Jump to content

Alex Salmond in Soap & Bubble


Mr Magnificent

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Mr Magnificent said:

Too much smoke for there not to be some form of fire and the fact that there are several different women making similar accusations doesn't look good for him.....the Prosecution my use the Moorov Doctrine in its assertions...

The Moorov doctrine is a mechanism which applies where a person is accused of two or more separate offences, connected in time and circumstances. In such a case, where each of the offences charged is spoken to by a single credible witness, that evidence may corroborate, and be corroborated by, the other single witnesses, so as to enable the conviction of the accused on all the charges. In order for the doctrine to operate, each of the offences must be competently charged. It is not possible to rely for corroboration of a charge upon evidence of conduct, however similar, in respect of which the accused has previously been convicted or acquitted. The operation of the doctrine involves similar issues to cases of similar fact evidence, since it permits evidence relating to one alleged crime to be used in support of a charge relating to a separate incident. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harold said:

Too much smoke for there not to be some form of fire and the fact that there are several different women making similar accusations doesn't look good for him.....the Prosecution my use the Moorov Doctrine in its assertions...

The Moorov doctrine is a mechanism which applies where a person is accused of two or more separate offences, connected in time and circumstances. In such a case, where each of the offences charged is spoken to by a single credible witness, that evidence may corroborate, and be corroborated by, the other single witnesses, so as to enable the conviction of the accused on all the charges. In order for the doctrine to operate, each of the offences must be competently charged. It is not possible to rely for corroboration of a charge upon evidence of conduct, however similar, in respect of which the accused has previously been convicted or acquitted. The operation of the doctrine involves similar issues to cases of similar fact evidence, since it permits evidence relating to one alleged crime to be used in support of a charge relating to a separate incident. 

I am not a fan of Salmond,  and while there may be some basis for these claims, I'd have to say that once more trial by media seems to have taken precedence over conventional justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Hairy Scot said:

I am not a fan of Salmond,  and while there may be some basis for these claims, I'd have to say that once more trial by media seems to have taken precedence over conventional justice.

I agree Hairy....but bear in mind that Salmond and his likes court media attention. I'm not saying he is guilty or not but if you enjoy being in the media you should not be able to pick and choose when.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mr Magnificent said:

Why has this taken so long to come to light?

It has been well known for quite some time, well ever since the allegations came to light....earlier this year I believe.

16 minutes ago, Mr Magnificent said:

And if he is acquitted should the women who lied be put on trial?

There would have to be enough evidence to prove they are lying. You have to remember that even if he is found not guilty that doesn't mean that the women have been lying, it means that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to convince a jury plus the defence will be trying like hell to put doubt by whichever means into the minds of the jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...

I have no axe to grind either way on this, but 9 times out of 10 in such cases there is an absence of corroboration, which is something unique and essential in Scottish law. So it all comes down to hearsay and one person's word against another's.

Nothing has yet been proven.
Plus the amount of past and current media coverage means that finding an unbiased jury may be difficult.
Unfortunately trial by media has become all too common in the UK in the past two or three decades.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hairy Scot said:

but 9 times out of 10 in such cases there is an absence of corroboration, which is something unique and essential in Scottish law. So it all comes down to hearsay and one person's word against another's.

Moorov Doctrine ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Harold said:

Moorov Doctrine ?

Even there I think that there has to be corroboration of evidence for two or more of the alleged offences.
The fact that multiple complainants advance similar accounts may suggest a pattern of behaviour but does not necessarily provide a sufficient degree of corroboration.
 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Hairy Scot said:

Even there I think that there has to be corroboration of evidence for two or more of the alleged offences.
The fact that multiple complainants advance similar accounts may suggest a pattern of behaviour but does not necessarily provide a sufficient degree of corroboration.
 

I think my previous post re the Moorov covers that mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Statistics

    7k
    Total Topics
    176.2k
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    820
    Total Members
    3,654
    Most Online
    shiva1993
    Newest Member
    shiva1993
    Joined
  • New users  0 New users online in the last 24 hours

    No new users

×
×
  • Create New...