Jump to content
RadgerTheBadger

Nipper Salmond

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

Craig Murray is the patron saint of the honey-crusted nut bar wing of the indy side. I read his blog this week for the first time in ages, he showed that he doesn't understand Moorov, corroboration, witnesses, evidence, law, thinking or words. He's their equivalent of that terrible history lady for unionists. 

I'm sure everyone on all sides will accept the jury's decision as they were in the room throughout and we only got our information through reports that were often carefully curated to ensure identification of witnesses wasn't possible. Right?

I probably harshly assume all British government civil servants are fucking useless based on this absolute loonball ever reaching a minor ambassadorial role 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GordonS said:

Craig Murray is the patron saint of the honey-crusted nut bar wing of the indy side. I read his blog this week for the first time in ages, he showed that he doesn't understand Moorov, corroboration, witnesses, evidence, law, thinking or words. He's their equivalent of that terrible history lady for unionists. 

I'm sure everyone on all sides will accept the jury's decision as they were in the room throughout and we only got our information through reports that were often carefully curated to ensure identification of witnesses wasn't possible. Right?

Surely his point that the accusers colluded prior to making statements hence Moorov can't apply is a good one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Detournement said:

Surely his point that the accusers colluded prior to making statements hence Moorov can't apply is a good one?

No, it's complete bollocks. The jury are entitled to conclude that they did not collude, in which case Moorov applies. The fact that some of them contacted each other is not evidence of collusion. And not all of them were in contact with each other before describing their experience to someone else.

If Craig Murray had an interest in accuracy he could have asked any experienced criminal defence lawyer who would have told him that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bairn Necessities said:

I probably harshly assume all British government civil servants are fucking useless based on this absolute loonball ever reaching a minor ambassadorial role 

I think he must have been hiding his light under a very dark bushel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, GordonS said:

No, it's complete bollocks. The jury are entitled to conclude that they did not collude, in which case Moorov applies.

Fair enough. Can you go on to explain how an allegation of touching a woman's hair corroborates an allegation of attempted rape?

 

Edited to add: Of course, the jury are also entitled to find that there was collusion between the witnesses. Moorov would not apply in those circumstances.

Edited by lichtgilphead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/03/2020 at 07:44, DeeTillEhDeh said:

The equivalent of a Dave Lee Travis when all the Saville stuff was going on.

It looks like he's a letchy old b*****d but struggling to see more serious crimes.

 

 

On 19/03/2020 at 09:00, MixuFixit said:

*A naked Salmond does the sex walrusemoji769.png on a surprised and alarmed young lady*

Kincardine: well this all seems to be in order.

Of course the sane money is on either a NP or a NG guilty verdict but, as I said it, you two have to do the right thing and take a contrary view.

I may join the Nats so that the pair of you will take out Tory party membership within a week...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course the sane money is on either a NP or a NG guilty verdict but, as I said it, you two have to do the right thing and take a contrary view.
I may join the Nats so that the pair of you will take out Tory party membership within a week...

Kincardine I'd welcome you like a brother. This is why we'll win and you'll lose in the end

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Fair enough. Can you go on to explain how an allegation of touching a woman's hair corroborates an allegation of attempted rape?

 

Edited to add: Of course, the jury are also entitled to find that there was collusion between the witnesses. Moorov would not apply in those circumstances.

If those were the only two allegations you'd have a point, but they're not.

I think if the jury believe there was collusion between witnesses Moorov is obviously an irrelevance, seeing as they believe the witnesses are lying and making false accusations. But I was talking about Craig Murray's blog, and it was horseshit.

Edit: to tone it down as it was much too angry and I'm trying to be less of a dick online.

 

Edited by GordonS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MixuFixit said:


Kincardine I'd welcome you like a brother. This is why we'll win and you'll lose in the end emoji8.png

Aye, why let silly things like geography, football and politics separate us, Bro?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, GordonS said:

If those were the only two allegations you'd have a point, but they're not.

Ok, with specific reference to the Moorov doctrine, can you please explain why you believe that any of the alleged offences that do not allege attempted rape corroborate any allegation or allegations of attempted rape.

Apologies for the mangled phrasing!

Edited by lichtgilphead
typos - using tablet instead of laptop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Ok, with specific reference to the Moorov doctrine, can you please explain why you believe that any of the allged offences that do not allege attemied rape corroborate any allgation or allegations of attempted rape.

Apologies for the mangled phrasing!

There's tons of case law that happened since I learned about it, but it's fairly broad, it's pretty much anything that can lead the jury to believe there is a course of conduct, something of a similar nature. Surprisingly, the wiki page on it is actually good.

It would have been really interesting to hear Lady Dorrian's charge to the jury about Moorov, she must have covered it. I have an opinion but I wouldn't comment on the Salmond case only on the basis of what's been reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, GordonS said:

There's tons of case law that happened since I learned about it, but it's fairly broad, it's pretty much anything that can lead the jury to believe there is a course of conduct, something of a similar nature. Surprisingly, the wiki page on it is actually good.

It would have been really interesting to hear Lady Dorrian's charge to the jury about Moorov, she must have covered it. I have an opinion but I wouldn't comment on the Salmond case only on the basis of what's been reported.

So, from what's been officially reported, you don't believe that a systematic course of conduct has been pursued by the accused?

That's your Moorov corroboration f*cked then.

However, I must agree that I would have liked Lady Dorrian's advice to the jury to have been reported. The Scottish press not reporting what was said in"open court" is likely to result in all sorts of conspiracy theories, regardless of the verdict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lichtgilphead said:

So, from what's been officially reported, you don't believe that a systematic course of conduct has been pursued by the accused?

Where did you get that??? I'm saying I don't know enough to comment.

Quote

However, I must agree that I would have liked Lady Dorrian's advice to the jury to have been reported. The Scottish press not reporting what was said in"open court" is likely to result in all sorts of conspiracy theories, regardless of the verdict.

Tbh I think there was far, far too much reporting of the case. From three pieces of information tweeted by Philip Sim I worked out who one of the women is. That's not right. Live tweeting gives the impression that all the events are being relayed, but that's not possible, and the person tweeting can't appreciate the overall picture they're painting in real time. I know it fuels conspiracy theories, but zoomers gonna zoom. 

Btw, this from a recent appeal by Lady Dorrian maybe gives an insight into her reading of Moorov:

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=865719a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Screenshot 2020-03-21 at 00.10.01.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GordonS said:

1) Where did you get that??? I'm saying I don't know enough to comment.

2) Tbh I think there was far, far too much reporting of the case.

3) From three pieces of information tweeted by Philip Sim I worked out who one of the women is. That's not right.

4) Live tweeting gives the impression that all the events are being relayed, but that's not possible, and the person tweeting can't appreciate the overall picture they're painting in real time.

5) I know it fuels conspiracy theories, but zoomers gonna zoom. 

6) Btw, this from a recent appeal by Lady Dorrian maybe gives an insight into her reading of Moorov:

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=865719a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Screenshot 2020-03-21 at 00.10.01.png

1) In an earlier post, you said that Craig Murray was incorrect and that Moorov did apply. I asked you to be specific as to why, and you hid behind the fact thst not everything had been reported. It's up to the prosecution to probe that a systematic course of conduct has been pursued by the accused. We both appear to agree that (according to the media) they have failed to do so. Obviously, the jury have access to evidence that we don't!

2) I would disagree. I would suggest that the media have concentrated on reporting the prosecution case, but have not provided the same coverage of the defence. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

3) If the BBC have provided you with information to work out who any of the complainers are, they are in contempt of court. It's telling that you accuse Craig Murray of misrepoering events, but fail to accuse Philip Sim of anything until now.

From the "official" media sources, I'm pretty sure that I've identified at least 2 and possibly 3 of the unnamed witnesse. Why were they not banned from court?

4) Agreed. That's why the full transcript should eventually be made available. I'm sure that you'll join me in calling for this.

5) The Scottish press have their own share of these zoomers. Do you trust them?

6) Whilst accepting that 4 years ago is recent in terms of case law, there is a big difference between using Moorov to corroborate 2 serious sexual offences  relating to indecent & libidinous conduct with children aged between 4 and 10 years old, and using Moorov to corroborate attempted rape by alleging that the accused touched an adult female's hair, or that the accused allegedly asked a complainant to kiss her.

Here's the most recent case I'm aware of

Linky

In Procurator Fiscal, Aberdeen v Taylor [2019] HCJAC 2 (7 February 2019) the respondent had been convicted by the sheriff of a contravention of s 5 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 by repeatedly exposing his penis from the windows of his home and masturbating 

The High Court reaffirmed the need to prove by corroborated evidence each of the instances to be found in a “composite” charge. Where the incidents of criminal behaviour show similarities in time, place and character such that they can properly be said to form part of a single course of conduct persisted in by the accused, corroboration may be provided on a Moorov basis.

How can you possibly suggest that attempted rape can be corroborated by the "minor" alleged offences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found it a bit sad that Salmond's wife was doing the whole 'Stand by your man ' thing. I thought we'd moved on a bit from that as a society. 

Even if you concentrate only on the elements of the accusations  he admitted to, but put a different slant on, and accept his version which might be true, his behaviour is pretty reprehensible and she should be packing his bags if she has any self respect.

Does definitely create questions too about the way the Scottish government handled things and the power Salmond had. 

We are definitely better off with Nicola.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fully expect a Not Proven verdict, his public ignominy and disgrace is largely already decided upon however. It isn’t a great legacy to leave the stage with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...