advertisement


Salmond not guilty

gassor

gassor

There may be more posts after this.
"Alex Salmond has been cleared of sexual assaulting nine women while he was Scotland's first minister. A jury found the former SNP leader not guilty on 12 of the sexual assault charges facing him, while another was found not proven."

I find this verdict hard to believe. 9, yes 9, different women said they were sexually assaulted, his aids were aware of his behaviour and tried to make sure he was never left alone with any female staff and he got off with the attempted rape charge (I assume) because of uncertainty over dates. It surely was not because he had stripped off - apart from his socks! - and clambered on top of a female assistant.

More detail here of the charges. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/alex-salmond-cleared-allegations-sexual-21740177
 
It didn't sound like there was much in the way of evidence though. If he hadn't been in the public eye then I'd be surprised if that case would have gone to trial.

Like most I am assuming there was a basis for the allegations (and I'm a long term SNP voter) but sounds like the case was weak.
 
I dont wish to comment on the nature of the charges as most distasteful, but as you state with so many accusers it's hard to see how none of the evidence held up unless seriously flawed. If so why was a huge amount of public money wasted on a trial that ultimately led to no prosecution?
I find it astounding no charges were upheld if they were valid and presented correctly.
Again not to comment on the actual case I think it's also fair that extremely high profile trials are known to be under huge scrutiny so again I must ask why a case got to trial that'd not one charge was upheld?
For the record I am not defending any aspect of the accessed behaviour or those who made claims against him, I am commenting on public money spent on what seems a flawed case
 
say it as it is said:
I dont wish to comment on the nature of the charges as most distasteful, but as you state with so many accusers it's hard to see how none of the evidence held up unless seriously flawed. If so why was a huge amount of public money wasted on a trial that ultimately led to no prosecution?
Click to expand...

Prosecutors were probably worried that if they dropped it for lack of evidence they'd be accused of political bias. Although I suppose they might now still be open to accusations of bias but the other way!
 
Crimes of this nature are always very difficult to prove, the reporting on the case suggested the evidence was weak. His reputation has been trashed but it is not a crime to be a rather unpleasant individual. It does appear obvious that he was a bit 'handsy'.
 
I find it hard to believe that some men in politics hold so much power as to prevent women bringing accusations forward at the first opportunity (elsewhere e.g. the movie industry is easier to believe), that seems to be the way it is though.
 
Yes but any other case with the supposed huge amount of evidence or witness statements and seperate accessors would either be an open and shut case and easily won. Or if the evidence no matter how varied was inconsistent or incomplete then would not be brought to trial.
Point I am trying to make is either this doesn't go to trial as seen as a waste of public money if not a certain victory. So what on this occasion was different? Clearly someone authorised the huge public expenditure on this case when I would suggest possibly this is not the norm
 
say it as it is said:
I dont wish to comment on the nature of the charges as most distasteful, but as you state with so many accusers it's hard to see how none of the evidence held up unless seriously flawed. If so why was a huge amount of public money wasted on a trial that ultimately led to no prosecution?
I find it astounding no charges were upheld if they were valid and presented correctly.
Again not to comment on the actual case I think it's also fair that extremely high profile trials are known to be under huge scrutiny so again I must ask why a case got to trial that'd not one charge was upheld?
For the record I am not defending any aspect of the accessed behaviour or those who made claims against him, I am commenting on public money spent on what seems a flawed case
Click to expand...

He was prosecuted but found innocent. There was no serious flaw in the evidence apart from confusion over the date of one alleged crime. It was down to Salmond's word against 9 women, he won. It was not a flawed case it's just that sexual assault is very difficult to prove.
 
To be fair, once the allegations were made, as far as Mr Salmond was concerned, a proper trial where he was found not guilty of the allegations is by far the clearest signal it is possible for him to send vindicating his behaviour - if the CPS (or whatever the Scottish equivalent is) had dropped the case, the accusations would have rumbled on, and so he would have been forever tarnished with these accusations.
 
I can see why some might question the verdict, as some here seem to be, if all they have to go on is MSM's very selective and hugely biased coverage; If genuinely interested, seek out some online reporters/commentators who detailed what actually happened in court.

As far as I can see, from following it in some detail, it's an utter disgrace that he was charged, let alone put on trial, IMO.
 
Caledon1297 said:
If genuinely interested, seek out some online reporters/commentators who detailed what actually happened in court.

As far as I can see, from following it in some detail, it's an utter disgrace that he was charged, let alone put on trial, IMO.
Click to expand...

If only. I sense a feeling of disappointment in the outcome, but no genuine interest in what happened in court.
 
SteveG said:
Not entirely as there was one "not proven" in amongst them.
Click to expand...

Well OK, but Not guilty and not proven have the same impact – they are both acquittals, and there are no legal consequences for the accused if they get a not proven verdict. It does leave the way open for a civil action though. The verdict of not proven is bound to come under some scrutiny again.
 
I suppose the trial has given a benchmark as the the level of acceptable behaviour. assuming the defendant can afford the same level of legal representation.
 
Colin Barron said:
I suppose the trial has given a benchmark as the the level of acceptable behaviour. assuming the defendant can afford the same level of legal representation.
Click to expand...

No actually, the trial has given a benchmark as to the level of actual evidence required to convict somebody. Even someone as unpopular as him.
 
Caledon1297 said:
As far as I can see, from following it in some detail, it's an utter disgrace that he was charged, let alone put on trial, IMO.
Click to expand...

I have kept a fairly close eye on the case and in my opinion he is very fortunate indeed. What is disgraceful about him being charged when 9 different women said he was a sexual predator?
 
gassor said:
"Alex Salmond has been cleared of sexual assaulting nine women while he was Scotland's first minister. A jury found the former SNP leader not guilty on 12 of the sexual assault charges facing him, while another was found not proven."

I find this verdict hard to believe. 9, yes 9, different women said they were sexually assaulted, his aids were aware of his behaviour and tried to make sure he was never left alone with any female staff and he got off with the attempted rape charge (I assume) because of uncertainty over dates. It surely was not because he had stripped off - apart from his socks! - and clambered on top of a female assistant.

More detail here of the charges. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/alex-salmond-cleared-allegations-sexual-21740177
Click to expand...
I really thought he was guilty. But here is what would get I'm an innocent. All these woman had been in connection with each other. I have not seen the news yet but would put my money on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top