The Alex Salmond trial

It is extraordinarily rare for any complainant who has not been believed in court to be prosecuted for perjury. All it takes in this case is to read the evidence that the jury did believe to reach the conclusion that these women were lying. Apart from one charge this was not a case of he said/she said, and she hasn't proved it, there were independent witnesses who came to court and gave evidence under their own names with no identity protection who testified that these events simply did not happen, either not at all, or not in the way the complainants claimed they had.

And I will repeat, no crime was found to have been committed by the accused. Therefore it is factually correct to state that no crime was found to have been committed against them. You can go on believing that the witnesses who were believed by the jury were all lying in their teeth if you like, but the fact remains that the court did not conclude that any crime had been committed against these witches.

Honestly, your logic here is on a par with the logic of the Knox-Sollecito guilters. Oh but the court has to find the case proved beyond reasonable doubt, an acquittal doesn't mean they didn't do it, and so on ad aeternum.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
It is extraordinarily rare for any complainant who has not been believed in court to be prosecuted for perjury. All it takes in this case is to read the evidence that the jury did believe to reach the conclusion that these women were lying. Apart from one charge this was not a case of he said/she said, and she hasn't proved it, there were independent witnesses who came to court and gave evidence under their own names with no identity protection who testified that these events simply did not happen, either not at all, or not in the way the complainants claimed they had.

And I will repeat, no crime was found to have been committed by the accused. Therefore it is factually correct to state that no crime was found to have been committed against them. You can go on believing that the witnesses who were believed by the jury were all lying in their teeth if you like, but the fact remains that the court did not conclude that any crime had been committed against these witches.

Honestly, your logic here is on a par with the logic of the Knox-Sollecito guilters. Oh but the court has to find the case proved beyond reasonable doubt, an acquittal doesn't mean they didn't do it, and so on ad aeternum.
Click to expand...

Lying in court is an offence. Which court charged them with lying and which jury concluded they lied?

Just because no crime was found to be committed does not mean that witnesses lied.

You are jumping to conclusions and reading more into the decision than us justified because of your prejudices.
 
LondonJohn said:
See my previous post.

Incidentally, if law-enforcement authorities actually did believe there was evidence that one or more of these women had lied (whether for political gain or for another reason), then this in itself constitutes a criminal offence and the woman/women in question ought to be prosecuted accordingly.

Outside of that, I'd suggest that it probably isn't too wise an idea to be openly accusing any of these women to have been liars........
Click to expand...

It is very rare that someone is prosecuted for lying about a crime because

1 - victims groups & others have pressurised prosecutors into believing that would put genuine victims off (I disagree)
2 - it is surprisingly hard to prove, since many accusations are based on the distortion or exaggeration of an actual event, so opinion comes into play. The accuser needs to admit he/she made it up and there needs to be proof that the alleged crime did not happen at all.
3 - it means the prosecution has to admit they were fooled.

The chances of one of Salmond's accusers admitting she made it up is nil. There are instances where certain behaviour by Salmond is admitted, the defence argument was it did not amount to a crime, the prosecution's argument was that it did. Victims groups have been very vocal (there was someone on the news last night) supporting the victims and expressing concerns that what has happened will put others off reporting crimes.
 
Nessie said:
It is very rare that someone is prosecuted for lying about a crime because

1 - victims groups & others have pressurised prosecutors into believing that would put genuine victims off (I disagree)
2 - it is surprisingly hard to prove, since many accusations are based on the distortion or exaggeration of an actual event, so opinion comes into play. The accuser needs to admit he/she made it up and there needs to be proof that the alleged crime did not happen at all.
3 - it means the prosecution has to admit they were fooled.

The chances of one of Salmond's accusers admitting she made it up is nil. There are instances where certain behaviour by Salmond is admitted, the defence argument was it did not amount to a crime, the prosecution's argument was that it did. Victims groups have been very vocal (there was someone on the news last night) supporting the victims and expressing concerns that what has happened will put others off reporting crimes.
Click to expand...
This is often the case in this type of case and the question on whether certain actions amount to consent. Where the court decides that what happened does not amount to a crime, it does not mean the prosecution witnesses lied. It only means the court didn't find the accused guilty of a crime.
I agree prosecutions for lying are rare. Rolfe is saying the jury concluded the witnesses in this case were lying. That was not the task the jury in the Salmond case were set. This wasn't one of the rare 'prosecution for lying' cases.
 
Last edited:
By your standards, nobody who is accused is ever innocent, or can be regarded as innocent, ever again.
 
Rolfe said:
By your standards, nobody who is accused is ever innocent, or can be regarded as innocent, ever again.
Click to expand...
No. Someone who is accused of a crime can be found not guilty or innocent if you want. That doesn't mean that witnesses for the prosecution are lying.

I gave an example. There could be total agreement between two people that they had sex. The dispute could revolve around whether actions or words they both agreed happen or were said amounts to consent. That is the subject of legal argument. Thatas court agrees the actions amounted to consent does not mean the witness was lying.

In the Salmond case there was agreement he kissed someone on the lips and touched someone else on the leg. The evidence of what happened in those incidents was not in dispute. That the females concered may have interpreted the acts Salmond agreed happened as sexual does not make them liars. The question for the court was not whether that was how they interpreted it. The question was whether that was how it was intended.
 
I note you're sidestepping the ones with the witness evidence that contradicted the facts.
 
Rolfe said:
It is extraordinarily rare for any complainant who has not been believed in court to be prosecuted for perjury. All it takes in this case is to read the evidence that the jury did believe to reach the conclusion that these women were lying. Apart from one charge this was not a case of he said/she said, and she hasn't proved it, there were independent witnesses who came to court and gave evidence under their own names with no identity protection who testified that these events simply did not happen, either not at all, or not in the way the complainants claimed they had.

And I will repeat, no crime was found to have been committed by the accused. Therefore it is factually correct to state that no crime was found to have been committed against them. You can go on believing that the witnesses who were believed by the jury were all lying in their teeth if you like, but the fact remains that the court did not conclude that any crime had been committed against these witches.

Honestly, your logic here is on a par with the logic of the Knox-Sollecito guilters. Oh but the court has to find the case proved beyond reasonable doubt, an acquittal doesn't mean they didn't do it, and so on ad aeternum.
Click to expand...



I'm sorry, you're just plain wrong.

You're drawing an axiomatic connection between a) Salmond being found not guilty and b) his accusers being liars. Which is not the case.

You've also got totally the wrong end of the stick wrt perjury etc: you're calling these women liars, yet if there truly was any evidence that they were liars, they would (or at least should) be being prosecuted for perjury. And so if, as you say, the women do not appear to be being prosecuted for perjury, this is a strong pointer towards there being no evidence that they were liars.

And wrt the other case (a low tactic, btw), I've always stated that being acquitted of a crime does not necessarily mean that one did not factually commit the crime. And I've stated that in the case you're referring to. A lot of times. You must have forgotten that.....
 
Rolfe said:
By your standards, nobody who is accused is ever innocent, or can be regarded as innocent, ever again.
Click to expand...


????

The actual situation is this: if someone is charged and prosecuted for a given crime, that person retains the presumption of innocence all the way up to the verdict.

If the verdict is "guilty", the person becomes the legal culprit (and obviously loses the presumption of innocence).

If the verdict is "not guilty", the person retains the presumption of innocence.


Salmond's case obviously comes under that final categorisation. He retains the presumption of innocence.
 
2014 Dinner

"She [Samatha Barber] went on to say that it had only been her, Mr Salmond and the celebrity who were at the dinner." BBC

I am not taking a position on who is lying or whether or not it is possible that someone is honestly mistaken. However, one possibility is that Woman H is lying.
 
Could you explain any possible scenario in which Woman H was mistaken? The possibility that the events occurred on a different occasion was fully explored and no possible such occasion was identified.
 
and then there were three

I was thinking more of Samantha Barber when I wrote my previous comment; however, I have reconsidered. At a dinner party of ten people, she might have forgotten or been unaware that Woman H was present. IIUC only three people were present that evening; therefore, I don't see this as a likely possibility at all. I am reminded very slightly of the Cardinal Pell case, in that there were only two dates where the alleged abuse could have happened.
 
It wasn't just the recollection of the other woman at the dinner, it was the sign-in and sign-out records and other stuff. Also I think that was the one where the alphabetty was shown to have lied about Tasmina Sheikh. I'd need to look it up but I think she said she'd spoken to Tasmina about going to the dinner, at a football match, but Tasmina hadn't gone to the football match after all because her father had died suddenly.

The Z-list actor (who also has anonymity, no idea why, I know/knew his name but I've forgotten because I never heard of him) thought there was another woman at the dinner but got the description all wrong and unaccountably didn't notice that this shadowy other woman had her arm in a plaster cast. Woman H had her arm in a plaster cast at the time. Now consider the story of the attempted rape and add in a stookie on her arm. (Also bear in mind that the actor was never sworn in or cross-examined. For some inexplicable reason the court allowed a video of his oral evidence to be shown in court, and it was this woolly story about thinking there was a fourth person there, a woman, but then getting the clothes and the description and the whole plaster-cast thing all wrong. And nobody could ask him to elaborate.)

In my opinion the entire thing was fabricated, without any foresight that the story would be checked up on, because it was only going to lie on file and then be waved vaguely at Salmond if he had the temerity to seek approval as a candidate. Then when it all escalated it was impossible to substantiate it. I actually have a strong feeling she'd forgotten that the date of the dinner with the actor was during the weeks when she had her arm in plaster.

Woman H specifically tied this incident to the dinner with the actor, which she definitely wasn't at but could have read about. The actor only came to dinner at Bute House once. I mean, we're supposed to believe the woman but honestly. And given who she is and her back-story with Salmond, no.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
"She [Samatha Barber] went on to say that it had only been her, Mr Salmond and the celebrity who were at the dinner." BBC

I am not taking a position on who is lying or whether or not it is possible that someone is honestly mistaken. However, one possibility is that Woman H is lying.
Click to expand...
Lying is certainly possible. However I am talking about a fundamental point and not this case in particular.

In a civil case you will get a decision handed down by the judge and that will contain the full reasoning behind the decision. That may well contain an opinion that a witness was lying although I had never seen it put that way. 'Unreliable' is more likely.

In a criminal court the jury decides. There is no published decision with reasons. All we know is whether the defendant is found innocent or guilty. We can guess at the reasons the jury found what they did but need to understand it is only the accussed who is on trial. The witnesses are not on trial.
The court only makes a decision on the accused not the witnesses.

It is therefore wrong to say that the Salmond court concluded all the witnesses for the prosecution were found by the court to be liars. The court found Salmond mostly innocent (unproven on one charge). It did not make any decisions on the witnesses. No jurer stood up and answered "Guilty" to the question " Do you find this witness guilty of lying"

Rolfe may have taken the view that witnesses lied but she is wrong to say they were found to be lying by a court, the justification for her misogynistic descriptions of them.
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
Lying is certainly possible. However I am talking about a fundamental point and not this case in particular.

In a civil case you will get a decision handed down by the judge and that will contain the full reasoning behind the decision. That may well contain an opinion that a witness was lying although I had never seen it put that way. 'Unreliable' is more likely.

In a criminal court the jury decides. There is no published decision with reasons. All we know is whether the defendant is found innocent or guilty. We can guess at the reasons the jury found what they did but need to understand it is only the accussed who is on trial. The witnesses are not on trial.
The court only makes a decision on the accused not the witnesses.

It is therefore wrong to say that the Salmond court concluded all the witnesses for the prosecution were found by the court to be liars. The court found Salmond mostly innocent (unproven on one charge). It did not make any decisions on the witnesses. No jurer stood up and answered "Guilty" to the question " Do you find this witness guilty of lying"

Rolfe may have taken the view that witnesses lied but she is wrong to say they were found to be lying by a court, the justification for her misogynistic descriptions of them.
Click to expand...
Misogynistic?
 
I have never much liked Salmond - he seems like such an ungenerous and narrowminded person. And this then combined with an ideology of rather parochial nationalism. Still, this said, this process has has not seemed very fair, so let the chips fall where they may.
 
Last edited:
What I do not get is that the original submission 4 here

https://web.archive.org/web/2021022...l documents/Alex_Salmond_Ministerial_Code.pdf

has a name that is referenced 3 times, that is redacted from the present submission 4 here;

https://www.parliament.scot/Harassm...lmond_(5)_(further_redactions_23.02.2021).pdf

Since the redactions were due to it being contempt of court to name an accuser from the trial, it is now bloody obvious who one of the accusers is. How is that not contempt of court?
 
Well, exactly.

It is impossible to describe what happened as regards the formation of the illegal and unfair new complaints procedure (which is actually at the heart of this) without referencing the members of the small clique of people who actually did this.

One of the people at the centre of the conspiracy later added her name to the list of complainants, thus ensuring that she would not be identified (as a complainant). Salmond's legal team, backed up by Lady Dorian, contend that naming this person in the context of her role in cooking up the complaints process, without identifying her as a complainant, is essential to be able to give an account of what happened. The inquiry, led by SNP MSPs who obviously have a vested interest in shutting Salmond up, have decided that any mention of this woman's name at all is forbidden.

After Lady Dorian comfirmed that it was actually ludicrous to insist that the woman could not be referred to at all, that latest submission from Salmond was "published" on the web site. Remember, only what is published on the web site is allowed to be referenced by the committee, or indeed by Salmond himself in his oral evidence. However that submission, by containing the contentious references to the all-important meetings and other communications which involved this woman, was obviously going to allow Salmond to present the evidence that he has which shows this entire thing was orchestrated by Sturgeon, which is what they're desperate to keep under wraps.

So they somehow had a change of heart, second thoughts, whatever, and decided that despite what Lady Dorian said, these passages referring to this woman must after all be excised. So they said they had removed the submission from the web site to be redacted (again, this isn't the first time this has happened). Except they hadn't taken the submission off the web site, they only removed the link from the index. The submission was there for anyone to access using the direct link for the rest of that day (and many did). It's also still there on the Wayback Machine.

So once they (again) re-published the redacted submission, it was simplicity itself for anyone who still unaccountably hadn't figured it out, to see whose name was consistently being extirpated from the submission. Salmond didn't out this woman as a complainer, the inquiry did that all by itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom