Forum menu
That is quite a charge sheet.
Am I right in noticing that his wife didn't accompany him to court yesterday? On the news it said he was joined by his 2 sisters. Sounds as though the wife isn't standing by him, or just being spared the direct media attention? Sounds like they may have had an open marriage, or he's been sneaking around behind her back?
i suspect for the more blatant charges there will be no denial from Salmond that they happened, at least the ones in public, but he'll argue that they were consensual. If it was one accuser then it's one persons account vs another, but multiple accusers does not look good at all, although other high profile people in the past have faced the same and the allegations turned out to be false.
Am I right in noticing that his wife didn’t accompany him to court yesterday?
I'm no Eck fan, but in fairness his wife has always avoided the limelight. I read in the paper the last interview she gave was 25 years ago. Has been quoted saying something like "I married Alex, not his job"
google tasmina ahmed-sheikh and draw your own conclusions.
In any case I expect that this case will put any speculation about his private life to bed until the verdict is known.
Depending on how it pans out, there may not be enough buses in edinburgh to cover the people being catapulted under them from the bottom of the royal mile
and the allegations turned out to be false.
Or not proven?
Its a general thing that in these sorts of cases its very hard to prove but malicious ie false claims are very rare simply because for the complainant it can be traumatic to go thru with a court appearance.
My point merely was that I am surprised no hint of this has been known before. Every other case of powerful men being sexual predators the romour mill had been in operation for a long time and we knew about it well before any court case.
Maybe there's some confirmation bias at work here?
I mean, there are always rumours, especially so if the person in question is a bit eccentric. So when someone gets Yewtreed we can all go "see, we knew it!" but all the other rumours get quietly forgotten (Cliff Richard for instance).
And can you honestly say you've not been surprised by any of the previous revelations? Did you always suspect that Stuart Hall was a wrong 'un? I believe Hall was 'known' at the time by those around him but not to the general public. How about Fred Talbot?
Eat the Pudding, are you not a prolific anti Indy/SNP poster on here?
google tasmina ahmed-sheikh and draw your own conclusions.
What about her?
Fair point cougar. Its just with all the political enemies I am suprised nothing has come out before. Hall and Talbot did not have the political enemies Salmond has but yes I had heard the rumours about Hall
I really do not know what to make of this.
Bowglie - he doesn’t have to lead any defense, the crown has to prove its case.
IRC - I suspect come May we will see the internet (and twitter especially) full of experts on the Moorov doctrine, despite the fact that plenty of Judges, QCs etc see it as far from black and white.
Trial begins today.
Mr Salmond must be thanking his lucky stars for
Covid-19..
Best of luck to them, trying to get 15 folk that won't pre-judge possibly the most divisive man in the history of Scots politics.
I can't help feeling that at some point in his trial he'll blame this all on the English.😁
A good friend of mine has worked at the parliament since independence. He said it was known that women shouldn't be in a room/lift etc with him alone.
A good friend of mine has worked at the parliament since independence. He said it was known that women shouldn’t be in a room/lift etc with him alone.
And yet this was completely refuted by witnesses at the trial (makes you think).
Actually his chief of staff more or less agreed that this was the case ( that Salmond was a groper not to be left alone with women) when he stated he went to a room where Salmond with a woman with no one else present.
Its clear to me that despite the lack of rumours that Salmond was a bit too touchy feely with staff ( at best) but given the inconsistent evidence from the prosecution I do not see how he can be convicted but who knows.
I am certainly suprised by some of the stuff that Salmond admitted.
Salmond’s former policy chief, Alex Bell, told the court earlier on Thursday he had been in Bute House, the first minister’s official residence, the night that a senior civil servant was allegedly forced by Salmond to reenact a painting showing an older man kissing a young woman in late 2010.
......................
Bell said “B” was on her own with Salmond in the drawing room as the then first minister’s team prepared for first minister’s questions, known as FMQs, the next day. Bell, who was then Salmond’s head of policy, said two other members of Salmond’s staff asked him to go up because B was alone with Salmond.
“I do recall as we were midway through FMQs prep, after the meal, that I went down to the office, and Graeme Roy and Sarah Govan said to me: ‘You’ve left [B] alone in the office. Would you go up?’” he told Salmond’s defence lawyer, Shelagh McCall QC.
Bell could not recall where B and Salmond were standing, but said he had coughed or cleared his throat before entering the room. He did not remember B seeming upset. Alex Prentice QC, the lead prosecutor, asked Bell why he went back upstairs. “To ensure that the welfare of my colleague was OK,” Bell said.
Disagree with you TJ. Obviously none of us have been in court, but Salmond in his evidence came out with the 'politically motivated fabrications' line. However his own defence counsel used the defence that he isn't a nice person, but what he is accused of isn't criminal. This seems to me to be a bit desperate & contradictory.
It's either a fabrication or it happened, the fact that his own counsel admits that something happened & that whatever it was, wasn't very nice rules out fabrication. Just based on that: I'd be voting guilty.
Ninja editing may have taken place
What I think is that there is a foundation in truth in the allegations and that Salmond is a groper - but the allegations have been exaggerated out of all contact with reality and some of thje allegations are outright lies politically motivated
the prosecution case seems very thin as well. My guess is that had it not been such a prominent person and not for the "me too" movement this would never have come to trial on such a thin case but if the PF had dropped it then there would have ( rightly?) been a huge outcry. Less than 10% of sexual assault allegations end up in court IIRC
I haven't read every word of the trial but that my view. He is ruined by his own admissions anyway. My guess? "Not proven" as a verdict rather than "not guilty" or "guilty".
And yet this was completely refuted by witnesses at the trial (makes you think).
Defence witnesses? Presumably not the accusers, who are witnesses.
Salmond is a groper
But TJ. Get with the zeitgeist. Groping is sexual assault and a criminal offence.
Oh indeed it is. Imnotverygood. I understand this.
I just find the whole case odd in a number of ways.
Cynic Al - read my piece above from the trial transcripts - thats one of salmonds allies confirming that there was a policy of not leaving him alone with women
Seems to me that "not proven" will be how it goes
Some good insight into the trial here
Not an impartial source but decent analysis once you allow for the bias
A summary of the trial. Jury's out.
Acquitted on all charges
Not proven on the attempt to rape charge
From the BBC article - what's he on about?
Speaking outside court after his acquittal, Mr Salmond told journalists: "As many of you will know, there is certain evidence I would have like to have seen led in this trial but for a variety of reasons we were not able to do so.
"At some point, that information, that facts and that evidence will see the light of day."
In that Guardian link, his QC seems to be hinting at some conspiracy or other too...
Gordon Jackson QC, Salmond’s advocate, rejected Prentice’s claims in his final address to the jury. He said there were no direct witnesses to the alleged assaults, and that inconsistencies and contradictions repeatedly cropped up in the testimonies and evidence. And, he alleged, there were signs some of the charges were orchestrated.
“This comes out of a political bubble with no real independent support of any kind. I said already it smelt and I don’t apologise for that one bit,” he said. “It’s the same pattern all of the time. All the time – I can’t say that strongly enough – it is the same pattern over and over and over again. It’s scary.”
So - is he a phantom groper & did the accusers over-egg the pudding to the extent inconsistencies appeared & the case went tits up, or is it all a big orchestrated conspiracy against him?
Reading reports of the trial from a distance I was expecting "not proven" - just seemed to many inconsistencies in the evidence.
I'd like to see his legal team put their money where their mouth is though
The Judicial Review of the failure of process resulted in Alex Salmond receiving over £500,000 in damages (subsequently distributed to various deserving causes). At the time, the Scottish Govt. admitted it had breached its own guidelines by appointing an investigating officer who had "prior involvement" in the case. It's obviously difficult to go further without identifying individuals but those words "prior involvement"?
mcj78
My reading of it is he is over familiar and too touchy feely. The main complainant was passed over for a candidate, decided to get back at him by making the accusations, contacted other with gripes against him or he had been over familiar / too touchy feely with and then they reinforced each others experiences by positive feedback. This is a known psychological phenomonen where people inadvertently reinforce things so they end up truely believing the incidents were more serious than they were. Similar to "false memory syndrome"
I don't believe some overarching conspiracy. I believe one malicious accusation and the rest minor incidents blown out of all proportion
If it had not been a prominent figure and the allegations made public before trial it would never have gone to trial on such thin evidence.
However his own admissions in the case ruin him for ever. I wasnever a huge fan but his own admissions show a stupendous lack of judgement
There has also still to be a Parliamentary Enquiry. That might throw more light on the role of Nicola Sturgeon in the investigation.
This must be a very disappointing result for the Unionists, but it may have the desired result for them because it has exposed a fault line in the SNP.
I wonder if the rumbling from the ranks will led to another independence party that is more aligned to the sovereignty angle rather than following the Westminster process.
The next Scottish election should be interesting - I reckon the SNP will be looking for a convenient excuse to delay it, e.g. Corona virus.
Yes - Something feels not right there Scotroutes Certainly her meeting with him after the complaints were known is again a stupendous lack of judgement - and usually Sturgeon has such good judgement.
He was also her mentor and friend for many years. Surely she would have been in a position to know if he was a groper?
More to come out yet for sure. I shall look forward to reading Craig Murrys blog on it - but of course with my tinfoil hat on.
............but it may have the desired result for them because it has exposed a fault line in the SNP.
I wonder if the rumbling from the ranks.............
Are there? I know nowt of this. Not saying you are wrong and the SNP are very good at news manafgement but is this a real thing?
Ms Cherry has spoken (well, Tweeted...)
https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1242110086593613828?s=20
Well I reckon some people will be looking to engage their lawyers for advice on the forthcoming inquiry and any possible civil proceedings Alex Salmond might be contemplating. Lawyers eh, making money even in the direst circumstances 😊
Impression is probably as above for tjagain. Seems slightly friendly - overly so clearly - and very sure of himself (that good conceit Scots phrase). Do others not see it, or is it only in certain situations it comes to light (or not). Certainly folk (and folk I know that would not mince words) seem surprised at that level of allegations. Who knows.
I've just read that the defence were not allowed to cross-examine the "celebrity guest" who identified one of the accusers as being at Bute House prior to the alleged attempted rape. That seems like a bizarre legal situation?
The celeb was not in called as a witness - just the statement to the police used in court and that is always given little weight as evidence.
dunno why in this case but its not unheard of
My guess is the celeb is not in Scotland - but thats only a guess.
Edit:
If they are non UK based its very hard to force them to attend court. But that means that the evidence is effectively hearsay so is of little value and the judge would make that point
Witnesses have given evidence via video link in Scottish rape trials previously (I was at the first).
~True - but its very hard to force someone based overseas to give evidence. The implication of course of them not showing up to give evidence is that they do not want to face cross examination or risk perjury / lying to the police a a competent defense counsel would be sure to point this out. The evidence is almost worthless especially when opposed by someone that is present and can be cross examined
Again I don't know who or why in this case but I am sure we will find out. why they remain unnamed seems even odder to me. Why is their privacy being protected? they are a witness not a complainant. Someone who does not want it known they were at Bute house?
its certainly more than a bit odd.