AUFC90 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 The Crown have no choice but to go ahead. They have a duty to prosecute on behalf of the complainers and in the name of justice. They will already have an idea that the evidence is sufficient to secure a conviction or else they would not have charged him. I would be surprised if any charges were "thrown out" before the trial begins. Where is Salmond getting the money for his defence team? Another public appeal or will he seek legal Aid?They pretty much go to court if there's sufficient evidence to take him to court. Not sufficient evidence to convict. Pretty sure he's a millionaire....could be wrong though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 3 minutes ago, AUFC90 said: They pretty much go to court if there's sufficient evidence to take him to court. Not sufficient evidence to convict. Pretty sure he's a millionaire....could be wrong though. Do they not go on the probability of a conviction? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 Do they not go on the probability of a conviction?Partly but I think it's more to do with if there's enough evidence to go to court it will go to court. Especially rape cases which rarely end in conviction. Could be wrong though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 Just now, AUFC90 said: 4 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Do they not go on the probability of a conviction? Partly but I think it's more to do with if there's enough evidence to go to court it will go to court. Especially rape cases which rarely end in conviction. Could be wrong though. In England they call it a realistic prospect of conviction, don't know what that really means though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 Guess we'll all just have to wait and see..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 20 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Do they not go on the probability of a conviction? Back to my Jury experience - I thought that would be the case but there's no way they could have looked at the evidence and thought "good chance he'll get found guilty". TV courtroom drama it was not. Police forensics guy gets called - "Did you find any fingerprints on the door?" "Yes." "Did you find the defendant's fingerprints on the door?" "No." "No further questions." They also had a long line of eyewitnesses that couldn't identify the guy, including the people that were working in the shop at the time the guy was allegedly carrying out the armed robbery. The 'evidence' amounted to various policemen and policewomen getting on the stand, pointing at the guy and saying "It was him!" a la General Melchett in Blackadder Goes Forth, even though all they had to go on was the grainy CCTV footage that everyone in the courtroom had seen anyway. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 Back to my Jury experience - I thought that would be the case but there's no way they could have looked at the evidence and thought "good chance he'll get found guilty". TV courtroom drama it was not. Police forensics guy gets called - "Did you find any fingerprints on the door?" "Yes." "Did you find the defendant's fingerprints on the door?" "No." "No further questions."Nice bit of defence theatre. They also had a long line of eyewitnesses that couldn't identify the guy, including the people that were working in the shop at the time the guy was allegedly carrying out the armed robbery.People quite often give positive statements to police/precognition officers and brick it on the stand. The 'evidence' amounted to various policemen and policewomen getting on the stand, pointing at the guy and saying "It was him!" a la General Melchett in Blackadder Goes Forth, even though all they had to go on was the grainy CCTV footage that everyone in the courtroom had seen anyway.They are supposed to point at the person they are identifying. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BawWatchin Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 2 hours ago, Moonglum25 said: The Crown have no choice but to go ahead. They have a duty to prosecute on behalf of the complainers and in the name of justice. They will already have an idea that the evidence is sufficient to secure a conviction or else they would not have charged him. I would be surprised if any charges were "thrown out" before the trial begins. Where is Salmond getting the money for his defence team? Another public appeal or will he seek legal Aid? The RT money m8. Which Putin pays to him directly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew283 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 1 hour ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said: Back to my Jury experience - I thought that would be the case but there's no way they could have looked at the evidence and thought "good chance he'll get found guilty". TV courtroom drama it was not. Police forensics guy gets called - "Did you find any fingerprints on the door?" "Yes." "Did you find the defendant's fingerprints on the door?" "No." "No further questions." They also had a long line of eyewitnesses that couldn't identify the guy, including the people that were working in the shop at the time the guy was allegedly carrying out the armed robbery. The 'evidence' amounted to various policemen and policewomen getting on the stand, pointing at the guy and saying "It was him!" a la General Melchett in Blackadder Goes Forth, even though all they had to go on was the grainy CCTV footage that everyone in the courtroom had seen anyway. Recently was on Jury Duty for an Assault. Was the same finger pointing with use of CCTV that clearly could ID the defendants, nor once thoroughly questioned did the witnesses. Will have to see how this goes though and judge him based on that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 Also wondering how exactly an attempted rape comes about ? Like did he came on a bit too strong but did take no for answer and stop which isn't really attempted rape or did someone intervene when he was in the process of raping someone ? I'm just wondering as it's a bit of a grey one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, AUFC90 said: Also wondering how exactly an attempted rape comes about ? Like did he came on a bit too strong but did take no for answer and stop which isn't really attempted rape or did someone intervene when he was in the process of raping someone ? I'm just wondering as it's a bit of a grey one. Brewer's droop. Edited January 26, 2019 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BawWatchin Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 9 minutes ago, AUFC90 said: Also wondering how exactly an attempted rape comes about ? Like did he came on a bit too strong but did take no for answer and stop which isn't really attempted rape or did someone intervene when he was in the process of raping someone ? I'm just wondering as it's a bit of a grey one. Perhaps he had a semi? Wasn't quite in, wasn't quite out. Passed out drunk within minutes of her passing out.... etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 So extremely serious charges.Never said they weren't mate. Of course it's a serious charge. So he either tried to rape someone and she thought him off or some 3rd party stopped him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BawWatchin Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 1 minute ago, AUFC90 said: 7 minutes ago, MixuFixit said: So extremely serious charges. Never said they weren't mate. Of course it's a serious charge. So he either tried to rape someone and she thought him off or some 3rd party stopped him. Accused. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 Just as well some of you guys aren't the hangman or Jury. If so Salmonds head would already be on a spike at Edinburgh Castle. Just let due process take place, he's innocent until proven guilty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeVanTeeth Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 3 hours ago, welshbairn said: Can't see them moving the trial to The Hague tbh. Lots of famous and controversial figures have had jury trials, you just have to be careful with the selection to find people capable of putting prejudice aside and going strictly on the evidence. He may be a divisive figure but 15% of Scots couldn't be arsed voting in the referendum and will likely have no big preconceptions about Salmond. I would also like to think that whatever most people's political beliefs are that they could still remain impartial during jury service, albeit obviously some fanatics on both sides might not be able to be trusted. I voted Yes myself but if the evidence against Salmond was persuasive then I'd have no hesitation in finding him guilty. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BawWatchin Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 5 minutes ago, LeeVanTeeth said: He may be a divisive figure but 15% of Scots couldn't be arsed voting in the referendum and will likely have no big preconceptions about Salmond. I would also like to think that whatever most people's political beliefs are that they could still remain impartial during jury service, albeit obviously some fanatics on both sides might not be able to be trusted. I voted Yes myself but if the evidence against Salmond was persuasive then I'd have no hesitation in finding him guilty. That's the problem though. Just like the referendum, the YES side in the dury will play fairly. Those on the NO side will use dirty tactics to ensure they get the verdict they want. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 10 minutes ago, BawWatchin said: That's the problem though. Just like the referendum, the YES side in the jury will play fairly and assume it's a Westminster stitch up. FTFY 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar 2nd Tier Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 Just now, BawWatchin said: That's the problem though. Just like the referendum, the YES side in the dury will play fairly. Those on the NO side will use dirty tactics to ensure they get the verdict they want. You don't half talk conspiratorial shit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BawWatchin Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 1 minute ago, welshbairn said: FTFY They would assume correctly in my humblest of opinions. The Scottish Government need to fight back and get Leslie Evans on as many drug charges as possible. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.