Alex Salmond accused (and then cleared) of sexual misconduct.

[Cerv]

you'd think someone testifying on Assange's behalf would have at least a passing familiarity with the concept that the justice system isn't keen on people fleeing the country

 

[elbows]

I doubt he is actually surprised, more likely just trying to imply that he has been found guilty in order to interfere with his ability to testify in that case. The conspiratorial thinking comes naturally to him at this point.

 

[weepiper]

Found it.

“unlawfully publishing details about the identities of female witnesses in Alex Salmond’s criminal trial.” What a cunt.

Craig Murray sentenced to eight months over Salmond trial blog posts

Ex-diplomat found in contempt of court for blog posts over former first minister's criminal trial

www.holyrood.com

He's got form for this.

Former Ambassador sparks anger as he names one of Assange's alleged sex attack victims on Newsnight

Craig Murray, 53, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, said the name twice during a debate claiming it was in general circulation, sparking a rebuke from host Gavin Essler.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Shechemite]

Dunno about the other alt-left blogs. But skwarkbox is standing by Murray

 

[danny la rouge]

I’m no fan of the Record, but this is a very good article:

So-called Scots activist Craig Murray has left victims of rape living in fear

 

[danny la rouge]

It’s worth remembering that the Salmond verdict did huge damage to the Moorov Doctrine, in Scots Law, which is a principle of corroboration in situations where there are only two witnesses: the accused and the accuser.

‘The Moorov Doctrine’

Those of you who tuned in to ‘The Trial of Alex Salmond’ last week would no doubt have heard about a ‘Moorov Doctrine’*. The programme did not explore this tenet in any deta…

thescotslawblog.com

 

[Border Reiver]

It’s worth remembering that the Salmond verdict did huge damage to the Moorov Doctrine, in Scots Law, which is a principle of corroboration in situations where there are only two witnesses: the accused and the accuser.

‘The Moorov Doctrine’

Those of you who tuned in to ‘The Trial of Alex Salmond’ last week would no doubt have heard about a ‘Moorov Doctrine’*. The programme did not explore this tenet in any deta…

thescotslawblog.com

How to you think the Moorov doctrine is damaged?

The principle of corroboration itself is certainly exposed as a major difficulty in he said/she said cases. But that is very difficult to change given majority verdicts.

 

[danny la rouge]

How to you think the Moorov doctrine is damaged?

The principle of corroboration itself is certainly exposed as a major difficulty in he said/she said cases. But that is very difficult to change given majority verdicts.

In that women will be much less willing to come forward. So the corroboration of having similar complaints close together will be harder to achieve.

 

[Border Reiver]

In that women will be much less willing to come forward. So the corroboration of having similar complaints close together will be harder to achieve.

Oh, I see. But that is no different from similar fact evidence in English law. The essential difference in Scotland is the necessity of corroboration as a guard against wrongful conviction.

 

[danny la rouge]

Oh, I see. But that is no different from similar fact evidence in English law. The essential difference in Scotland is the necessity of corroboration as a guard against wrongful conviction.

I’m not comparing with English law, since I am unable to do that.

 

[Border Reiver]

I’m not comparing with English law, since I am unable to do that.

But most common law jurisdictions have some form of "similar fact" evidence that allows some flexibility in circumstantial evidence.

 

[danny la rouge]

But most common law jurisdictions have some form of "similar fact" evidence that allows some flexibility in circumstantial evidence.

I’m not able to comment on comparative law. I merely mentioned that Moorov was a Scots Law precedent because I know most readers on Urban are not in Scotland.

 

[Border Reiver]

I’m not able to comment on comparative law. I merely mentioned that Moorov was a Scots Law precedent because I know most readers on Urban are not in Scotland.

What do you make if the difficulty with corroboration in Scottish law for rape and other he said/she said cases. That is specific to Scots law and makes such cases more difficult to probe than in cases heard in systems based on English Common Law where no corroboration is required, just proof beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[danny la rouge]

What do you make if the difficulty with corroboration in Scottish law for rape and other he said/she said cases. That is specific to Scots law and makes such cases more difficult to probe than in cases heard in systems based on English Common Law where no corroboration is required, just proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It’s a difficult balance to strike, between the word of the accused and the word of the accuser. I’m not sure the law gets it right.

In the Salmond case, Salmond’s fan base are convince the accusers were lying. They see his behaviour (about which he was cleared of criminality) as unproblematic. This is, for them, black and white. He was cleared therefore they are the ones in the wrong, fabricating their stories.

The not guilty verdicts mean no such thing. And both the damage done to the women involved and the knock on effect that has on future cases are huge issues we need to ensure we don’t sweep under the carpet.

 

[skyscraper101]

I’m no fan of the Record, but this is a very good article:

So-called Scots activist Craig Murray has left victims of rape living in fear

Agreed.

Weirdly I used to be neighbours with Murray. I even fed his cats once or twice. Though tbh, it was his wife I spoke to more often. I didn't really have a clue who he was, but he seemed pleasant enough.

 

[Border Reiver]

It’s a difficult balance to strike, between the word of the accused and the word of the accuser. I’m not sure the law gets it right.

In the Salmond case, Salmond’s fan base are convince the accusers were lying. They see his behaviour (about which he was cleared of criminality) as unproblematic. This is, for them, black and white. He was cleared therefore they are the ones in the wrong, fabricating their stories.

The not guilty verdicts mean no such thing. And both the damage done to the women involved and the knock on effect that has on future cases are huge issues we need to ensure we don’t sweep under the carpet.

The problem in Scotland is that the combination of rules of evidence and majority verdicts is delicately balanced in order to maintain the presumption of innocence. It is difficult to see a fair balance if corroboration is retained. I suppose corroboration could be dropped if a qualified majority, say 12/3 was implemented in such he said/she said cases.

 

[danny la rouge]

The problem in Scotland is that the combination of rules of evidence and majority verdicts is delicately balanced in order to maintain the presumption of innocence. It is difficult to see a fair balance if corroboration is retained. I suppose corroboration could be dropped if a qualified majority, say 12/3 was implemented in such he said/she said cases.

Cards on the table: I think any boss who did even what Salmond admitted to deserves to be convicted. So, yes, I think the balance is wrong.

 

[Border Reiver]

Cards on the table: I think any boss who did even what Salmond admitted to deserves to be convicted. So, yes, I think the balance is wrong.

Do you not support presumption of innocence? Allowing convictions on a mere majority verdict when there is no independent evidence is not maintaining that presumption.

 

[Border Reiver]

I’m no fan of the Record, but this is a very good article:

So-called Scots activist Craig Murray has left victims of rape living in fear

The elephant in the room is intent. Not only did he allow jigsaw identification, he ignored directions by the judge to remove the material from his blog. That is serious intentional contempt.

 

[danny la rouge]

Do you not support presumption of innocence? Allowing convictions on a mere majority verdict when there is no independent evidence is not maintaining that presumption.

Read my post again.

 

[Border Reiver]

Read my post again.

What do you think was possible criminal behaviour?

 

[danny la rouge]

What do you think was possible criminal behaviour?

Sleepy cuddles.

 

[Wilf]

What do you think was possible criminal behaviour?

Jurors see the evidence directly and see all the evidence that is put in front of them. As a general rule, you have to respect the verdicts that juries come up with. But juries see the evidence in a particular psychological and legal setting. As observers, as members of the public, yes certainly, we only see the reported evidence and not all of it. But then you can't abandon your judgement, your awareness of power and your understanding of how these cases play out. You can't stop yourself asking the question: should that cunt be in prison?

 

[Border Reiver]

Sleepy cuddles.

Where was lack of consent proved?

 

[Border Reiver]

Jurors see the evidence directly and see all the evidence that is put in front of them. As a general rule, you have to respect the verdicts that juries come up with. But juries see the evidence in a particular psychological and legal setting. As observers, as members of the public, yes certainly, we only see the reported evidence and not all of it. But then you can't abandon your judgement, your awareness of power and your understanding of how these cases play out. You can't stop yourself asking the question: should that cunt be in prison?

Are you aware that conviction only requires a simple majority, 8/7. That is balanced against a higher bar for evidence- corroboration by two separate strands of evidence.

 

[danny la rouge]

Where was lack of consent proved?

Go fuck yourself.

 

[danny la rouge]

Where was lack of consent proved?

Actually fuck right off and don’t come back. Cunt.

 

[Border Reiver]

Actually fuck right off and don’t come back. Cunt.

I see you do not understand law, particularly "rule of law", "presumption of innocence" and "burden of proof".

 

[danny la rouge]

I see you do not understand law, particularly "rule of law", "presumption of innocence" and "burden of proof".

Ram it up ye.

 

[Border Reiver]

Ram it up ye.

You do realise that abuse is failure at debate.