Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-po...
That is one helluva charge sheet All this on day one and 4 weeks of it to go
That is one helluva charge sheet All this on day one and 4 weeks of it to go
Pastor Of Muppets said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-po...
That is one helluva charge sheet All this on day one and 4 weeks of it to go
Women A-K That is one helluva charge sheet All this on day one and 4 weeks of it to go
A very long and shameful list of allegations.
All while he was first minister, and it’s taken till now for this to have it’s time in court...
He’s either guilty and deserves to go to jail for a long time, and anyone who tries to hide it should also have the book thrown at them.
Or.
Our legal and police system is useless, unfit for purpose and is going to spend 4 weeks trying to frame an innocent man..
All while he was first minister, and it’s taken till now for this to have it’s time in court...
He’s either guilty and deserves to go to jail for a long time, and anyone who tries to hide it should also have the book thrown at them.
Or.
Our legal and police system is useless, unfit for purpose and is going to spend 4 weeks trying to frame an innocent man..
I'm just wondering how far into the trial we'll get in before he complains of pain in his chest. It's usually as the verdict is read out but timing is crucial.
The list of places he's apparently touched these women is endless, I think the only place in Edinburgh he didn't touch anyone was the summit of Arthurs Seat.
It's got the feeling of an almighty cock up by the police, many allegations made over the years and nothing was done. I wouldn't be surprised if the trial collapsed because they've made a mess of it.
The list of places he's apparently touched these women is endless, I think the only place in Edinburgh he didn't touch anyone was the summit of Arthurs Seat.
It's got the feeling of an almighty cock up by the police, many allegations made over the years and nothing was done. I wouldn't be surprised if the trial collapsed because they've made a mess of it.
Edited by EarlofDrift on Monday 9th March 19:21
technodup said:
fficially yes, but we're more interested in the other house she allegedly stays in. And who she allegedly stays with...
Yep, Judy Finnegan I've heard, or was it Ruby Murray ?no, it was Judy Garland, that's a 100% deffo or my name's not Count Van Der Linden Pumperfuffel The Third.
EarlofDrift said:
It's got the feeling of an almighty cock up by the police, many allegations made over the years and nothing was done. I wouldn't be surprised if the trial collapsed because they've made a mess of it.
Well first of all i don't think it's clear when the complaints were made - it's possible all complaints were made in the last year or two, with allegations snowballing once the police or the SNP made the knowledge of them public. Also, the police/crown are only able to make a case if there is satisfactory corroborating evidence. In a typcial he says-she says type case where no complaint was made at the time and there is no material evidence gathered from the acebe by the police, it's almost impossible for the crown to meet the corroboration test to then go and mount a prosecution. BUT, Scots Law has a standard known as "mutual corroboration", where if there are multiple seperate allegations against the same person, detailing a clear pattern of alleged offences, then all these testimonies can be presented in the trial for the jury to consider as corroborating accounts. They would not have had the strength to stand on their own against the accused, so the crown would have had to wait to mount the case until they felt they had an overwhelming number of accusers saying similar things independently. This could take years.
IANAL, but served on a high court rape trial jury where the judge explained this law, it's history, and how the prosecution was justified in putting MC forward as a piece of evidence in and of its self.
Edited by Wrathalanche on Monday 9th March 19:45
Wrathalanche said:
Well first of all i don't think it's clear when the complaints were made - it's possible all complaints were made in the last year or two, with allegations snowballing once the police or the SNP made the knowledge of them public.
Also, the police/crown are only able to make a case if there is satisfactory corroborating evidence. In a typcial he says-she says type case where no complaint was made at the time and there is no material evidence gathered from the acebe by the police, it's almost impossible for the crown to meet the corroboration test to then go and mount a prosecution. BUT, Scots Law has a standard known as "mutual corroboration", where if there are multiple seperate allegations against the same person, detailing a clear pattern of alleged offences, then all these testimonies can be presented in the trial for the jury to consider as corroborating accounts. They would not have had the strength to stand on their own against the accused, so the crown would have had to wait to mount the case until they felt they had an overwhelming number of accusers saying similar things independently. This could take years.
IANAL, but served on a high court rape trial jury where the judge explained this law, it's history, and how the prosecution was justified in putting MC forward as a piece of evidence in and of its self.
So the "Me Too" claims are valid or invalid? Also, the police/crown are only able to make a case if there is satisfactory corroborating evidence. In a typcial he says-she says type case where no complaint was made at the time and there is no material evidence gathered from the acebe by the police, it's almost impossible for the crown to meet the corroboration test to then go and mount a prosecution. BUT, Scots Law has a standard known as "mutual corroboration", where if there are multiple seperate allegations against the same person, detailing a clear pattern of alleged offences, then all these testimonies can be presented in the trial for the jury to consider as corroborating accounts. They would not have had the strength to stand on their own against the accused, so the crown would have had to wait to mount the case until they felt they had an overwhelming number of accusers saying similar things independently. This could take years.
IANAL, but served on a high court rape trial jury where the judge explained this law, it's history, and how the prosecution was justified in putting MC forward as a piece of evidence in and of its self.
Edited by Wrathalanche on Monday 9th March 19:45
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff