Nipper Salmond

[GordonS]

Just now, Granny Danger said:

When was this?

1978-1980. I thought everyone knew this. It's where he met Moira, she was his boss. 

[Savage Henry]

There's not a shred of evidence to believe that any of the witnesses lied.

Indeed. There’s no evidence to say the events didn’t happen. Not even Salmond claims that the women are making things up. That they didn’t amount to a crime is what was found, not that the women were lying.

[welshbairn]

57 minutes ago, strichener said:

Not if they committed perjury and then doubled down with their post trial open letter.

I cannot understand why anyone would happily ignore the fact that a man was under threat on imprisonment due to these alleged offences.  If any of the witnesses were lying then they should be expecting the same consequences, not "let it go rest".

Not sure how you'll get any witnesses to talk anymore if they get jailed if the jury don't believe them. The jury didn't believe Salmond either, thus the not proven verdict.

Edited May 16, 2020 by welshbairn

[Baxter Parp]

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

Alex Salmond was a civil servant. He worked for the Scottish Office. So...

Alex Salmond was not a civil servant at the time.  MPs and MSPs are not employed by the crown.  Rather obviously.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Baxter Parp

[lichtgilphead]

47 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

 

 

Indeed. There’s no evidence to say the events didn’t happen. Not even Salmond claims that the women are making things up. That they didn’t amount to a crime is what was found, not that the women were lying.
 

 

 

Here's just one example of Salmond claiming that one of the women was making things up. I can provide more if you're not convinced.

"He (Salmond) said Woman H's allegations against him were "lies""

That's a quote from the 'totally impartial' (ha ha)  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51943901

Woman H claimed to have attended dinner in Bute House on a specific night with Salmond, Samantha Barber & a celebrity that I'm banned from naming.

Her name did not appear in the Bute House visitors book for that night, Both Salmond & Barber denied she was there. The prosecution didn't even call the celebrity as a witness, probably because his statement got her hair colour wrong, and described a fourth person as wearing jeans when Woman H claimed to have been wearing a dress. His statement also forgot to mention that her arm was in a sling at the time. 

The jury obviously believed Woman H was lying. So do I. 

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, lichtgilphead said:

Here's just one example of Salmond claiming that one of the women was making things up. I can provide more if you're not convinced.

"He (Salmond) said Woman H's allegations against him were "lies""

That's a quote from the 'totally impartial' (ha ha)  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51943901

Woman H claimed to have attended dinner in Bute House on a specific night with Salmond, Samantha Barber & a celebrity that I'm banned from naming.

Her name did not appear in the Bute House visitors book for that night, Both Salmond & Barber denied she was there. The prosecution didn't even call the celebrity as a witness, probably because his statement got her hair colour wrong, and described a fourth person as wearing jeans when Woman H claimed to have been wearing a dress. His statement also forgot to mention that her arm was in a sling at the time. 

The jury obviously believed Woman H was lying. So do I. 

Or they were talking about a different evening or place. Memories are like that. If we were asked 5 years from now what we were doing and posting about tonight there's a fair chance our memories would diverge. 

[BawWatchin]

Why is this "Nipper Salmond" thread still going?

Either rename it to "Saint Salmond" or close it down ffs.

[Savage Henry]

Or they were talking about a different evening or place. Memories are like that. If we were asked 5 years from now what we were doing and posting about tonight there's a fair chance our memories would diverge. 

There’s also nothing “obvious l” about a court case none of us was party to. Just because he was cleared, doesn’t mean anybody lied.

[lichtgilphead]

34 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Or they were talking about a different evening or place. Memories are like that. If we were asked 5 years from now what we were doing and posting about tonight there's a fair chance our memories would diverge. 

As far as I'm aware, Woman H named a specific date, a specific place and the fact that Samantha Baber & the celebrity attended.

It's not in dispute that Barber & the actor were in Bute House on the night in question. If they had both attended on another occasion, I'm sure that this fact would have been brought up in court.

But yeah, woman H may have remembered the wrong date, the wrong place and who was present earlier that evening. Just like she may have wrongly remembered the other accusation she made about Salmond, when she claimed that she had been sexually assalted by him in Bute House in May 2014, whilst Eck was at home in Aberdeenshire.

Remember. It's up to the prosecution to prove guilt, not for the defence to prove innocence. Even if you give Woman H the benefit of the doubt, her evidence isn't exactly compelling.

However, it's impossible for me to provide further information about her without running the risk of jigsaw identification. Accordingly, I'll not comment firther apart from to state that I believe she was lying.

 

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Accordingly, I'll not comment firther apart from to state that I believe she was lying.

I'll withhold judgement as I wasn't in court, or even read the full transcript if it's available. 

[lichtgilphead]

7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I'll withhold judgement as I wasn't in court, or even read the full transcript if it's available. 

You've continually implied that Salmond was lying (and therefore guilty?), because the verdict was "not proven" on one of fourteen charges. 

3 hours ago, welshbairn said:

 The jury didn't believe Salmond either, thus the not proven verdict.

Why are you so sure on this point if you weren't there or haven't read the full transcript (which I am sure will never be made public)?

Two faced, or what!

[welshbairn]

39 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

You've continually implied that Salmond was lying (and therefore guilty?), because the verdict was "not proven" on one of fourteen charges. 

Why are you so sure on this point if you weren't there or haven't read the full transcript (which I am sure will never be made public)?

Two faced, or what!

I have no idea if the witness or the accused were lying or not, but I'm prepared to accept the decision of the jury as final. You, Hirst and Murray are evidently not.

[GordonS]

4 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

Indeed. There’s no evidence to say the events didn’t happen. Not even Salmond claims that the women are making things up. That they didn’t amount to a crime is what was found, not that the women were lying.
 

 

 

Worth saying, though the zoomers hate Dani Garavelli's article, she never claims that the jury were wrong. 

3 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

 

The jury obviously believed Woman H was lying. So do I. 

This is dumb as fk and a complete misunderstanding of a criminal trial.

You don't have to believe any witness was lying to find an accused not guilty. You just have to decide that the evidence is insufficient to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. You could believe that she was probably telling the truth and it still may not be enough. 

[GordonS]

3 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

Alex Salmond was not a civil servant at the time.  MPs and MSPs are not employed by the crown.  Rather obviously.

Oh, so you think that actual human beings would commit perjury about Alex Salmond because they are one of the half a million civil servants in the UK, but they wouldn't if they were employed by someone else?

(Some of the accusers, including on the attempted rape, weren't civil servants either btw).

[lichtgilphead]

28 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I have no idea if the witness or the accused were lying or not, but I'm prepared to accept the decision of the jury as final. You, Hirst and Murray are evidently not.

Unlike you, I accept the jury's finding that Salmond was innocent of all charges. 

However, questions remain as to whether some of Salmond's accusers conspired to pervert the course of justice and/or perjured themselves in court. In my opinion, these criminal allegations should be investigated and brought to trial if sufficient evidence exists.

Obviously, this is a completely seperate matter (albeit related) to the Salmond trial. 

[welshbairn]

A lesson there for anyone thinking about complaining about the behaviour of a powerful man. Even if he successfully defends the case, his friends will never stop hounding you. 

[lichtgilphead]

32 minutes ago, GordonS said:

This is dumb as fk and a complete misunderstanding of a criminal trial.

You don't have to believe any witness was lying to find an accused not guilty. You just have to decide that the evidence is insufficient to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. You could believe that she was probably telling the truth and it still may not be enough. 

Really?

A criminal trial is all about assessing the evidence provided by the witnesses and making a judgement as to how compelling and/or truthful it is.

Salmond said Woman H was lying, and provided compelling evidence (through independent eye-witnesses and diary documentation) to show exactly why she was lying.

Woman H provided some unsupported testimony to both accusations she made. Defence testimony convinced the jury that these accusations were untrue.

As you say, it's not necessary to prove that a prosecution witness was lying to convince a jury of innocence, but, if the defence does manage to totally discretit a prosecution witness, the jury will be compelled to find her evidence suspct, and acquit the accused.

 

 

[lichtgilphead]

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

A lesson there for anyone thinking about complaining about the behaviour of a powerful man. Even if he successfully defends the case, his friends will never stop hounding you. 

And his enemies will never stop insinuating that he is guilty, even though a jury of his peers has found that he was innocent of all 14 unfounded charges against him.

[Savage Henry]

Unlike you, I accept the jury's finding that Salmond was innocent of all charges. 
However, questions remain as to whether some of Salmond's accusers conspired to pervert the course of justice and/or perjured themselves in court. In my opinion, these criminal allegations should be investigated and brought to trial if sufficient evidence exists.
Obviously, this is a completely seperate matter (albeit related) to the Salmond trial. 

He wasn’t found innocent of all charges. You know that fine well.

There’s absolutely no questions or allegations remaining of “conspiracy to pervert the course of justice”. You made those questions up.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

7 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Unlike you, I accept the jury's finding that Salmond was innocent of all charges. 

However, questions remain as to whether some of Salmond's accusers conspired to pervert the course of justice and/or perjured themselves in court. In my opinion, these criminal allegations should be investigated and brought to trial if sufficient evidence exists.

Obviously, this is a completely seperate matter (albeit related) to the Salmond trial. 

No, they shouldn't. Yet more time, money and effort should not be wasted to satiate the loonball conspiracy theories of Salmond's most fanatical and frankly misogynist supporters. 

Having this shite raked through again is hardly to Salmond's benefit either. Does he really want all this pish as headline news for another X number of months? He was found not guilty on most charges and not proven on the other. That should be the end of it. Hounding these women does no one any credit whatsoever. 

Salmond should probably retire anyway, imo. He did a magnificent job in transforming the SNP from a fringe party to one absolutely dominating Scottish politics, and has made Independence a valid conversation rather than just a mere fantasy. That should be his legacy, not that of a sad old man who didn't know when to call it a day.