Alex Salmond | Page 2 | Vital Football

Alex Salmond

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...
Our system requires criminal guilt to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
So some people will think 'no smoke without fire..... he might have done it, but we can't be sure.'

But ( and I don't pretend to have read statements from any of the women) .....these man v woman things are often behind closed doors ...... and even if some flirting went on, most people know from personal experience that men and women can misunderstand the other's signals.
So the women weren't necessarily lying. One or more possibly misinterterpreted the same 'facts'.

What seems unfair is such cases where the woman's name is secret but not the man's.
 
Tarian said:
Our system requires criminal guilt to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
So some people will think 'no smoke without fire..... he might have done it, but we can't be sure.'

But ( and I don't pretend to have read statements from any of the women) .....these man v woman things are often behind closed doors ...... and even if some flirting went on, most people know from personal experience that men and women can misunderstand the other's signals.
So the women weren't necessarily lying. One or more possibly misinterterpreted the same 'facts'.

What seems unfair is such cases where the woman's name is secret but not the man's.
Click to expand...


'I don't pretend to have read statements from any of the women'

'and even if some flirting went on'

Seriously !!??
 
Alex Salmond was cleared on 12 charges, only one was declared not proven, his name has been cleared. The size of the majority on each count was not published, my experience of jury service makes me wonder if the prosecution made a adequate case against him.
When I did my jury service we had a case in which the CPS's case was woeful, the opinion of all of us was that the accused was guilty, but prosecution had not provided proof of his guilt. As it was under English law not Scottish, not proven not an option. As the charge was importuning in a public toilet (cottaging) and in our view they had set him up by using an 'agent provocateur' we found him not guilty. The availability to use not proven can be a useful tool for jurys.
 
The Roone said:
When I did my jury service we had a case in which the CPS's case was woeful
Click to expand...

Same for me when I did it in 2007.

Horrible case, where two now adults were accusing a former family friend of abusing them when they were young children.

We acquitted, as there was no solid evidence provided that pushed us up being reasonable doubt. We were 9-3 for about an hour, then 11-1, and the judge accepted 11-1 not guilty.

In our case it was pretty clear the CPS hadn't proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt, but in plenty of others there are issues where juries seem to think that beyond a reasonable doubt, means the same as beyond a shadow of a doubt.
 
I have met him suffers from thinking he is funny ( he isn't at all). Very surprised Sturgeon went this far. This isn't finished there will be a major blood letting over this.

This is not as straight forward as it looks. Joanna Cherry who is a QC supports Salmond. She isn't one who would back an abuser ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.