Alex Salmond | Vital Football

Alex Salmond

I also find it hard to believe that all 9 were lieing.

But all 9 were in the eyes of the law so he should now take a civil action out against them all.

Was does "not proven" mean as opposed to not guilty?
 
wxgill said:
I also find it hard to believe that all 9 were lieing.
Click to expand...
Who said they were lying for fuck sake?
wxgill said:
But all 9 were in the eyes of the law so he should now take a civil action out against them all.
Click to expand...
No they were not FFS
wxgill said:
Was does "not proven" mean as opposed to not guilty?
Click to expand...
Look it up

According to one report "Judge Lady Dorrian told jurors they must decide whether the charges have been proven beyond reasonable doubt." So what does that have to do with the women telling lies?

Thank heavens you and VG are not judges
 
If the jury say he is innocent they (the jury) are also saying that the women made up the evidence about him being guilty.

Is that too simple? Is there some middle verdict that i do not know about?
 
The comprehensive study, presented in Edinburgh on Wednesday, discovered that during deliberations jurors viewed not proven as a “compromise” verdict, meaning “guilty but you can’t prove it in court”.
 
wxgill said:
If the jury say he is innocent they (the jury) are also saying that the women made up the evidence about him being guilty.

Is that too simple? Is there some middle verdict that i do not know about?
Click to expand...
If you watch someone break a window but there are no other witnesses, the window breaker would be guilty of damaging the window but would probably get off at court due to lack of evidence, therefore not guilty as it could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he did it. Doesn't make you a liar for saying he did it.
Add a bit of CCTV evidence and/or another witness and it could be a different story .
 
wxgill said:
If the jury say he is innocent they (the jury) are also saying that the women made up the evidence about him being guilty.
Click to expand...
The jury is not saying he is innocent at all. Did you not read the quote from the judge. A conviction can only be made if the charges can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
wxgill said:
they (the jury) are also saying that the women made up the evidence about him being guilty.
Click to expand...
What makes you think that? The jury makes a decision on the evidence presented, testimonies of witnesses and legal arguments. Jurors do not give opinions except when deliberating behind closed doors.
wxgill said:
Is that too simple? Is there some middle verdict that i do not know about?
Click to expand...
It's that simple - a guilty verdict in criminal proceedings is based on proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
wxgill said:
The comprehensive study, presented in Edinburgh on Wednesday, discovered that during deliberations jurors viewed not proven as a “compromise” verdict, meaning “guilty but you can’t prove it in court”.
Click to expand...
Can you provide evidence of that. Not proven, which applies in Scotland but not England and Wales, is a situation where juror or judge is not convinced of innocence but there is insufficient proof for a conviction.
 
To use a football analogy, when a penalty award for a trip in the area is reversed by VAR, does the forward automatically get booked for diving every time?
 
He's reportedly considering relaunching his political career , that should go down well with the lady voters !
 
If you haven't read it look at the defence lawyer's summing up to the jury on Friday. As soon as I read it is thought he would be found not guilty.
 
When I did jury service, the judge told us that we must be 100% certain that the accused was guilty, otherwise we must find him innocent.

So if you thought to yourself that he was 98% guilty, you would have to find him innocent!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.