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

[W6er]

This forum! 🤣

[faraway saint]

5 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

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!

Tick tock. 👍

You might remember a previous firum member went on about people "playing the man" rather than the post.

You might want to try it. 

Edited July 26, 2023 by faraway saint

[faraway saint]

16 minutes ago, W6er said:

This forum! 🤣

Ah know, as if I'd hang someone, that woukd be criminal. 🤣🤣🤣

[Cookie Monster]

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.

There is evidence, or didn't you read the court papers.

Also regarding the three in the room, you neglect to say that one was proven in a court of law to have an alcohol level that would have rendered her within the range of blood alcohol concentrations associated with alcoholic blackouts and memory impairment.

If you had actually read the court papers you would have noticed his own evidence differed from his own written pleadings. Also his and the co defendants stories didn't even match up, never mind his recollection of events prior with sober impartial witnesses and video evidence.

[stlucifer]

38 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

There is evidence, or didn't you read the court papers.
No there isn't there is conjecture and limited circumstantial "evidence"., ie guess work

Also regarding the three in the room, you neglect to say that one was proven in a court of law to have an alcohol level that would have rendered her within the range of blood alcohol concentrations associated with alcoholic blackouts and memory impairment.

Could. I'd already addressed this, or didn't you read my posts?

If you had actually read the court papers you would have noticed his own evidence differed from his own written pleadings. Also his and the co defendants stories didn't even match up, never mind his recollection of events prior with sober impartial witnesses and video evidence.

And it was also already established they were ALL drunk. Have you always remembered clearly and concisely what you got up to when drunk? In actual fact. I think I'd be more likely to have rehearsed my evidence if I was telling porkies. That would be the same for both defendants. It's no surprise everything doesn't match.
 

 

Edited July 27, 2023 by stlucifer

[beyond our ken]

5 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

There is evidence, or didn't you read the court papers.

Also regarding the three in the room, you neglect to say that one was proven in a court of law to have an alcohol level that would have rendered her within the range of blood alcohol concentrations associated with alcoholic blackouts and memory impairment.

If you had actually read the court papers you would have noticed his own evidence differed from his own written pleadings. Also his and the co defendants stories didn't even match up, never mind his recollection of events prior with sober impartial witnesses and video evidence.
 

You are right, the statements made by the expert witnesses are based on research and as such are evidence.  They found that she had had enough drink to be severely or even fatally poisoned based on studies and established bandings.  I challenge anyone to say that a person in that state could give meaningful consent.  She couldn't and that was proven in the court.  The three things established are that the woman had sex, she had taken enough alcohol possibly to kill her never mind give consent and that the people who she had sex with were Robertson and Goodwillie. 

It would be wrong to implicate booze, as some have done, as explaining the difference between written statements and verbal evidence.  Both were given in a sober state well after the time of the offence, so the fact they differ is not down to alcohol, the defenders relied on their recollections as the basis for their defence.  And it would be wrong to state that a person lying is more liable to be plausible, that is just pish.  Lawyers are trained and expert in drawing out inconsistencies and anomalies.  In other words they can trap a liar very easily.

It staggers me that some people are making such a determined effort to undermine the judge, the verdict and the account of the victim while making NO attempt to challenge or undermine the evidence or accounts of the accused.  I don't understand how anyone could read the summary or the evidence and come to the conclusion that it is not clear what happened.  Circumstantial evidence is not perfect however the weight of it can be persuasive and in this case the circumstantial evidence supports and does not undermine the factual evidence that was submitted in spades.

[Slarti]

You are right, the statements made by the expert witnesses are based on research and as such are evidence.  They found that she had had enough drink to be severely or even fatally poisoned based on studies and established bandings.  I challenge anyone to say that a person in that state could give meaningful consent.  She couldn't and that was proven in the court.  The three things established are that the woman had sex, she had taken enough alcohol possibly to kill her never mind give consent and that the people who she had sex with were Robertson and Goodwillie. 
It would be wrong to implicate booze, as some have done, as explaining the difference between written statements and verbal evidence.  Both were given in a sober state well after the time of the offence, so the fact they differ is not down to alcohol, the defenders relied on their recollections as the basis for their defence.  And it would be wrong to state that a person lying is more liable to be plausible, that is just pish.  Lawyers are trained and expert in drawing out inconsistencies and anomalies.  In other words they can trap a liar very easily.
It staggers me that some people are making such a determined effort to undermine the judge, the verdict and the account of the victim while making NO attempt to challenge or undermine the evidence or accounts of the accused.  I don't understand how anyone could read the summary or the evidence and come to the conclusion that it is not clear what happened.  Circumstantial evidence is not perfect however the weight of it can be persuasive and in this case the circumstantial evidence supports and does not undermine the factual evidence that was submitted in spades.

So what were the accused alcohol levels?

Maybe they were in no state to "know what they were doing".

If she gave consent but was really "in no fit state" to do so, how is that any different from, say, making racist comments when in the same state? One makes you a victim, the other makes you a criminal?

[beyond our ken]

40 minutes ago, Slarti said:

 

 

So what were the accused alcohol levels? What does that matter?  I've never heard of a prerequisite for charging a person that was dependent on whether they were drunk or not.

Maybe they were in no state to "know what they were doing".  They would still be responsible for any harm they caused and likewise would still have been due the basic right of not being harmed if they were unable to defend themselves.  Are you arguing that drivers who cause deaths whilst drunk driving shouldn't be held responsible?

If she gave consent but was really "in no fit state" to do so, how is that any different from, say, making racist comments when in the same state? Did she make racist comments? If she did commit a crime she would still have deserved not to be harmed. One makes you a victim, the other makes you a criminal?  Seemingly unwittingly, you just asked and answered your own question.

 

Maybe you are just at the wind-up now, 

[Cookie Monster]

There is evidence, or didn't you read the court papers.

No there isn't there is conjecture and limited circumstantial "evidence"., ie guess work

What Lord Armstrong said

Having carefully examined and scrutinised the whole evidence in the case, I find the evidence for the pursuer to be cogent, persuasive and compelling. In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision‑making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her.




Also regarding the three in the room, you neglect to say that one was proven in a court of law to have an alcohol level that would have rendered her within the range of blood alcohol concentrations associated with alcoholic blackouts and memory impairment.

Could. I'd already addressed this, or didn't you read my posts?

Mmmmm who to believe

As Professor Jonathan Chick when giving evidence the Lord summed up as.

He WOULD have expected quite a degree of mental confusion which WOULD have been caused by her brain not functioning properly in respect that things would look fuzzy to her, she WOULD hear sounds as if mumbled, and she WOULD be unable to formulate a plan or to find an appropriate answer to a question put. Conversation WOULD be possible, but her speech WOULD be slurred, and the content and flow would be hesitant and off the point. Others WOULD have had difficulty understanding her. She WOULD have been confused in relation to time and place, and WOULD have been likely to misinterpret cues from others, in relation to what they said and how they looked. Her brain WOULD not have been processing these perceptions normally. She WOULD have been slow to weigh up the pros and cons of how to act and WOULD have appeared undecided. She WOULD have appeared not to have understood questions and WOULD have been liable to make impulsive choices.



If you had actually read the court papers you would have noticed his own evidence differed from his own written pleadings. Also his and the co defendants stories didn't even match up, never mind his recollection of events prior with sober impartial witnesses and video evidence.

And it was also already established they were ALL drunk. Have you always remembered clearly and concisely what you got up to when drunk? In actual fact. I think I'd be more likely to have rehearsed my evidence if I was telling porkies. That would be the same for both defendants. It's no surprise everything doesn't match.

What I have never needed to do is rehearse giving evidence. Thats with having been to court more than a few times. As its only actors or liars that need to rehearse, whilst a good actor will remember their lines a bad liar won't.

[stlucifer]

22 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

There is evidence, or didn't you read the court papers.

No there isn't there is conjecture and limited circumstantial "evidence"., ie guess work

What Lord Armstrong said

Having carefully examined and scrutinised the whole evidence in the case, I find the evidence for the pursuer to be cogent, persuasive and compelling. In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision‑making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her.
In other words, he believe her verbal account. His CHOICE.



Also regarding the three in the room, you neglect to say that one was proven in a court of law to have an alcohol level that would have rendered her within the range of blood alcohol concentrations associated with alcoholic blackouts and memory impairment.

And the others were not tested.

Could. I'd already addressed this, or didn't you read my posts?

Mmmmm who to believe

As Professor Jonathan Chick when giving evidence the Lord summed up as.

He WOULD have expected quite a degree of mental confusion which WOULD have been caused by her brain not functioning properly in respect that things would look fuzzy to her, she WOULD hear sounds as if mumbled, and she WOULD be unable to formulate a plan or to find an appropriate answer to a question put. Conversation WOULD be possible, but her speech WOULD be slurred, and the content and flow would be hesitant and off the point. Others WOULD have had difficulty understanding her. She WOULD have been confused in relation to time and place, and WOULD have been likely to misinterpret cues from others, in relation to what they said and how they looked. Her brain WOULD not have been processing these perceptions normally. She WOULD have been slow to weigh up the pros and cons of how to act and WOULD have appeared undecided. She WOULD have appeared not to have understood questions and WOULD have been liable to make impulsive choices.

I believe The word highlighted negates the rest of the woulds.



If you had actually read the court papers you would have noticed his own evidence differed from his own written pleadings. Also his and the co defendants stories didn't even match up, never mind his recollection of events prior with sober impartial witnesses and video evidence.

And it was also already established they were ALL drunk. Have you always remembered clearly and concisely what you got up to when drunk? In actual fact. I think I'd be more likely to have rehearsed my evidence if I was telling porkies. That would be the same for both defendants. It's no surprise everything doesn't match.

What I have never needed to do is rehearse giving evidence. That's with having been to court more than a few times. As its only actors or liars that need to rehearse, whilst a good actor will remember their lines a bad liar won't.

Seriously? What a load of bollox!

ETA.

WHat it comes down to is you believe the unproven account. I am not so certain. I just don't know so all I'm saying is, enough is enough. Hounding someone because the court of the "righteous" want to get their pitchforks out isn't for me.

Edited July 27, 2023 by stlucifer

[faraway saint]

25 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

As its only actors or liars that need to rehearse, whilst a good actor will remember their lines a bad liar won't.

What about a bad actor and good liar? 🤣🤣🤣

[Slarti]

There is evidence, or didn't you read the court papers.

No there isn't there is conjecture and limited circumstantial "evidence"., ie guess work

What Lord Armstrong said

Having carefully examined and scrutinised the whole evidence in the case, I find the evidence for the pursuer to be cogent, persuasive and compelling. In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision‑making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her.




Also regarding the three in the room, you neglect to say that one was proven in a court of law to have an alcohol level that would have rendered her within the range of blood alcohol concentrations associated with alcoholic blackouts and memory impairment.

Could. I'd already addressed this, or didn't you read my posts?

Mmmmm who to believe

As Professor Jonathan Chick when giving evidence the Lord summed up as.

He WOULD have expected quite a degree of mental confusion which WOULD have been caused by her brain not functioning properly in respect that things would look fuzzy to her, she WOULD hear sounds as if mumbled, and she WOULD be unable to formulate a plan or to find an appropriate answer to a question put. Conversation WOULD be possible, but her speech WOULD be slurred, and the content and flow would be hesitant and off the point. Others WOULD have had difficulty understanding her. She WOULD have been confused in relation to time and place, and WOULD have been likely to misinterpret cues from others, in relation to what they said and how they looked. Her brain WOULD not have been processing these perceptions normally. She WOULD have been slow to weigh up the pros and cons of how to act and WOULD have appeared undecided. She WOULD have appeared not to have understood questions and WOULD have been liable to make impulsive choices.



If you had actually read the court papers you would have noticed his own evidence differed from his own written pleadings. Also his and the co defendants stories didn't even match up, never mind his recollection of events prior with sober impartial witnesses and video evidence.

And it was also already established they were ALL drunk. Have you always remembered clearly and concisely what you got up to when drunk? In actual fact. I think I'd be more likely to have rehearsed my evidence if I was telling porkies. That would be the same for both defendants. It's no surprise everything doesn't match.

What I have never needed to do is rehearse giving evidence. Thats with having been to court more than a few times. As its only actors or liars that need to rehearse, whilst a good actor will remember their lines a bad liar won't.

You kept highlighting the word WOULD.

You should have highlighted WOULD HAVE EXPECTED at the start. "Expected" puts the rest in a different context.

[Slarti]

Maybe you are just at the wind-up now, 

Not at all. My point is that you are still held responsible if drunk while commiting an offence but not held responsible if just as drunk while giving consent.

[faraway saint]

59 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

What I have never needed to do is rehearse giving evidence. Thats with having been to court more than a few times. As its only actors or liars that need to rehearse, whilst a good actor will remember their lines a bad liar won't.

This, in my experience, simply is not true.

When going to appear in court most people WILL go over the series of events that led to them being asked to give evidence.

How well they come over is entirely down to their personality and how nervous they may be.

I feel very sad for all concerned as this is a tragic state of affairs and has had a long standing effect on their lives.

Again, the continual persecution of Goodwillie has gathered an unhealthy pace, especially as he was playing for Clyde for some time before it became the "in thing" to scream and threaten anyone who was willing to give him a chance. 

[Cookie Monster]

You kept highlighting the word WOULD.

You should have highlighted WOULD HAVE EXPECTED at the start. "Expected" puts the rest in a different context.

That is where probabilities come into it and is considered in corroboration with all the facts and evidence.

For those believing it is only one person's view, remember there was 3 Lords that were unanimous in dismissing the appeal that the defendants had raised.

And those still with any doubt, the two defendants pursued an out of court financial settlement. Not the actions of an innocent person.

[faraway saint]

6 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

That is where probabilities come into it and is considered in corroboration with all the facts and evidence.

For those believing it is only one person's view, remember there was 3 Lords that were unanimous in dismissing the appeal that the defendants had raised.

And those still with any doubt, the two defendants pursued an out of court financial settlement. Not the actions of an innocent person.

So why wasn't a criminal prosecution pursued? 

Does this damning evidence you present not point towards an easy prosecution?

 

 

 

[Slarti]

That is where probabilities come into it and is considered in corroboration with all the facts and evidence.

For those believing it is only one person's view, remember there was 3 Lords that were unanimous in dismissing the appeal that the defendants had raised.

And those still with any doubt, the two defendants pursued an out of court financial settlement. Not the actions of an innocent person.

There were no probabilities, just one person's opinion on how likely specific symptoms were.

What were their grounds for appeal? I would think that it was probably on a point of law, which the appeal judges knocked back, rather than on guilt or innocence. If that's the case then it's still down to one person's opinion.

Depends how much they expected to pay in legal fees against how much they were willing to pay in an out of court settlement.

[beyond our ken]

5 hours ago, Slarti said:

You kept highlighting the word WOULD.

You should have highlighted WOULD HAVE EXPECTED at the start. "Expected" puts the rest in a different context.

No it doesn't

 

6 minutes ago, Slarti said:

 

 

There were no probabilities, just one person's opinion on how likely specific symptoms were.

What were their grounds for appeal? I would think that it was probably on a point of law, which the appeal judges knocked back, rather than on guilt or innocence. If that's the case then it's still down to one person's opinion.

Depends how much they expected to pay in legal fees against how much they were willing to pay in an out of court settlement.

 

The "one person"  has spent a lifetime in the field of toxicology, he cites the work of others and established wisdom in the field.  Unless we are now going to enter into science denial we need to accept that he knows what he is talking about

Again, where is the opposing view as raised in court since the defenders' teams are legally and code-bound to offer the best defence?  Why did they not seek you out and guarantee themselves a good outcome for their client?  How could any of the experts dare to not consider the guy from a forum's view?

[Slarti]

No it doesn't

The "one person"  has spent a lifetime in the field of toxicology, he cites the work of others and established wisdom in the field.  Unless we are now going to enter into science denial we need to accept that he knows what he is talking about
Again, where is the opposing view as raised in court since the defenders' teams are legally and code-bound to offer the best defence?  Why did they not seek you out and guarantee themselves a good outcome for their client?  How could any of the experts dare to not consider the guy from a forum's view?

Of course it does.

Are you really claiming that an expert witness can't be wrong?

[beyond our ken]

11 minutes ago, Slarti said:

 

 

There were no probabilities, just one person's opinion on how likely specific symptoms were.

What were their grounds for appeal? I would think that it was probably on a point of law, which the appeal judges knocked back, rather than on guilt or innocence. If that's the case then it's still down to one person's opinion.

Depends how much they expected to pay in legal fees against how much they were willing to pay in an out of court settlement.

 

Oh!  You would think?  Probably?  But we have already established the absence of probabilities, unless you just think they only apply to what you say.  It takes "points of law" to prove liability or innocence.  So in the appeal why did the "points of law" raised by the appellants not persuade the three judges?

 

[Slarti]

Oh!  You would think?  Probably?  But we have already established the absence of probabilities, unless you just think they only apply to what you say.  It takes "points of law" to prove liability or innocence.  So in the appeal why did the "points of law" raised by the appellants not persuade the three judges?
 

You're confusing two meanings of similar words.

One is mathematics, the other is an everyday term meaning "more than likely", as in "I think it was more than likely ...", you know, "I THINK" as in "it's my opinion". Most appeals are on points of law, that's why I think it probably was.

As I don't know what the point(s) of law was/were, I can't really say. They would have presented that a particular thing should/shouldn't have happened or been considered or been given more/less weight in the consideration. The judges disagreed. They wouldn't have been retrying the case, they would have been deciding on the procedure.