Mrs Krankie's cunning plan to get rid of Salmond has failed.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
General News Chat
Collapse
X
-
Yes he seems determined that this mysterious evidence that the jury were not allowed to see will be made public at some point. In-fighting at an all time high through the SNP?Originally posted by Donanddusted View PostThe "undisclosed evidence" may unravel the existing Scottish Government?
Comment
-
He seems to be alleging some kind of conspiracy to which Sturgeon was a party or was at least aware of.Originally posted by Donanddusted View PostThe "undisclosed evidence" may unravel the existing Scottish Government?
I knew the pair were never close but I didn't realise the extent of the acrimony.
Looks like Eck's coming for her.
All fine and dandy but it's nae going to improve our chances of ever getting out from under Westminster.
Comment
-
He seems to allege that there's evidence that the complainers were in contact pretty extensively, orchestrated by one of the complainers with whom Salmond admitted a consensual interaction.....as I read it.Originally posted by mondo_notion View PostYes he seems determined that this mysterious evidence that the jury were not allowed to see will be made public at some point. In-fighting at an all time high through the SNP?
Comment
-
Messy stuff and like you say it ain't doing the country no favours. I always thought they got on great but obviously some personal problems between the 2 of them.Originally posted by InversneckieDob View PostHe seems to allege that there's evidence that the complainers were in contact pretty extensively, orchestrated by one of the complainers with whom Salmond admitted a consensual interaction.....as I read it.
Comment
-
I think when they were leader/ deputy it was a union of convenience, they were never buddies (by all accounts).Originally posted by mondo_notion View PostMessy stuff and like you say it ain't doing the country no favours. I always thought they got on great but obviously some personal problems between the 2 of them.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 57vintage View PostNever mind.
Closets, skeletons, cliques, agendas and petty intrigues.
Popcorn time for non-nationalists during the UK Inc silent season.
Pop corn time for us all I would venture, The polis and Crown Prosecution service have huge questions to answer. As does Westminster's Leslie Evans.. How the feck this ever got to court is complete mystery.. the trial revealed is that not a shred of evidence supported any of the charges in the case.Scots law is very different it uniquely requires corroboration, and despite several of the alleged offences supposedly occurring in full public view in locations wi loads of people, not a solitary witness not one observed any of them.
The very dodgy Moorov doctrine seems to have been the whole prosecution's case. Salmond's QC hinted at the in his closing blur. The whole trial was ajoke and unproven innuendos are not hard evidence ! thank feck the jury saw through it. So to those who were rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of Alex Salmond being handcuffed and sent to prison. Sook it up ! And to those Unionist MSM editors who had all their lurid gleefully malicious headlines at the ready Sook it up ! . To those dimmer members of our board who can't see the benefits of Indy ..Sook it up.
As for the Closets, skeletons, cliques, agendas and petty intrigues aye pop corn time for me inaw Vintage.. About time we had a clean out of careerist SNP people who are not all that interested in Independence.A major clearout is needed. Only problem how much popcorn will Tesco sell me at the one time.
Comment
-
Who?Originally posted by stewarty27 View PostCrown Prosecution service
Corroboration does not necessarily mean two eye witness testimonies though.Originally posted by stewarty27 View PostScots law is very different it uniquely requires corroboration
Why dodgy?Originally posted by stewarty27 View PostThe very dodgy Moorov doctrine
Comment
-
WHO ? The Crown prosecution service had the final decision if this case came to court or not. But they charged on ahead even tho most of the charges were obviously de minimis !!! Jury saw that and booted them. As I replied to Vintage the whole case was based on the Moorov doctrine ... That is chuck enough mud and some will stick. 400 interviews !! 700 statements FFS this effort wasn't put into the Yorkshire ripper case. Buck stops with the heid honcho.Originally posted by InversneckieDob View PostWho?
Corroboration does not necessarily mean two eye witness testimonies though.
Why dodgy?
The Moorov doctrine I'd never heard of before so looked it up basically it would demonstrate a pattern of predatory ***ual behaviour. But some of the charges were hilarious "he pinged my curly hair" As I said The jury thought most of the charges were ludicrous, and threw out the lot. So its at best dodgy basing a whole case on this stratagy. As Salmond's QC said the whole thing stank and I'll tell you what a clear out at the very top of the SNP is needed when these conspirators are revealed.Last edited by stewarty27; 26-03-2020, 10:15 AM.
Comment
-
Ahh, never realised he was prosecuted in England..........must've missed that.Originally posted by stewarty27 View PostWHO ? The Crown prosecution service had the final decision
.
I think you're missing the point of Moorov, it doesn't just apply to ***ual cases it applies to any case where the Crown relies on a course of conduct as corroborative.
It's bordering on fundamental to one of the most basic principals of Scots Law.
But I agree, there was clearly summat fishy about this whole prosecution......I'm just pedantic about legal stuff (ken?).
Comment

Comment