Jeema
Well-Known Member
one way to put it
Goodwillie
- Thread starter GM_Punk
- Start date
Morton Goal
Well-Known Member
No reason not to believe the testament of 2 individuals.
Jeema
Well-Known Member
is that including the upstairs neighbour?
Morton Goal
Well-Known Member
No we could make that three people then that gave pretty much the same accounts.
Jeema
Well-Known Member
What about the bouncer changing his testimony from criminal to civil cases??
Morton Goal
Well-Known Member
Yes I seen that too. Irrespective of what the bouncer changed their mind to there's only four people that could give evidence to as to what went on at the flat. Three of them say pretty much the same thing and the other can't remember.
Jeema
Well-Known Member
Yip, and how a judge can say "would add that, even if it was the pursuer who said “Don’t come inside me, I don’t want to have another baby”, I would not accept that such language is necessarily consistent with consensual sexual intercourse" and come to that conclusion, when one side has tried to say that they couldn't give consent as they weren't capable of, yet were capable of understanding the possible consequences of sex.....
There are examples of rape victims pleading with their attackers not to make them pregnant. It's not proof of anything which I guess is the view the judge took.
I haven't read every single post in the thread but I have a few comments to make, which hopefully aren't simply a repetition of what others have said already.
Firstly, it is appropriate to understand that the "balance of probabilities" (often more accurately referred to as "more likely then not") can range from 51% sure to 100% sure. It is not necessarily marginal. I believe the terms of the decision suggested very strongly it was far from marginal.
Secondly, in her claim for damages at the Court of Session (not a civil trial for rape), the evidence presented by both sides (with Goodwillie being represented by the now Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain KC - then QC) was open to professional challenge by opposing Counsel.
Thirdly, at the conclusion, the evidence was assessed by a professional, highly qualified and experienced judge. He most certainly wouldn't be making a decision based on "hunches" or because he "didn't like" one or other of the parties. In my opinion, he would have been in a better position to determine the key issues of credibility and reliability than any jury.
Firstly, it is appropriate to understand that the "balance of probabilities" (often more accurately referred to as "more likely then not") can range from 51% sure to 100% sure. It is not necessarily marginal. I believe the terms of the decision suggested very strongly it was far from marginal.
Secondly, in her claim for damages at the Court of Session (not a civil trial for rape), the evidence presented by both sides (with Goodwillie being represented by the now Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain KC - then QC) was open to professional challenge by opposing Counsel.
Thirdly, at the conclusion, the evidence was assessed by a professional, highly qualified and experienced judge. He most certainly wouldn't be making a decision based on "hunches" or because he "didn't like" one or other of the parties. In my opinion, he would have been in a better position to determine the key issues of credibility and reliability than any jury.
Jeema
Well-Known Member
You obviously haven't read anything on this case, as to take the view the judge has makes absolute mockery of evidence.
Testimony of neighbour, no screaming, no cries for help, laughing, giggling, sex noises, all normal sex in their view, yet judge didn't allow it, why?
captcaveman
Well-Known Member
After reading the case from the link I posted , I do think that If that had been sent for trial and I was on the jury listening to this then I would have had to say not proven when asked for a verdict.
Last edited:
Morton Goal
Well-Known Member
Yeah. When you actually look through the case it's actually incredible that the Judge just seems to have looked at DGs background and decided that oh aye he probably done it neglecting all the actual evidence in front. Even the part where after a couple of people said she was drunk and couldn't be in control she then replied to a text from her brother completely as normal no misspelled words and not in a way of someone completely out of it. Then there's obviously the part she didn't want to upset her ex partner/kids dad by revealing what she thought had went on but then decided to say she couldn't remember either. Also, the other girl that was with them most the night who decided to go home said the girl was ok apart from arguing with her for not going back with the two males.
Listen, the two of them could have taken advantage of a passed out girl and deserve what they get. But with the evidence actually put in front of you it doesn't seem the case for me and the boys life has been destroyed because of that. If that is the case why would you ever show remorse to the person that's played the main part of that happening just because a judge decided to look at it completely differently regardless of the evidence? I wouldn't.
Last edited:
Jeema
Well-Known Member
He, and they would certainly would make judgements based on hunches, and doesn't like one side.
I've seen enough trial to come to that conclusion!!
Not all rape victims scream and cry for help. You seem to be basing your fury on what you think the victim should have done, rather than what actually happened. The basis of this case was that the victim was in no fit state to give consent. You cannot, therefore, blame the victim for not offering a physical defence or screaming the house down.
Jeema
Well-Known Member
Totally agree, if she was passed out and they took advantage they deserve everything that should have came their way.
I've had misfortune of jury service twice, both sex cases, one innocent one guilty. The damage to innocent parties is horrendous, 2 years to get to court, lost house, kids, wife, job, had to move to another country.... all 13 charges unanimously not guilty, meanwhile the accusers get off scot free. we discovered at end that this was 5th time the accusers had made such allegations against men...
AlanD
Well-Known Member
I wouldnt say that was drunk enough to be unaware if what was happening around you. I suppose every person is different under the influence of alcohol but that certainly should not be enough to render you absolutely steaming drunk.
This is repetition but it’s welcome as many on this thread are failing to grasp these facts.
Jeema
Well-Known Member
no I'm basing it on the facts presented, you should try it with an open mind
Something tells me you approach such cases with the complete opposite of an open mind.
Jeema
Well-Known Member
PMSL.... no I look at the facts from all angles, something you should try
Because a civil court rules on probability doesn't mean its right, 1 person makes that decision and not all fact and evidence need be presented, Where as a criminal trial, all evidence does, and a jury of your peers, 12, makes an informed decision on the facts and evidence presented, based on the law.
Morton Goal
Well-Known Member
Ridiculous. And also all it does is make it more difficult for actual victims of such a heinous crime to actually get justice. Again the accuser in the DG case could of course be the victim too just as much as Goodwille could actually be. One persons point of view doesn't change that for me at all.
Morton Goal
Well-Known Member
An open mind would be to actually look at the case, the evidence and then make a judgement based on that and not on what you think of any individual in the media and the football park. It would also be open minded not to class a person a rapist because a judge said in his opinion it probably happened based on believing the personality of the accuser rather than the defendants.
Rickety Cricket
Well-Known Member
Gropped the tea lady or physio
Jeema
Well-Known Member
Without a proper criminal trial we will never know re Goodwillie, only way he can clear his name or for accuser to get justice. A civil case is not the answer.
Too many genuine cases never get to court and it is those victims I feel most sorry for, the false accusers only make it harder for these victime to get the justice they deserve
Morton Goal
Well-Known Member
There will never be enough evidence to take it to the criminal court. Was taken to the civil court for financial reasons I would have to suspect.
Jeema
Well-Known Member
Personally I think it's time to draw a line under it, for his and her sake... this witch hunt can't go on for the rest of their lives
It wasn't a "trial". It was a civil proof. There can be a huge difference. The absence of a jury tends to eliminate "theatrics". I've observed/participated in more trials/proofs/hearings than I care to remember and have only once had the suspicion the judge may have been influenced by his dislike for a witness.
That said, I appreciate the experience of others may be different.
Rickety Cricket
Well-Known Member
I'm sure it was him doing the shafting, on some poor lassie...
Jeema
Well-Known Member
Trial - proof semantics, all the same thing to majority of laymen
We all have different experiences, as you say
HarryBosch
Well-Known Member
I think, in a roundabout way, and one you should rethink, you have brought up a pertinent point.
The connotations of the word 'rape', in the majority of peoples minds, would suggest a forceful, violent act against someones will.
Which is juxtaposed against the Legal definition, and the issue of being incapable of giving consent.
But I stand by my earlier comment, that labelling someone a rapist, based on "they probably are" is very dangerous, and quite frankly, not morally correct.
But neither is men taking advantage of vulnerable women.
I wish I was intelligent enough to have the answer, but im not.
Women deserve better.
Jeema
Well-Known Member
Yip I see what you mean there re rape and violence.
Men should never take advantage of vulnerable women and vice versa, as someone else alluded to earlier.
Women and men deserve better
Not defending the guy but where does it end? He is out in society and will need to make a living somewhere.
He has been used as a political football by Sturgeon and her fellow neanderthals, the same cow who wants to put multiple rapists in jail with females or allow them into the same toilets as little girls.
He has been used as a political football by Sturgeon and her fellow neanderthals, the same cow who wants to put multiple rapists in jail with females or allow them into the same toilets as little girls.
Morton Goal
Well-Known Member
He actually has a career away from football and is making his living away from that without much outrage. Playing football for the enjoyment of it. Agree about the rest.
Who's more likely to be 'informed'? An experienced judge who has been involved in numerous criminal trials and knows how to read evidence and witnesses? Or 12 Senga's fae Sighthill?
A judge looked at the case and the evidence and made a judgement. You object to that judgement because it collides with your misogyny.
Madjid Moments
Well-Known Member
So he’s not been convicted in a criminal court due to lack of evidence but was found guilty in a civil court, been fined etc.
Is he allowed to move on in life or just lock himself away in a house forever?
Sturgeon absolutely ruined him because of her friend, she was happy with him having a career at Clyde until his move to Raith came up. If she targeted him straight away I’d see her point but now it was just point scoring against a guy who can’t win either way.
Jeema
Well-Known Member
Certainly not you that's for sure
My heart goes out to David Goodwillie.
I wonder how many of the Perry Masons on here would wake up with their trousers round their ankles, a sore arse, no memory of events and conclude that they must have consented to sex.
I wonder how many of the Perry Masons on here would wake up with their trousers round their ankles, a sore arse, no memory of events and conclude that they must have consented to sex.
A hatred of women does not make you informed.
Jeema
Well-Known Member
Then you should stop hating them and open your mind. You might learn something
HarryBosch
Well-Known Member
Trial by jury is the cornerstone of the criminal justice system precisely because it negates "the hanging Judge"
Morton Goal
Well-Known Member
It's one persons opinion. It's not a fact and that opinion could be incorrect.
Many of the legal profession query our obsession with juries knowing more about the legal system than judges. Like many things in the UK, it's not a system that's necessarily followed elsewhere.
And if the judge favoured Goodwillie, you'd been on here slabbering that we should respect that view.
I have a hunch about that.
Morton Goal
Well-Known Member
Of course not. If the judge went against what the accuser claimed I would still be of the open mind that there's a possibility the two footballers could be rapists.
My personal opinion is that there was nowhere near enough evidence to label the two players rapists and ruin their lives. Because a judge said he probably thinks it happened because he couldn't take the footballers evidence into consideration because both them were drunk too won't change that for me. He's basically believing one persons version of events despite being drunk while discarding the other 2 because they were drunk too. Not to forget ignoring the neighbour who said similarly to the players.
Jeema
Well-Known Member
The challenge is that some do not and are not willing to step out of their closed minds because a judge said this or a judge said that.
The issue of evidence between a Criminal and Civil case is majorly different, criminal needs to be beyond reasonable doubt, civil you just need to be clear and convincing.
As you say, the judge in this situation has taken the word of 1 individual who was drunk and couldn't remember over 2 who were drunk and could remember their version. My concern is the ignoring of the neighbour statement
HarryBosch
Well-Known Member
Are you seriously advocating that the 'hanging judge' is a better system than trial by a jury of your peers?
You want to put peoples liberty purely in the hands of people who hold views such as the following:
".. would add that, even if it was the pursuer who said “Don’t come inside me, I don’t want to have another baby”, I would not accept that such language is necessarily consistent with consensual sexual intercourse."
I'm not the only one 'seriously advocating' (I presume no pun intended) it.
.jpg?sfvrsn=23ef44f7_1)
Opinion: Judge-alone trials can deliver justice – but only if defendants choose them
Judge-alone trials should not be immediately discarded as inevitably inimical to the interests of justice and have been operating uncontroversially in Canada as an expansion of defence rights for many decades, writes Laura Hoyano
www.counselmagazine.co.uk
"In the UK, the ‘right’ to trial by jury is foisted on defendants even when, objectively, that right may not be to their benefit. In Canada, New Zealand and several Australian states, the right is viewed, as with other fundamental rights like the right to silence, one which the defence after consideration might decide not to exercise. "
Jeema
Well-Known Member
I think you want to read your link again:I'm not the only one 'seriously advocating' (I presume no pun intended) it.
Opinion: Judge-alone trials can deliver justice – but only if defendants choose them
Judge-alone trials should not be immediately discarded as inevitably inimical to the interests of justice and have been operating uncontroversially in Canada as an expansion of defence rights for many decades, writes Laura Hoyano
"In the UK, the ‘right’ to trial by jury is foisted on defendants even when, objectively, that right may not be to their benefit. In Canada, New Zealand and several Australian states, the right is viewed, as with other fundamental rights like the right to silence, one which the defence after consideration might decide not to exercise. "
Sir Richard Henriques, a vastly experienced criminal silk and former High Court judge, has proposed clearing the backlog – already dismaying by 30 December 2019 – accumulating due to the suspension of jury trial under the Coronavirus Act 2020, by temporarily resorting to trials by judge alone....
If this were to be mandatory then I would be first in line of adamant opponents.
Doesn't exactly support your position on non jury trials does it?
HarryBosch
Well-Known Member
Exactly what I came on to point out
She literally writes "If this were to be mandatory then I would be first in line of adamant opponents."
Share this page
Latest posts
-
-
Everton call in insolvency advisers amid fresh doubt over 777 takeover- Latest: yosser hughes
