DeeTillEhDeh Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 Well generally, there are two types of scenario: 1. Defendant claims they're innocent, witness claims defendant is guilty. Jury cannot establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt so not guilty / not proven verdict is returned. I don't think anyone is claiming the witness should be charged with perjury in this scenario. 2. Defendant claims they're innocent, witness claims defendant is guilty. Witness makes a claim that is provably false or is considered false beyond a reasonable doubt, under oath during the trial. Depending on the circumstance, it's absolutely right that bringing a perjury charge against the witness is considered in this case. Arguing that the witness should be charged with perjury in scenario 2 is not the same as arguing they should be in scenario 1. Also, a perjury charge/conviction requires a much higher standard of evidence than "a jury not believing it on the balance of probabilities". I'm not arguing that any witness in the Salmond trial should be charged with perjury btw. As you say, from what I've seen, there isn't enough evidence to suggest the witness deliberately lied, rather than just got dates and times mixed up. If you asked me the day and time something that happened last week I'd be hard pushed to get it right. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 6 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: If you asked me the day and time something that happened last week I'd be hard pushed to get it right. Same. However, if I pretended that I knew the exact date and time and made specific claims about it, there's a fairly decent argument to be made that I'm being dishonest, if not outright lying. In most circumstances, I don't think that's worthy of being charged with perjury though. Misremembering isn't perjury. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Gordon EF said: I'm not arguing that any witness in the Salmond trial should be charged with perjury btw. As you say, from what I've seen, there isn't enough evidence to suggest the witness deliberately lied, rather than just got dates and times mixed up. It's impossible that she has the dates mixed up as the only date it could be is the meal that Samantha Barber attended with the "famous actor" who was bizarrely granted anonymity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 Just now, Detournement said: It's impossible that she has the dates mixed up as the only date it could be is the meal that Samantha Barber attended with the "famous actor" who was bizarrely granted anonymity. Aye, what I really mean is I don't know enough about the specifics to claim she was definitely lying. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, Gordon EF said: Aye, what I really mean is I don't know enough about the specifics to claim she was definitely lying. You should also consider the other charge that Witness H brought against Salmond. In that charge, no specific date was given, but she claimed that Salmond had sexually assaulted her in Bute House during an evening in May 2014. Severin Carrell's report of the evidence (in the Guardian), states "The court heard that on 20 days that month he was not at Bute House in the evening, while on nearly every other evening, diaries and calendars showed he hosted events which were not relevant to H’s role in 2014." But yeah, I'm sure she misremembered both dates, even though they were supposedly in consecutive months. In fact, her memory is so poor that she also completely forgot that she attended the private dinner with Barber & the mystery actor in her initial statement to police in 2018. You would expect a senior Scottish Government Official to have a slightly better memory, wouldn't you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said: You should also consider the other charge that Witness H brought against Salmond. In that charge, no specific date was given, but she claimed that Salmond had sexually assaulted her in Bute House during an evening in May 2014. Severin Carrell's report of the evidence (in the Guardian), states "The court heard that on 20 days that month he was not at Bute House in the evening, while on nearly every other evening, diaries and calendars showed he hosted events which were not relevant to H’s role in 2014." But yeah, I'm sure she misremembered both dates, even though they were supposedly in consecutive months. In fact, her memory is so poor that she also completely forgot that she attended the private dinner with Barber & the mystery actor in her initial statement to police in 2018. You would expect a senior Scottish Government Official to have a slightly better memory, wouldn't you? What is happening? I'm not an expressing an opinion on whether Witness H should be charged with perjury because I didn't follow the details of the case. I'm not saying she should be charged with perjury or that she shouldn't. I'm saying that without knowing enough details, I can't say that she should be. You know, similar to the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. My only previous contribution to this thread is to argue the general principle that witnesses who lie in court should be open to perjury charges. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 8 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said: You would expect a senior Scottish Government Official to have a slightly better memory, wouldn't you? About 4 years previously? Not necessarily. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 15 hours ago, Boo Khaki said: Anyone with any common sense should want to get rid of 'Guilty/Not Guilty', and return to 'Proven/Not Proven' since it is literally the task of juries in Scotland to determine if the prosecution case is 'Proven', or 'Not Proven'. This. It's most logical to have the parties present their case and the jury/sheriff deciding if the allegations against the accused are "Proven" or "Not Proven". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, welshbairn said: About 4 years previously? Not necessarily. As Detournament has pointed out above, she stated on oath that she had attended a dinner with named guests that took place on 13th June 2014. Witness H also stated that the dinner was the night before a Scotland Women's football match at Hampden (they lost 3-1 to Sweeden on 14th June 2014) Finally, Ms H also claimed that she had interacted with Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh about the match. Unfortunately, TAS didn't go to the match with Salmond as arranged, as her father had suddenly become seriously unwell on the morning of June 13th. Even more unfortunately, he died while she was heading down to London. You would think that TAS might have mentioned this during any interaction regarding a match that she didn't actually attend, and that she would be unlikely to forget the date. In her own evidence, she also stated that that second alleged assualt (June) happened "so soon after the previous assault" So, while there may be dubiety about the date of the first alleged assault, there cannot be any dubiety that Ms H is referring to the night of 13th June 2014. Either she is lying about attending the dinner & contacting TAS about the football, or Salmond, Barber & TAS (plus the security & catering staff at Bute House) are all telling lies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 Salmond withholding evidence from enquiry shocker! https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond-funding-plea-scottish-23065289 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 11 hours ago, welshbairn said: Salmond withholding evidence from enquiry shocker! https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond-funding-plea-scottish-23065289 Which evidence is being withheld? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 3 minutes ago, strichener said: Which evidence is being withheld? No idea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 On 23/11/2020 at 20:37, welshbairn said: About 4 years previously? Not necessarily. If you had dinner with a famous actor and were sexually assaulted after it that would stick in your mind I think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted November 28, 2020 Share Posted November 28, 2020 On 23/11/2020 at 20:37, welshbairn said: About 4 years previously? Not necessarily. I'm not entirely sure why the witness wouldn't have prepared adequately and referred to diaries or other contemporaneous documents that would render their evidence as unequivocal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 28, 2020 Share Posted November 28, 2020 38 minutes ago, sophia said: I'm not entirely sure why the witness wouldn't have prepared adequately and referred to diaries or other contemporaneous documents that would render their evidence as unequivocal. I'm not sure how diligent big yins are about diary keeping for social events, or how long they keep them for. I only know that my memory is unreliable after a few weeks, far less 4 years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted November 28, 2020 Share Posted November 28, 2020 6 hours ago, welshbairn said: I'm not sure how diligent big yins are about diary keeping for social events, or how long they keep them for. I only know that my memory is unreliable after a few weeks, far less 4 years. I'm pretty sure I could track down any significant business event that I was involved with via over the last twenty years. Once things make it into that environment, unless you make a determined effort to remove and delete, they tend to stay put. Anyone who is any way busy will have an equivalent time management facility and even if you don't, for a professional person to go to court so spectacularly ill prepared is, at the least, surprising. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted November 28, 2020 Share Posted November 28, 2020 1 hour ago, sophia said: I'm pretty sure I could track down any significant business event that I was involved with via over the last twenty years. What, every single meeting? I'm fucking sure I couldn't. I got a hugely significant pay rise about five or six years ago but I couldn't tell you exactly when it was if you pulled my fingernails off. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted November 28, 2020 Share Posted November 28, 2020 3 hours ago, Baxter Parp said: What, every single meeting? I'm fucking sure I couldn't. I got a hugely significant pay rise about five or six years ago but I couldn't tell you exactly when it was if you pulled my fingernails off. A "significant business event" is not "every single meeting". If court proceedings hinged upon your pay award, I'm sure you could find out just when you were lucky enough to have it, very easily indeed and your appearance in the witness box would be as much as a success as your preparation allowed. Do you have a substantive point? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted November 28, 2020 Share Posted November 28, 2020 1 minute ago, sophia said: A "significant business event" is not "every single meeting". If court proceedings hinged upon your pay award, I'm sure you could find out just when you were lucky enough to have it, very easily indeed and your appearance in the witness box would be as much as a success as your preparation allowed. Do you have a substantive point? i *might* be able to pinpoint when I was officially awarded the pay rise (if I could find the hard copy, it wasn't awarded by email) but I sure as f**k couldn't tell you when I was nodded a wink about it beforehand. My point is that when Sturgeon was informed about the possibility of Salmond's transgressions or even the rumour of them isn't the same as when she was informed that official proceedings had been instigated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clockwork Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 Seems AS isn’t quite ready to let things go following his acquittal. A distraction NS could well do without at present. https://inews.co.uk/news/scotland/snp-alex-salmond-claims-nicola-sturgeon-misled-the-scottish-parliament-multiple-times-823179 0 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.