently able to describe parts of Weinstein's body that wouldn't ordinarily be in the knowledge of the general population.

Unfortunately, they did not, so the debate then turns to whether each accusation is corroborative of any or all of the others. Bare in mind, the alleged offences differed significantly, and at no point in the trial did the prosecution try to paint a picture of a similar, recurring pattern of behaviours. I think they made a mistake by not going for far more of a 'concerted course of conduct' angle, but perhaps they understood themselves that Moorov is shaky and open to question, so didn't think it was wise. They have to work within the bounds of the law.

If there wasn't enough evidence then that lies with the CPS and if the case was open to accusations of political motivation that lies with the internal handling of the initial complaints and the way (according to their own statements in court) that the complainants all discussed when and where to progress complaints for maximum impact.
Having read the daily updates from court, I'm not surprised he was found not guilty and not proven. There should have been lots of collaborating evidence from work schedules, calendars, sign in sheets, etc. Yet they couldn't present any.

I've just re-read my post. I'm not saying evidence didn't exist just we don't know because it wasn't presented. It was a farce of a case which was a disservice to everyone imo.

I agree

I sat and read the reports day to day waiting for the prosecution's 'big reveal' that would nail Salmond's guilt, and it just never came. Day after day of testimony riddled with contradictory and vague statements, no solid evidence, no independent witnesses, no 'gotcha' moment. By the time the prosecution concluded it's argument I was convinced it would be 'not proven, if not 'not guilty'. The fact the defence were able to refute facts, dates etc completely unchallenged by the prosecution actually made me question how on earth this actually got to trial in the first place.

sounds incompetent or incomplete preparation on the part of the prosecution.
simple factual corroborative evidence of times and places should have been sought and put before the court.
that would seem to be a minimum.
as to getting complainants to describe parts of the accused's body, that would not be conclusive, as such cases usually turn not on what took place but under what circumstances, ie whether with consent or not.
but i dont know the details of this particular case.

I'm disappointed but not surprised at all by the verdict and given the burden of proof needed for a criminal conviction was surprised it even went to trial.

I've already seen MRAs crowing about the verdict and so called false accusations.

Most decent people will now accept he is a massive sleaze and have a very low opinion of him. I think if he returns to the SNP in any kind of senior role it will also damage the party.

Am example of the MRA responses.

I loathe Salmond but...

A criminal trial isn't a test of which side you believe. It's a test of whether the prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. That is a high bar to clear, especially in alleged sexual crimes, which usually have no witnesses.

If the jurors did not believe that the prosecution had proven their case to that standard, even if they believed the allegations were probably true, it was their duty to acquit. We might not like it in this case, but you cannot take away a man's liberty on the basis that 'there's no smoke without fire'.

From all I have read in the media, the prosecution's case was weak in the extreme, and an acquittal all but inevitable. Stop slagging off the jurors for doing what the law requires them to do.

Suggest you guys google Craig Murray and read what he said.

Suggest you guys google Craig Murray and read what he said

I have. He seems to be another rabid separatist so I'm not particularly inclined to be interested in what he says about anything.

However if the SNP is as truly deranged and splitting into vicious factions as he suggests that is at least one ray of light.

How many women saying the same thing before he's found guilty as there is a pattern of abuse

Yes, how many womens voices do equal one man?

He said/She said is obviously going to be hard to prove 'beyond all reasonable doubt' because unless someone's a total wally, they're not going to do this stuff in front of a crowd! If it was theft, we'd take someone's word that their wallet was missing. Apparently when it comes to people touching other people inappropriately a woman's word can't be accepted though.

The fact of the matter is that we all know men who get away with this stuff, because women know that this is what would happen if they said anything, so the occasional brush of a boob, or hand on the bum as they squeeze by a little too closely just gets let slide - we know that the legal system doesnt' have our back here.

The fact of the matter is that we all know men who get away with this stuff, because women know that this is what would happen if they said anything, so the occasional brush of a boob, or hand on the bum as they squeeze by a little too closely just gets let slide - we know that the legal system doesn't have our back here

Yes, but really we have to choose our battles.......and then use the most appropriate channels. That this was brought to a criminal court does not seem appropriate.

Lol at Craig Murray being cited as some kind of independent, objective purveyor of facts.

Some people are automatically condemning him because he is a man who has been accused by women and some because he's a Scottish nationalist.

If you read Craig Murray, it seems that he was set up by the same people who are promoting identity politics within the SNP. There is evidence that wasn't admitted in court that the women colluded. But what was admitted in court is that there were eye-witnesses who said that the women were not present on the days that they claimed the assaults took place.