[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 65142)
File  []
>> No. 65142 YubYub
23rd March 2020
Monday 7:15 pm
65142 spacer


Expand all images.
>> No. 65143 Samefag
23rd March 2020
Monday 7:30 pm
65143 spacer

>> No. 65144 Are Moaty
23rd March 2020
Monday 7:43 pm
65144 spacer

(He SO fucking did it)
>> No. 65145 Crabkiller
23rd March 2020
Monday 8:02 pm
65145 spacer
If you read the reports from the trail, the prosecutions evidence was entirely innuendo and many of the witness testimonies were deemed inadmissible because they colluded and ADMITTED it under oath.

Elsewhere in the world a significant number of corroborating statements might hold weight without corroboration, but the fact only one witness managed to even get on the stand and they had completely contrary accounts and not competing accounts of a similar statement he was almost guaranteed to be acquitted in a Scottish court.

The real scandal here is that he appears to have been stitched up twice by the Scottish Civil service, in particular the permanent secretary, and members of his own party. Seeing as Nicola Sturgeon is directly responsible for the extension of the PS's contract then it stands to reason that she endorses that targeted campaign against him to stop him returning to front-line politics.
>> No. 65146 Paedofag
23rd March 2020
Monday 8:17 pm
65146 spacer

If it was something as cynical as you suggest (i haven't kept up with it) it's an absolute disgrace. undoubtedly it just gives the chronics a chance to point at something and use it to discredit stuff like #metoo, and some of the stuff coming out of that didn't need much discrediting to begin with (see: are depp)
>> No. 65147 Crabkiller
23rd March 2020
Monday 8:27 pm
65147 spacer
Not proven on one count.
>> No. 65148 YubYub
23rd March 2020
Monday 8:50 pm
65148 spacer

Yes, that judgement in scotland which means we know you did it but the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt.
>> No. 65149 Paedofag
23rd March 2020
Monday 8:56 pm
65149 spacer
If the rest are not guilty does that mean they were obviously bollocks? I mean, a lot of rape cases are basically one person's word against another's that you can't really prove definitively either way.
>> No. 65150 Moralfag
23rd March 2020
Monday 9:13 pm
65150 spacer
No, that judgement in Scotland which says the Prosecution failed to prove your guilt because their case was held together with blu tac.

The defence doesn't have to prove you innocent to get you off in Scotland, they just have to prove the prosecutions evidence doesn't hold water. He got Not Proven instead of Not Guilty on one of them, because the witness who would have corroborated his statement was in isolation, so his defence wasn't robust enough for him to be found not guilty on that charge. However, it's always, always an indictment of the prosecution's case and not, as you say, "We know, but you've weaselled out."

Due process doesn't work like that, m9.
>> No. 65151 Crabkiller
24th March 2020
Tuesday 1:16 pm
65151 spacer
Typical senior politician, rigging the justice system in his favour to escape punishment.
>> No. 65152 Anonymous
24th March 2020
Tuesday 5:58 pm
65152 spacer
Bloody medieval landed nobles. Alba briste.
>> No. 65156 YubYub
24th March 2020
Tuesday 7:30 pm
65156 spacer
Not guilty but don't do it again.
>> No. 65161 Anonymous
24th March 2020
Tuesday 8:15 pm
65161 spacer

I love the scots verdict of "Not proven". I always think it's the court saying "He dunnit and we know 'e dunnit but we can't prove it so on with yer".
>> No. 65164 Auntiefucker
25th March 2020
Wednesday 12:30 am
65164 spacer

Which is pretty much what Michael Jackson's jurors said after his trial ..."We're sure he did it, we just couldn't prove it on this occasion."
>> No. 65169 Auntiefucker
26th March 2020
Thursday 2:04 pm
65169 spacer
You seem to have completely misread the post you are replying to, which is itself a refutation of yours.

That post is saying that the verdict means the prosecution's case is so rubbish that there is virtually no charge to answer to begin with.
>> No. 65170 YubYub
26th March 2020
Thursday 2:09 pm
65170 spacer
that was my first post in the thread, i didn't bother to read the rest of it.


"Both in the "solemn" and the "summary" acquittals, not proven is interpreted as indicating that the jury or judge, respectively, is not convinced of the innocence of the accused; in fact, they may be morally convinced that the accused is guilty, but do not find the proofs sufficient for a conviction. One reason for this is the rule that in such cases the evidence for the prosecution must be corroborated in order to permit a conviction. Thus, there might be a single plaintiff or witness for the prosecution, which the jury or judge believes is both truthful and trustworthy, but no other witness or circumstances against the accused. By Scottish law, the accused then should be acquitted, but often will be so by the verdict not proven.[1]"

that's not the same thing as having 'no charge to answer'. I think you're happily choosing your own interpretation here.
>> No. 65171 Moralfag
26th March 2020
Thursday 2:24 pm
65171 spacer
The prosecution gambit was to get him under the Moorov Doctorine - if a lot of people say he's a sexual criminal, then all of their claims (absent other evidence) can corroborate one another and be entered as evidence. What actually happened is when they went trawling for claims (interviewing over 400 women) they had to really reach, drawing in things like "tugging on hair" to try and get a reasonable number of cases in. I think including farcical charges like that undermined their whole case, the jury thought it was bollocks and threw the whole lot out.

The whole business with SNP factionalism around this is very interesting. Sturgeon clearly wasn't on his side and expressed no gladness he'd been found innocent (unlike some other SNP representatives), the Scottish Government has already been sued by Salmond for cocking up their internal investigation into his behaviour - but Sturgeon gets on with the civil servant who was in charge of it and re-appointed them. It'll be interesting to see what evidence of a conspiracy Salmond presents, having claimed he's got it but couldn't enter it into the trial.

Return ]

Delete Post []