Nipper Salmond

[Boo Khaki]

I agree with your point regarding there being a fundamental difference in motive, but having since gone and read Murray's updates, I can't for the life of me see where he could possibly be accused of 'trying with all his might' to reveal their identities. All he did was relay a factual account of proceedings in court, to a more forensic degree than the popular rags, I grant you, but that's nothing that wasn't public domain in any case. He did say he felt the identities were relevant to the case, but nothing more than that in terms of revealing them.

I suppose I'd agree it was fair if you suggested that Murray could be accused of attempting to compel people to find out the identities, but I wouldn't agree that he did anything to actively reveal them himself, or at least, he wasn't doing anything in that regard that every other outlet reporting the case wasn't also doing. Semantics perhaps, but I think these things are important when you are talking about potential criminal convictions and custodial sentences.

Edited November 21, 2020 by Boo Khaki

[Boo Khaki]

Not as far as I'm aware? 

Obviously changes everything if he has, and goes without saying there's no way I'd defend him for doing that.

Quick google, and I've found a Record piece that suggests he was pulled up for publishing a list of witnesses on one particular day back in March. I don't know if that's perhaps what you're referring to? 

I would have thought that witnesses would be public domain anyway, at least, they obviously would if they were actually called to testify, so again, I'm not sure how that could possibly be construed as naming complainants? Happy to concede I'm by no means certain on this though, and would welcome an explanation from anyone who is better informed.

Edited November 21, 2020 by Boo Khaki

[NotThePars]

1 hour ago, Boo Khaki said:

I would have thought that witnesses would be public domain anyway, at least, they obviously would if they were actually called to testify, so again, I'm not sure how that could possibly be construed as naming complainants? Happy to concede I'm by no means certain on this though, and would welcome an explanation from anyone who is better informed.

Not 100% but in preparing the case the people who would have access to the list of witnesses would be the procurator fiscal and the defence agents. It wouldn't take too much effort for someone working in the PFs to screenshot and pass them on.

[lichtgilphead]

13 hours ago, MixuFruit said:

Didn't  Murray straight up name one of them?

That's probably defamation. I would withdraw that remark if I was you

A MSM journalist named one of the complainers in the Salmond case in a tweet from the courtroom. It was deleted pretty quickly (no doubt when someone contacted him to say that he was in contempt of court)

I can't find his name, but it would appear that this is because it's being protected. One of Stuart Campbell's FOI requests to the Crown Office states 

"It appears to be the case that the COPFS has selectively limited its enforcement of contempt law to those people broadly supportive of Alex Salmond, such as Craig Murray and Mark Hirst, who have been pursued despite perpetrating – at the very worst – demonstrably lesser levels of identification than those who are broadly antagonistic towards Mr Salmond.

In addition to the six cases reported by myself on 5 April, the court reporter [REDACTED] actually tweeted the name of one of the complainers directly to tens of thousands of Twitter followers, but to the best of my knowledge he has not been cited for prosecution."

Can COPFS clarify whether it is official policy to only pursue supporters of Mr Salmond? Or if not that, is there an exemption for “professional” journalists employed on mainstream publications which is not available to other members of the public?"

There's also this article, which shows that the tweet in question was made during the second day of the trial. Craig Murray was not in court that day, as he had been unable to obtain a press accreditation that was acceptable to the court.

Incidentally, "Lady Dorrian described the post as an “egregious breach” of protocol and banned the unnamed reporter from tweeting for the rest of the trial." A draconian punishment indeed!

In comparison, Craig Murray, has already spent around £60,000 to try to defend himself from accusations of producing "jigsaw identification" material.

It does appear to be one law for Salmond supporters and another law for the MSM. There are links to a number of articles here that allow easy identification of at least one complainant and the same complainant can be identified through information in Kirsty Wark's hatchet job documentary. None of the authors of these pieces are facing prosecution. 

 

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

There are links to a number of articles here that allow easy identification of at least one complainant

 

4 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

I would withdraw that remark if I was you

 

[lichtgilphead]

7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

 

 

I'll take my chances. Unlike Mixu, I've not defamed anyone.

If I've committed contempt of court, so have the authors of each and every one of these articles. I'm pretty sure that the Crown Office are not pursuing any of them, and would be unable to prosecute me without showing how these articles constitute offences in themselves. 

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

I'll take my chances. Unlike Mixu, I've not defamed anyone.

If I've committed contempt of court, so have the authors of each and every one of these articles. I'm pretty sure that the Crown Office are not pursuing any of them, and would be unable to prosecute me without showing how these articles constitute offences in themselves. 

If you think people accusing their boss of attempted rape, sexual assault and harassment should be named and shamed, fair enough. But the law says they shouldn't be, and if you agree with that then I'm not sure why you're telling everyone how to find out who they are.

[welshbairn]

8 minutes ago, Andrew Driver said:

Decided a wee while ago to stop trying to piece together this *blindingly obvious* jigsaw identification.    I haven't a clue.  That said, I've attempted 3 escape rooms and didn't come close to escaping.  

I probably wouldn't know who they were if there were pictures of them and listing the schools they went to.

[lichtgilphead]

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

If you think people accusing their boss of attempted rape, sexual assault and harassment should be named and shamed, fair enough. But the law says they shouldn't be, and if you agree with that then I'm not sure why you're telling everyone how to find out who they are.

I believe that people telling the truth about attempted rapes they have suffered should have their identities protected.

However, in my opinion, perjury is an offence too. Woman H allegedly committed perjury by stating she was in Bute House on the night of the alleged incident. The defence showed that there was no evidence she was there and that 2 witnesses that knew her well (Salmond and another) stated on oath that she was not there. IMO, perjurers should be taken to court and, if found guilty, should be named. 

Woman H is the person who can most easily be identified by the articles I have referenced. These articles aren't in pro-Salmond blogs. If you actually look at the links provided, they are to articles in MSM outlets like the Times, Telegraph, Guardian,Scotland on Sunday, Daily Record & the P&J. As far as I am aware, the articles are still on these respective websites, so I assume that the Crown Office are OK with them. I understand that the BBC changed something in the Wark hatchet job (on legal advice) before they put it on the i-player, but I don't know exactly what.

You'll note that I haven't linked to anything that identifies any other complainant, but would point out that Salmond was not charged of "attempted rape, sexual harassment and harrassment" of any individual. Some of the charges were risible in comparison to the two most serious, but he wasn't found guilty of committing any of them.

I note that you say you couldn't identify any of Salmond's accusers. If you have read Craig Murray's blogs, that must mean that he is innocent?

If you haven't read them, then why are you commenting on a discussion relating to what he did (or didn't) tweet about the trial?

 

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said:

I believe that people telling the truth about attempted rapes they have suffered should have their identities protected.

However, in my opinion, perjury is an offence too. Woman H allegedly committed perjury by stating she was in Bute House on the night of the alleged incident. The defence showed that there was no evidence she was there and that 2 witnesses that knew her well (Salmond and another) stated on oath that she was not there. IMO, perjurers should be taken to court and, if found guilty, should be named. 

Woman H is the person who can most easily be identified by the articles I have referenced. These articles aren't in pro-Salmond blogs. If you actually look at the links provided, they are to articles in MSM outlets like the Times, Telegraph, Guardian,Scotland on Sunday, Daily Record & the P&J. As far as I am aware, the articles are still on these respective websites, so I assume that the Crown Office are OK with them. I understand that the BBC changed something in the Wark hatchet job (on legal advice) before they put it on the i-player, but I don't know exactly what.

You'll note that I haven't linked to anything that identifies any other complainant, but would point out that Salmond was not charged of "attempted rape, sexual harassment and harrassment" of any individual. Some of the charges were risible in comparison to the two most serious, but he wasn't found guilty of committing any of them.

I note that you say you couldn't identify any of Salmond's accusers. If you have read Craig Murray's blogs, that must mean that he is innocent?

If you haven't read them, then why are you commenting on a discussion relating to what he did (or didn't) tweet about the trial?

 

What your argument seems to be is that if you accuse someone of sexual assault and he's found innocent or not proven, you should be done for perjury and your name plastered over the papers. As regards Murray's blogs, they're full of nods and winks that most likely mean something to those with a good knowledge of the Holyrood bubble. I don't, and didn't get any clue from reading the MSM either.

[NotThePars]

9 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

I note that you say you couldn't identify any of Salmond's accusers. If you have read Craig Murray's blogs, that must mean that he is innocent?

I think he's saying that you'd have to be a weirdo to be able to work it out but being a weirdo is probably a prerequisite for reading Craig Murray's blog.

[lichtgilphead]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

What your argument seems to be is that if you accuse someone of sexual assault and he's found innocent or not proven, you should be done for perjury and your name plastered over the papers. 

If I said that you had raped me, and you successfully showed that we had never met and that I was lying through my teeth, would you be happy for the papers to say "Welshbairn accused of rape", whilst I could continue to conceal my identity?

My opinion is that Woman H was lying. I can't offhand think of another case where an alleged victim was shown not to be present at the time & place of the alleged rape. 

I think that's a significantly different viewpoint from the one you accuse me of holding

8 minutes ago, Andrew Driver said:

Can you provide links for the hard of thought?   The Wings clips didn't help me in the slightest. 

Not a chance. I'm not wanting to be accused of contempt of court

[welshbairn]

15 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

My opinion is that Woman H was lying. I can't offhand think of another case where an alleged victim was shown not to be present at the time & place of the alleged rape. 

Who knows, but I suspect there was confusion over the time, date and/or venue by either the prosecution witness or the defence witnesses. It would have been insane to deliberately fabricate an event with multiple witnesses available to prove to the contrary.

Edited November 21, 2020 by welshbairn

[lichtgilphead]

Just now, welshbairn said:

Who knows, but I suspect there was confusion over the times, dates and venue by either the prosecution witness or the defence witnesses. It would have been insane to deliberately fabricate an event with multiple witnesses available to prove the contrary.

Agreed. However, witness H's evidence specifically named the date of the dinner & the other two guests that were there. As far as I am aware, these two guests have never been together in Bute House at any other time

Samantha Barber was one of these guests. She knows witness H well. Barber's evidence stated that witness H asked her to attend in her place as she was unable to attend and that Barber did not see witness H at any time during the evening in question.

Obviously, Salmond also denies that witness H was there. If she was there, witness H did not sign the official register when she arrived or when she left, and you would have thought that the prosecution would have shown any relevant CCTV if it existed. The prosecution would also have produced other witnesses (security, catering etc?) to say that witness H had been in the building that evening if they could. They didn't..

So yeah, I'm glad that you agree that the charges relating to witness H's evidence were insane. Do you still think she deserves anonimity?

 

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Do you still think she deserves anonimity?

Of course. As I said, I think there was a confusion over the date and possibly venue. Time does that to memory. It came out in the evidence that it was common not to sign the registry for people coming and going every day, and well known by security. How long do you think they keep security tapes for? Anyway, we're doing a Kirsty Wark now, going over evidence again when we were only privy to tiny snippets. My point is if you want to improve the massive under reporting of sexual assaults, recognised by just about everyone, it won't help by telling the accuser she could be charged with perjury and exposed if the jury side with the accused.

[lichtgilphead]

15 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

 it won't help by telling the accuser she could be charged with perjury and exposed if the jury side with the accused.

 

It's implied by the oath (or affirmation) that witnesses have to swear before giving evidence. Witness H will have sworn to tell the truth by saying the words below before giving any evidence

FORM 14.5-A  Form of oath for witnesses

Rules 14.5(1) and 18.2(1)

 

The witness to raise his right hand and repeat after the judge: "I swear by Almighty God that I will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

The only people who should fear perjury charges are those that tell lies in court.

 

Edited to add::

You claim that threr may have been confusion over the date or the venue.

Two of the most impaortant elements of a criminal charge are the date & the locus of the offence. It's up to the prosecution to be as sure as possible of their  facts and to include these in the charge, even if they can only show an approximate location & date range.

In this case, however, the charge  stated a particular date & locus. If witness H was not at that location at that time, the prosecution cannot prove any offence.

Edited November 22, 2020 by lichtgilphead

[welshbairn]

By that logic every defendant found guilty after pleading innocent, and every prosecution witness whose evidence isn't believed by the jury, should be charged with perjury. And in witness H's case you're basing it on a few words in court reported in the press.

[lichtgilphead]

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

By that logic every defendant found guilty after pleading innocent, and every prosecution witness whose evidence isn't believed by the jury, should be charged with perjury. And in witness H's case you're basing it on a few words in court reported in the press.

You're putting words in my mouth. For example, do you think that I am suggesting that the accuser in the "sleepy cuddle" charge should face perjury charges?

Something actually happened to justify that charge. Both sides gave evidence, and the jury chose to find the charge not proven. That doesn't mean that the accuser was lying.

[Mark Connolly]

7 hours ago, welshbairn said:

By that logic every defendant found guilty after pleading innocent, and every prosecution witness whose evidence isn't believed by the jury, should be charged with perjury. And in witness H's case you're basing it on a few words in court reported in the press.

It's either a penalty or a dive, there is no middle ground!

[NotThePars]

6 minutes ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

There is a pub bore like this guy in every branch meeting. Can't understand why so many people seem determined to take up arms on behalf of Salmond when he's demonstrated repeatedly that his ego is more important to him than the cause. 

2 bottles of wine and coming on Pie and Bovril to defend Alex Salmond might just put Kincy's entire posting career to shame though.

Edited November 22, 2020 by NotThePars