Salmond denies sexual misconduct allegations

[Robbie]

Good!

Have you never known someone you liked, about whom unpleasant accusations were made? It would be a shock but it happens and is difficult to process unless there is concrete proof.

[SteveH]

The sexual abuse ones of course, it has been thought for a while that Sturgeon knew about them, but did nothing.

By whom, pray? This is malicious, poisonous gossip.

[Robbie]

Morning! Thought I'd check in before going to bed. Hope everyone had good Christmas day.

Agree with you, I hate scandal mongering gossip. As previously said she may have heard rumours but not believed them,frequently happens when it's someone we know quite well and like. We may never know but I'm none the worst for not knowing, I like Nicola Sturgeon & want to think the best of her. I'd like to think the best of Salmond but that remains to be seen, feel sorry for his elderly wife in all this.

[Nearly Sane]

The trial starts next week but already there is manoeuvring of tanks in the different parts of the SNP.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51601035

Also in the background it looks like we could have 2 new independence parties.

[Roses]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51707459

Salmond's trial started today, they reckon it could last about 4 weeks.

[Nearly Sane]

There was a ridiculous article in the Herald yesterday highlighting previous dramatic trials, and while the small print read that it wasn't suggesting that there was any connection with Salmond, it featured pictures of Fred West, Dennis Nilsen, the killers of Jamie Bulger (along with a picture of Jamie Bulger), and Adolf Eichmann amongst others. It was pulled after Bulger's mother complained but was certainly skating very close, or in my opinion, way past contempt.

[Roses]

There was a ridiculous article in the Herald yesterday highlighting previous dramatic trials, and while the small print read that it wasn't suggesting that there was any connection with Salmond, it featured pictures of Fred West, Dennis Nilsen, the killers of Jamie Bulger (along with a picture of Jamie Bulger), and Adolf Eichmann amongst others. It was pulled after Bulger's mother complained but was certainly skating very close, or in my opinion, way past contempt.

There has been no suggestion Salmond has killed anyone so that is daft.

[Nearly Sane]

There has been no suggestion Salmond has killed anyone so that is daft.

It's not just daft, it's prejudicial imo.

[Anchorman]

It's not just daft, it's prejudicial imo.

Not atypical of the Herald lately, though.

[Gordon]

BBC just reported that he has been cleared of all charges: 12 not guilty and one not proven.

[Robbie]

Good.

Ihope he recovers from this, mud sticks.

[Roses]

I find it very hard to believe all those women were lying.

[Gordon]

I find it very hard to believe all those women were lying.

The jury heard the evidence and reached their verdict: hard to argue with that.

[Udayana]

I find it very hard to believe all those women were lying.

I don't think they found that the women wee lying. Only that he was not guilty or not proved guilty of assault?

[Robbie]

I understand where LittleR's coming from because I find it difficult to believe women would be so vicious but it does happen for all sorts of reasons. I've not followed the trial but presume evidence was presented by those accusing Salmond which the jury didn't believe & he was able to refute.The way jury members are selected is rigorous, people are dismissed and replaced if either brief doesn't 'like' them so they should be impartial. I'm prepared to believe he was innocent of the charges, it wouldn't make any difference if I wasn't however if everything was played out openly and fairly there's no reason for people to doubt the verdict.

Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal ("not proven" and "not guilty"). ... It eventually displaced "not proven" as the primary verdict of acquittal.

[Nearly Sane]

I find it very hard to believe all those women were lying.

That's not what the verdicts mean.

[Udayana]

I understand where LittleR's coming from because I find it difficult to believe women would be so vicious but it does happen for all sorts of reasons. I've not followed the trial but presume evidence was presented by those accusing Salmond which the jury didn't believe & he was able to refute.The way jury members are selected is rigorous, people are dismissed and replaced if either brief doesn't 'like' them so they should be impartial. I'm prepared to believe he was innocent of the charges, it wouldn't make any difference if I wasn't however if everything was played out openly and fairly there's no reason for people to doubt the verdict.

Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal ("not proven" and "not guilty"). ... It eventually displaced "not proven" as the primary verdict of acquittal.

I think (didn't really listen to the reports) that all of the incidents occurred in one-to-one situations so there wasn't much actual evidence, especially as none of the women raised their cases at the time.  Given that it's difficult to come to any conclusion except not guilty even without considering whether the claimed  interaction actually constitutes sexual assault or not.

Different to Weinstein where the accusations were more solid and a number of people knew what was going on.

[Gordon]

The legal case might be done but in due course, given other events, the politics that flow from this are likely to be brutal.

[wigginhall]

It doesn't mean that the women were lying.   It says that the jury weren't sure, assuming this is like English law.

[Nearly Sane]

The legal case might be done but in due course, given other events, the politics that flow from this are likely to be brutal.

The one thing that will reduce the politics is coronavirus. Were we in normal times then this would have been the main news for the last couple of weeks, and we would be watching the SNP tearing itself apart. Even as it is there are are battlelines being drawn, but I suspect it will be harder to rally the troops.

[Nearly Sane]

It doesn't mean that the women were lying.   It says that the jury weren't sure, assuming this is like English law.

Essentially other that the not proven verdict it is.

[Robbie]

I thought I ought to read more about it as I joned in here.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/23/alex-salmond-acquitted-of-all-charges-in-sexual-assault-trial

It will be interesting in due course to hear in due course what nobody has been able to say in court, Salmond says he will say it at a later date.

Eight women on the jury says something.

He can move on from this.

[Nearly Sane]

I thought I ought to read more about it as I joned in here.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/23/alex-salmond-acquitted-of-all-charges-in-sexual-assault-trial

It will be interesting in due course to hear in due course what nobody has been able to say in court, Salmond says he will say it at a later date.

Eight women on the jury says something.

He can move on from this.

  It tells you nothing other than the verdict. On social media I've seem those supportive of Salmond saying it shows all the women lied, and those not saying how can they be saying that that all the women lied. It says neither of those things.

Salmond is almost an irrelevance now beyond a symbol of what various groups give to him. He's got nothing to move onto other than that.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It doesn't mean that the women were lying.   It says that the jury weren't sure, assuming this is like English law.

I would agree that the verdicts do not mean the women were lying. I think it means that there was not sufficient evidence to prove whether they were telling the truth. Without supporting evidence to their testimony it is very hard to convict someone of non-consensual sexual acts. It is not like other assaults where there can be photographic evidence of bruises and cuts. The jurors would need to be convinced by the evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged acts took place and that Salmond ought reasonably to have known that alleged acts were non-consensual. I find it really easy to doubt the truth of anything anyone tells me if I wasn't there at the time. I need supporting evidence to believe it beyond reasonable doubt.

I remember when I was about fifteen or sixteen, getting my hair cut locally and feeling uncomfortable that the male hairdresser's hand was brushing against my breast - it was brief but not that brief -  while cutting my long hair. Or at least that was my perception. I have no idea if my perception is the truth - I think it is and I have mentioned it to my kids but in a criminal trial I would not expect my testimony to be sufficient to convict.

[SteveH]

I find it very hard to believe all those women were lying.

The jury heard the evidence; you didn't. I prefer the jury's verdict.