Goodwillie and Robertson..........

[faraway saint]

4 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

 

And, historically, on this forum, you stated that a member of my family was the outcome of interbreeding (a lie) a

Oh, by the way, you need psychiatric help if you, or anyone else, has taken a throwaway comment and still drags it up YEARS later. 

Away and have a look at herself. 

[faraway saint]

29 minutes ago, HSS said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66298242

For all concerned I'd hope this happens. 

[Slarti]

It will take a while but hopefully the crown allows the private prosecution to proceed

If it does and he is found not guilty will you then say that the judge in the civil case got it wrong, or will you claim the judge in the criminal case got it wrong - or will you say that it's just a matter of differing opinions?

[W6er]

4 minutes ago, Slarti said:

 

 

If it does and he is found not guilty will you then say that the judge in the civil case got it wrong, or will you claim the judge in the criminal case got it wrong - or will you say that it's just a matter of differing opinions?

 

It could be that both judges got it right, given the different standards of proof! 😉 😆

Of course, we also have the 'not proven' verdict in Scotland, too.

Ach, come to think of it, I don't think this will ever end unless new evidence comes to light.

[Slarti]

It could be that both judges got it right, given the different standards of proof! [emoji6] [emoji38]
Of course, we also have the 'not proven' verdict in Scotland, too.
Ach, come to think of it, I don't think this will ever end unless new evidence comes to light.

I know. [emoji14]

My point really is that guilty people can be found not guilty and innocent people can be found guilty. No matter the outcome there will be people who agree with it and people who disagree, based only on their opinion.

[beyond our ken]

33 minutes ago, Slarti said:

 

 

If it does and he is found not guilty will you then say that the judge in the civil case got it wrong, or will you claim the judge in the criminal case got it wrong - or will you say that it's just a matter of differing opinions?

 

Of course i will stand by the verdict

 

[Slarti]

Of course i will stand by the verdict
 

Which one?

[beyond our ken]

11 minutes ago, Slarti said:

14 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

Of course i will stand by the verdict
 

Which one?

What are you getting at

if a criminal court clears him then I would fully accept that 

I now defer to the great legal minds of black and white army who reached a different verdict to the judge by not reviewing the evidence or the written judgement 

 

[Slarti]

What are you getting at
if a criminal court clears him then I would fully accept that 
I now defer to the great legal minds of black and white army who reached a different verdict to the judge by not reviewing the evidence or the written judgement 
 

Accept it or agree with it?

[faraway saint]

13 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

What are you getting at

if a criminal court clears him then I would fully accept that 

I now defer to the great legal minds of black and white army who reached a different verdict to the judge by not reviewing the evidence or the written judgement 

 

Who, exactly, reached a different verdict? 

[W6er]

3 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

What are you getting at

if a criminal court clears him then I would fully accept that 

I now defer to the great legal minds of black and white army who reached a different verdict to the judge by not reviewing the evidence or the written judgement 

 

The problem with a case like this, is it is emotive. Nobody can say what folk have been through on here - they may have friends or family who have been raped, and the perpetrator never brought to justice, as so often happens; alternatively they may know someone who has been falsely accused.

It's a mess of a case, because ultimately it's one person's word against the others', and all parties were likely intoxicated so even their own memories are probably not reliable. 

As I said, a criminal trial would be best, but I can see that resulting in a 'not proven' verdict - which wouldn't prove Goodwillie's guilt or innocence, really.

[faraway saint]

8 minutes ago, W6er said:

The problem with a case like this, is it is emotive. Nobody can say what folk have been through on here - they may have friends or family who have been raped, and the perpetrator never brought to justice, as so often happens; alternatively they may know someone who has been falsely accused.

It's a mess of a case, because ultimately it's one person's word against the others', and all parties were likely intoxicated so even their own memories are probably not reliable. 

As I said, a criminal trial would be best, but I can see that resulting in a 'not proven' verdict - which wouldn't prove Goodwillie's guilt or innocence, really.

Maybe @beyond our ken was the other person in @Slarti dream? 🤣🤣🤣

(That's for comedy purposes before anyone gets all upset) 🙄

[Slarti]

Maybe [mention=8758]beyond our ken[/mention] was the other person in [mention=15951]Slarti[/mention] dream? [emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787]
(That's for comedy purposes before anyone gets all upset) [emoji849]

Reported. [emoji16]

[stlucifer]

11 hours ago, Slarti said:

11 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

What are you getting at
if a criminal court clears him then I would fully accept that 
I now defer to the great legal minds of black and white army who reached a different verdict to the judge by not reviewing the evidence or the written judgement 
 

Accept it or agree with it?

No matter how it turned out if it came to an actual trial, I'm honestly not sure BoK would really put his pitchfork down. He's got the bit between his teeth and decided Goodwillie and co are the devil incarnate.

As I have said, (perhaps ad nauseam so this will be the last time), I don't know what happened and we might never know but I am not convinced anyone should suffer a life of misery for what basically comes down to an opinion.

[beyond our ken]

14 hours ago, W6er said:

The problem with a case like this, is it is emotive. Nobody can say what folk have been through on here - they may have friends or family who have been raped, and the perpetrator never brought to justice, as so often happens; alternatively they may know someone who has been falsely accused.

It's a mess of a case, because ultimately it's one person's word against the others', and all parties were likely intoxicated so even their own memories are probably not reliable. 

As I said, a criminal trial would be best, but I can see that resulting in a 'not proven' verdict - which wouldn't prove Goodwillie's guilt or innocence, really.

There is no chance that either would be able to receive a fair trial, I hope that it could happen, but try finding a jury that would not already have an opinion on this case

[DougJamie]

Our finishing last night was criminal....just saying

[beyond our ken]

6 hours ago, stlucifer said:

No matter how it turned out if it came to an actual trial, I'm honestly not sure BoK would really put his pitchfork down. He's got the bit between his teeth and decided Goodwillie and co are the devil incarnate.

As I have said, (perhaps ad nauseam so this will be the last time), I don't know what happened and we might never know but I am not convinced anyone should suffer a life of misery for what basically comes down to an opinion.

My point has always been that both defenders received a fair trial with a judge declaring the evidence against them as compelling.  I just don't see the problem other people have with that.  The motives for determinedly arguing that this case was not properly examined are preposterous with people suggesting the "what ifs" as evidence that the judgement can't be relied on.  Does no-one believe that a very expensive legal team didn't consider these points and a whole lot more?  or the reason that the defence team didn't raise these is because they simply wouldn't cut it?

Something that is obvious to me through this is that people are putting themselves in the place of the defenders' legal team  when they suggest alternate realities that "could" have occurred while not accepting the evidence that was offered which showed the things that almost certainly happened.  Trying to find doubt in this case, which was found to be compelling is really just defending them and laying the groundwork for a continuation of women being at risk because of attitudes.

And I don't accept for one minute that Goodwillie has had a life of misery, he could have followed Robertson's lead and just slipped back into the landscape, having to drive a van instead of playing football is not a life of misery.  And don't forget the good sums of money he continued to make playing football up until last year and the salary he continues to draw from Raith.  He took the decision to carry on and even got an easy ride for years at Clyde   I said at the time, I knew John Taylor who was on the board there and with his integrity and advice network I actually trusted that they had completely risk-assessed Goodwillie.  The campaign by Val McDiarmid & co made me think again.  And finally, the only thing i discussed on this thread was in the context of the trial, the problem I have is with other people's refusal to accept the ruling when it seems pretty clear it was balanced and sound.  

[stlucifer]

1 hour ago, beyond our ken said:

almost certainly happened. 

You've hit the nail on the head mate. No one except the three in the room know what certainly happened and there is NO real evidence.  I feel that all three have suffered but I don't know who, if any, lied. It really could be the case that all honestly think their telling the truth. Their version of reality.

[Slarti]

2 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

My point has always been that both defenders received a fair trial with a judge declaring the evidence against them as compelling.  I just don't see the problem other people have with that.  The motives for determinedly arguing that this case was not properly examined are preposterous with people suggesting the "what ifs" as evidence that the judgement can't be relied on.  Does no-one believe that a very expensive legal team didn't consider these points and a whole lot more?  or the reason that the defence team didn't raise these is because they simply wouldn't cut it?

Something that is obvious to me through this is that people are putting themselves in the place of the defenders' legal team  when they suggest alternate realities that "could" have occurred while not accepting the evidence that was offered which showed the things that almost certainly happened.  Trying to find doubt in this case, which was found to be compelling is really just defending them and laying the groundwork for a continuation of women being at risk because of attitudes.

And I don't accept for one minute that Goodwillie has had a life of misery, he could have followed Robertson's lead and just slipped back into the landscape, having to drive a van instead of playing football is not a life of misery.  And don't forget the good sums of money he continued to make playing football up until last year and the salary he continues to draw from Raith.  He took the decision to carry on and even got an easy ride for years at Clyde   I said at the time, I knew John Taylor who was on the board there and with his integrity and advice network I actually trusted that they had completely risk-assessed Goodwillie.  The campaign by Val McDiarmid & co made me think again.  And finally, the only thing i discussed on this thread was in the context of the trial, the problem I have is with other people's refusal to accept the ruling when it seems pretty clear it was balanced and sound.  

I think everyone that has raised "what ifs" has stated that they don't know.  There is no defending going on because no-one on here knows what went on.

 

As for the last part, if there is a criminal trial and they are found not guilty, will you still think that the civil trial verdict is "balanced and sound"?  If so, will you then think that the criminal trial verdict is wrong - you know, have your own opinion?

[faraway saint]

Kinda sidetracked me with the guilty/not guilty debate.

There's no doubt there are uncertainties or the criminal case would have been pursued.

My real annoyance is that the guy has been hounded by every do-gooder that feels the need to shout the loudest.

His "job" despite the idiotic notion he should drive a van, poses no threat directly to anyone.

He's more than legally entitled to continue playing football.

I read an article a few days ago and almost unanimously he was getting support to continue his life.

Wish to feck other people would just let him. 

 

[faraway saint]

Oh, aye, the judicial system can get things wrong, seriously wrong.................just saying. 

After 20 years protesting his innocence - 17 of them from inside prison - Andy Malkinson's conviction for rape has been quashed. The Crown Prosecution Service did not contest his appeal in a case that raises serious questions about why he was jailed in the first place.

[beyond our ken]

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

Oh, aye, the judicial system can get things wrong, seriously wrong.................just saying. 

After 20 years protesting his innocence - 17 of them from inside prison - Andy Malkinson's conviction for rape has been quashed. The Crown Prosecution Service did not contest his appeal in a case that raises serious questions about why he was jailed in the first place.

so do you still want to personally hang people?  You have volunteered in the past

[beyond our ken]

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

Kinda sidetracked me with the guilty/not guilty debate.

There's no doubt there are uncertainties or the criminal case would have been pursued.

My real annoyance is that the guy has been hounded by every do-gooder that feels the need to shout the loudest.

His "job" despite the idiotic notion he should drive a van, poses no threat directly to anyone.

He's more than legally entitled to continue playing football.

I read an article a few days ago and almost unanimously he was getting support to continue his life.

Wish to feck other people would just let him. 

 

apparently he now drives a van for a living and has also worked as a labourer

[faraway saint]

4 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

so do you still want to personally hang people?  You have volunteered in the past

Only if its you. 🤣

Jog on, I'm bored of you. 

[beyond our ken]

5 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Only if its you. 🤣

Jog on, I'm bored of you. 

You are, of course, welcome to try and visit any kind of physical harm on me that you feel the need to.  I'll have my popcorn ready should you ever have the balls to make a threat in the real world

I see you cling miserably to your last word fixation still.  Don't ever change!