Nipper Salmond

[AUFC90]

I was wondering about that, Goodwillie style. Being as his defence team conceded that he behaved badly but not to a criminal extent, you'd have thought that compensation for harm might be due on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. The accusers maybe just want the whole thing to go away though, unless Salmond fires it up again.

Goodwillie raped someone though and was taken to civil court because as in most cases there wasn't enough evidence to take to criminal court. Salmond 'might' have given someone a cuddle and touched someone's hair. Big difference.

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, AUFC90 said:

Goodwillie raped someone though and was taken to civil court because as in most cases there wasn't enough evidence to take to criminal court. Salmond 'might' have given someone a cuddle and touched someone's hair. Big difference.

Depends where the hair was, shirley?

[Detournement]

15 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Are you trying to suggest that Salmond's admission to an "inappropriate" "sleepy cuddle" with an accepted apology at the time corroborates her very different statement made to the police many years later?

If it's just he said/she said, then the Crown have failed to prove their case. No jury should ever convict on an uncorroborated allegation, no matter how much they (or you) want it to be true.

I don't think it does but juries in Scotland have convicted on less. 

[Detournement]

1 hour ago, NotThePars said:

You'll have Baw Watchin attempting to perform a citizen's arrest as soon as Craig Murray can leak the details of the women involved in the case.

Dani Garvelli has already leaked one so probably better to keep your eye on her if you are planning some Street Justice.

[Detournement]

1 hour ago, AUFC90 said:

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

I was wondering about that, Goodwillie style. Being as his defence team conceded that he behaved badly but not to a criminal extent, you'd have thought that compensation for harm might be due on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. The accusers maybe just want the whole thing to go away though, unless Salmond fires it up again.

Goodwillie raped someone though and was taken to civil court because as in most cases there wasn't enough evidence to take to criminal court. Salmond 'might' have given someone a cuddle and touched someone's hair. Big difference.

The point will be to string it out so there's no parliamentary inquiry. 

They might beat the Sheku Bayoh record and manage to delay it until 2025.

 

[ICTJohnboy]

1 hour ago, Jacksgranda said:

Depends where the hair was, shirley?

 

So one of his accuser's was called Shirley?

[lichtgilphead]

8 hours ago, Detournement said:

I don't think it does but juries in Scotland have convicted on less. 

Even less than He Said/She Said?

Examples please.

[lichtgilphead]

10 hours ago, welshbairn said:

I was wondering about that, Goodwillie style. Being as his defence team conceded that he behaved badly but not to a criminal extent, you'd have thought that compensation for harm might be due on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. The accusers maybe just want the whole thing to go away though, unless Salmond fires it up again.

So what sort of level of damages do you believe to be appropriate for an unwanted touch on the leg?

An apology, perhaps? Isn't that what actually happened?

IMO, any civil court action by the nameless nine would be considered to be more about politics than about any perceived injustice. As it is, some of their accusations could be considered to have made it harder for real rape victims to come forward!

[welshbairn]

15 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

So what sort of level of damages do you believe to be appropriate for an unwanted touch on the leg?

An apology, perhaps? Isn't that what actually happened?

IMO, any civil court action by the nameless nine would be considered to be more about politics than about any perceived injustice. As it is, some of their accusations could be considered to have made it harder for real rape victims to come forward!

Some of the accusations were more serious an unwanted touch on the leg, I'm surprised you take them so frivolously. Any civil court I'd hope would ignore the conspiracy theories floating around the twittersphere and look at the facts and testimony as presented. Doubt it will happen anyway, the storm the accusers have come under will likely deter them, along with other alleged victims of sexual assault by powerful people. I have no opinion on the rights and wrongs of Salmond's behaviour by the way, I wasn't there.

Edited April 9, 2020 by welshbairn

[lichtgilphead]

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

1) Some of the accusations were more serious an unwanted touch on the leg, I'm surprised you take them so frivolously.

2) Any civil court I'd hope would ignore the conspiracy theories floating around the twittersphere and look at the facts and testimony as presented. 

1) All 14 charges were either dropped by the prosecution or were dismissed by the jury. It's the court's verdict that counts, not mine.

2) The defence in the criminal case were not allowed to present evidence alleging a conspiracy. That does not mean that the evidence does not exist. Salmond has as good as said that he will go public at some future unspecified time. I see no reason why this evidence would be excluded in a civil case.

[Londonwell]

1 hour ago, lichtgilphead said:

1) All 14 charges were either dropped by the prosecution or were dismissed by the jury. It's the court's verdict that counts, not mine.

2) The defence in the criminal case were not allowed to present evidence alleging a conspiracy. That does not mean that the evidence does not exist. Salmond has as good as said that he will go public at some future unspecified time. I see no reason why this evidence would be excluded in a civil case.

Tbf you’ve moved the goalposts there on your first point. You’ve moved from insinuating that there weren’t serious accusations, on to Salmond wasn’t found guilty of any of the accusations. Two separate points which in the context of the particular point make a bit of a difference. 

Edited April 9, 2020 by Londonwell

[lichtgilphead]

28 minutes ago, Londonwell said:

Tbf you’ve moved the goalposts there on your first point. You’ve moved from insinuating that there weren’t serious accusations, on to Salmond wasn’t found guilty of any of the accusations. Two separate points which in the context of the particular point make a bit of a difference. 

You have to remember that this conversation was in relation to a suggestion that Salmond could face civil proceedings

I asked a specific question relating to the damages that could be pursued in a civil court by one complainant.

Welshbairn replied, stating that Salmond faced more serious charges. 

I replied saying that Salmond was not found guilty of any of these charges

Can I suggest that Welshbairn moved the goalposts by not answering my original question and introducing the other complaints?

In a civil court, individual complainants would either have to sue Salmond for damages in individual cases OR would have to take a group action against him (assuming that the court would even permit this, considering the widely divergent allegations)

In my opinion, claims for damages for touching someone's leg would be unlikely to succeed, and even if they did, the costs would exceed any award. 

If you want, I'll hurt your feelings right now & call you a c*nt. Please feel free to sue for damages. My local civil court is in Dunoon. It's a nice town to visit. See you there!

 

 

[Londonwell]

11 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

You have to remember that this conversation was in relation to a suggestion that Salmond could face civil proceedings

I remember that well as it was myself who raised that as a possibility (however likely/unlikely) to start off with.

3 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

So what sort of level of damages do you believe to be appropriate for an unwanted touch on the leg?

An apology, perhaps? Isn't that what actually happened?

IMO, any civil court action by the nameless nine would be considered to be more about politics than about any perceived injustice. As it is, some of their accusations could be considered to have made it harder for real rape victims to come forward!

I read this post as your opinion being that the accusations were too trivial to be in court, civil or otherwise. I apologise if that wasn't what you were meaning but given what you've written there I don't think that was too unreasonable a jump for me to make.

2 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

1) All 14 charges were either dropped by the prosecution or were dismissed by the jury. It's the court's verdict that counts, not mine.

You then (imo) changed tact to talk more about the outcome of the accusations rather than their seriousness when Welshbairn said that he found it strange that you didn't think "some of the accusations were more serious than an unwanted touch on the leg". Anyway, it's not my argument to get involved in really and the Salmond accusations isn't really what I want to be writing about. Let's call it a point of order on my part and I will resume my seat and be quiet. 

11 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

If you want, I'll hurt your feelings right now & call you a c*nt.

Charming.

[lichtgilphead]

3 minutes ago, Londonwell said:

Charming.

I did use an asterisk rather than spelling out the offensive word in full.

In my defence, use of hyperbole to make a point is often effective. I assume that you're not pursuing damages against me then? I was looking forward to my day in court...

Somehow, I doubt that the nameless nine will pursue individual or joint civil actons either. There's more value for the alleged conspirators amongst them in implying that they've been "wronged" in some way.

[git-intae-thum]

Given that each of the accusations contained not one shred of corroborating evidence and there were numerous independent witnesses speaking in Salmonds defence.........I also do not think we are likely to see any civil action.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

1 minute ago, git-intae-thum said:

Given that each of the accusations contained not one shred of corroborating evidence and there were numerous independent witnesses speaking in Salmonds defence.........I also do not think we are likely to see any civil action.

You don't get "not proven" verdicts without evidence against the accused.

[git-intae-thum]

2 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

You don't get "not proven" verdicts without evidence against the accused.

That's just nonsense.

The not proven may be the result of the jury finding one of witness accounts slightly more believable than the others.

It does not mean there was any corroborating evidence.

It does not mean the jury believed the witness.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

So despite the jury not believing the witness and there not being any corroborating evidence they just magically assumed there wasn't enough evidence to acquit? Sounds believable.

[lichtgilphead]

14 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

You don't get "not proven" verdicts without evidence against the accused.

You don't get any jury verdict if the prosecution don't lead evidence against the accused.

Salmond was charged with 14 offences. The prosecution led evidence with regard to 13 of the offences. The judge formally found him not guilty of the 14th charge. The jury acquitted him of the other 13 charges after hearing the evidence. 

Just now, AsimButtHitsASix said:

So despite the jury not believing the witness and there not being any corroborating evidence they just magically assumed there wasn't enough evidence to acquit? Sounds believable.

"Not Proven" is an acquittal. It has the same effect as "Not Guilty"

In Scots law, "Not Proven" is the oldest verdict still in use. Before union with England, the 2 verdicts available were "Proven" & "Not Proven" Personally, I think these describe the finding of the court better than "Guilty"/"Not Guilty"

[AsimButtHitsASix]

1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said:

"Not Proven" is an acquittal. It has the same effect as "Not Guilty"

In Scots law, "Not Proven" is the oldest verdict still in use. Before union with England, the 2 verdicts available were "Proven" & "Not Proven" Personally, I think these describe the finding of the court better than "Guilty"/"Not Guilty"

I'm aware of Not Proven being an acquittal but its current use is, de facto, when the jury has not been convinced of innocence beyond reasonable doubt but believe the evidence provided by the prosecution isn't enough to prove guilt.

If, as some are claiming, there is no evidence of Salmond's guilt then not only would there not be a case at all, but he would have been given an acquittal of "Not Guilty".

Not saying he is guilty by any stretch but whitewashing the testimonies of nine people as not corroborating evidence is just a lie