Goodwillie Rape Charge Dropped

[Big Man]

but Im still nae getting yer point

 

you start by saying you agree 100%, but then use the fact hes a high profile person, and has a bit o cash tothink hes guilty.

 

my gut feeling is that any woman, who fecks off home with 2 young guns, both football players, who already has a boyfriend is probably up to nae good.

 

lets say my gut feeling is she cried wolf...but without any evidence to decide either way, I suppose I have to think that the police and crown believe the same thing, why would she go back to a flat with a boy she hadnt seen for years and a stranger?

 

nae wonder shes been dumped

 

You said

[Big Man]

No I take great glee in testing/exposing supercilious idiots like yourself, first we have the threesome thread, then the island one, now you are an expert on legal affairs amongst other things. But after all that this is a fkn chat site, where conduct and interaction have no rules nor parameters , mtfu.

 

Also which banned poster or ex poster is this , I recognise the cut of his jib ?

 

Sorry sir, if you can explain to me how a thread about a threesome, retirement and me contributing to a thread with my knowledge of the law amounts to me being a supercilious idiot – in a logical manner, without deviation, hesitation or repetition and without resorting to bad language or personal insults. And then proceed to identify which poster or ex-poster i am (if any),

 

 

then i will gladly desist from ever posting on here again?

[At The Border Guy]

You see a lot of charities and womens' groups campaigning about the low percentage of convictions. It must be horrible for the genuine victims, but at the end of the day you're usually looking at one person's word against another - It would set a horrendous precedent if courts started convicting people based on that just to up some statistic!

 

As an aside, I know two people who have been called in for jury duty for a total of 3 rape cases over the last few years. Each case was thrown out because the girls admitted they were talking bollocks (two because they wanted to get back at a guy who'd pissed them off, and one because she got pregnant while cheating on her boyfriend). Would have been pretty shitty if each of these girls were better liars!

[barassie_afc]

Sorry sir, if you can explain to me how a thread about a threesome, retirement and me contributing to a thread with my knowledge of the law amounts to me being a supercilious idiot

[Big Man]

Good man, n.b. the rest of your posts were quite good

 

Wow. Challenge extended and challenge failed.

 

Now can you please explain what you mean by your words here, im not sure i have the capacity to decipher the subtext?

[Monkey]

 

The decision whether or not to prosecute isn't just about legal considerations it about the financial cost and the probability of conviction as well

[Big Man]

Given that raising rape conviction rates is one of the main aims of the SNP administration Rape cases are the last thing to suffer in cuts. There is a specialist unit of prosecutors specifically to prosecute sex crimes to ensure convictions.

 

Yes, raising the rape conviction rate is one of the main priorities of the SNP administration, that's why the national sexual crimes unit was set up (like you say) and Lord Carloway is reviewing the requirement for corroboration.

 

That desire doesn't extend to financial risk taking when it comes to making decisions about prosecutions. My ex-flatmate his doing her legal traineeship with COPFS in Edinburgh and just finished 3 months shadowing crown counsel. She tells me plenty of stories about how decision making goes down in Chambers Street – money is a hell of a lot more important than you might think.

 

But they are more than happy to raise high profile prosecutions against Mr Sheridan or against Basshunter or Phil Taylor.

The profile and financial wealth of the accused appears to have no bearing on any decision to prosecute in the past nor here and I can't imagine the presence of Mr McBride concerns many of the prosecutors, unlike his effect on the Scottish media. And as for a private prosecution? When has that ever happened and how much would that have cost the victim

 

I didn't for one second mean to suggest that the public profile of the panel is the only motivation, i said it was a consideration. There is a world of difference between prosecuting sexual crimes and prosecuting perjury. Sheridan's case was hardly borderline, there was an overwhelming body of evidence pointing towards his guilt.

 

Basshunter's alleged conduct wasn't rape, it was a section 2 SOSA breach, and it was directed towards two woman in a public place, with CCTV and plenty of witnesses. Not a borderline case for going to trial.

 

Word on Chambers Street is that 3 names make crown counsel sh*t themselves: Paul McBride, Derek Ogg, Ronnie Renucci. Im not for one minute suggesting that they would choose not to prosecute a case just because they were defending, but merely that it informs their decision. When one of them is defending, they know they'll have a serious battle on their hands.

 

Yes, private prosecutions are rarer than a win under alex miller in Scotland but they can and have happened. You would need to petition the high court for permission – but it has been done. There have been 3 private prosecutions successfully raised in the last 120+ years, and i would draw your attention here if you are interested in PP's:

 

http://www.heraldsco...e-case-1.677607

 

http://hansard.millb...ate-prosecution

 

http://www.firmmagaz...ds_collide.html

 

Counsel in all but one of the 3 cases acted pro bono (including the late Lord Davidson) – i doubt money would have been an issue for her either if she was so motivated. At least attempting a PP before running your mouth of to the daily retard would have been a bit more dignified.

 

Not like lawyers to claim to be the most important thing is it? I would have thought that the evidence would be the biggest factor in deciding the outcome of a trial.dk

 

I didn't say that lawyers are the most important thing, but they are an integral part. Its not just about the evidence, its about how its presented in court, how its disseminated for the jury and how its cross-examined and how the minute details are picked over. Even if someone writes you a script for the most foolproof defence, if it's presented badly in court or counsel haven't got a clue – you will loose.

 

If you think we live in a ''To Kill Mockingbird Dream World'' where evidence is king, and the truth will always come out in court, you have an awful lot to learn about the world. And if you do truly believe that, why don't we just do away with legal representation altogether and try all serious crime summarily in front a judge?

 

Some of the things that you come out with really concern me, are you not a law student?

[Monkey]

Yes, raising the rape conviction rate is one of the main priorities of the SNP administration, that's why the national sexual crimes unit was set up (like you say) and Lord Carloway is reviewing the requirement for corroboration.

 

That desire doesn't extend to financial risk taking when it comes to making decisions about prosecutions. My ex-flatmate his doing her legal traineeship with COPFS in Edinburgh and just finished 3 months shadowing crown counsel. She tells me plenty of stories about how decision making goes down in Chambers Street

[muttondressedaslamb]

A female copper said to me that the vast majority of rape cases that the police are called out to in Aberdeen turn out to be sh*te and piss off the police to a huge extent. It usually goes, woman gets drunk, is unhappy in her relationship, shags someone else, then feels guilty for doing it so cries rape to hide their deceit.

Scum of the highest order jeopardising the chances for other women to secure a conviction who suffer at the hands of such a horrendous and evil crime.

[muttondressedaslamb]

[HughMungus]

Ahem....

 

 

anyone see the "Bears Game"..

[Bebo]

A female copper said to me that the vast majority of rape cases that the police are called out to in Aberdeen turn out to be sh*te and piss off the police to a huge extent. It usually goes, woman gets drunk, is unhappy in her relationship, shags someone else, then feels guilty for doing it so cries rape to hide their deceit.

Scum of the highest order jeopardising the chances for other women to secure a conviction who suffer at the hands of such a horrendous and evil crime.

 

Snakes with tits. Having absolutely no regard for the reputation of innocent men while possibly ruining their life forever. Are they ever charged with wasting police time? Or the rare bit of community service like that lesbian quine in Aberdeen that cried rape (link) when she felt guilty because she had a girlfriend?

 

How about they get the same time in prison that their accused would have gotten. That'll teach 'em.

[muttondressedaslamb]

Snakes with tits. Having absolutely no regard for the reputation of innocent men while possibly ruining their life forever. Are they ever charged with wasting police time? Or the rare bit of community service like that lesbian quine in Aberdeen that cried rape (link) when she felt guilty because she had a girlfriend?

 

How about they get the same time in prison that their accused would have gotten. That'll teach 'em.

 

I don't know if they are ever charged with wasting police time. They probably play the mentally ill card and get off with it. And our prisons are already bursting to the seams so I don't agree they should be sent to prison at all. They should be made to do community service and some sort of restorative justice if the man is up for it to make them realise how stupid they have been. Prison will just get them hooked on crack.

[Big Man]

Sorry, i just assumed you were a law student, and sorry for the length of the post.

 

That fascinates me as I would never have thought that decisions about whether to prosecute someone for a crime is based on how much it will cost to prosecute them. I mean when you think of all the cases that they do proceed with and lose when as you suggest it is just one persons word against another surely it would be cheaper not to prosecute at all.

 

Right, im not saying that they choose to prosecute cases based purely on cost – but thats a big consideration for them (though they'd never admit it). Its about risk Vs. cost Vs. reward. There are only a finite number of advocates that are licensed to prosecute on behalf of the crown (crown counsel) at any one time, and there's a potentially infinite case load to go around. So if their particularly busy, then cases where it could go either way if you like, they'll recommend that no further action be taken. Iv'e seen this happen countless times with clients at my own firm. How they justify that to the press, ''there is insufficient evidence in law to continue'' or whatever statement they make, is a matter for them – but whenever i hear statements like that i always treat it with a pinch of salt.

 

No crime could ever make it to the criminal courts where it was literally the word of one person against another. There are protections against that.

And is everyone not just speculating on what the evidence was in this case. The only people who will actually know are the prosecutors themselves. It could be that Goodwillie may have denied any sex took place at all and when forensic tests came back negative the case is dropped as it is going nowhere as there is no evidence.

 

Yes this is true. From my own experience however, i severely doubt that the police would of charged him with rape if any forensic tests had come back negative – they always take legal advice from PF's before they charge someone with a serious crime like rape.

But Basshunter was found not guilty of the charge of sexually assaulting two girls and the sheriff said the evidence against him "was riddled with inconsistencies and improbabilities" and as being" neither credible or reliable" there was no CCTV of the incident and the witnesses had gone to the papers first before reporting it to the police and yet the crown "took the risk" as you put it of going to trial.

I said that Basshunters case was not a borderline case for going to trial – and it wasn't. There was CCTV evidence of basshunter in the vicinity, of his behaviour prior to the alleged incident etc but not of the alleged incident itself. This can be used to build up a picture to show a course of conduct, which in combination with the evidence of the two girls and other witnesses is sufficient in law to obtain a prosecution.

 

The only thing that the crown are supposed to consider before deciding to proceed to trial, is whether or not there is sufficient evidence in law. Its supposed to be an issue of quantity not quality if you like. They are not concerned with matters of credibility or reliability or what weight (if any) should be attached to evidence. These are matters that need to be decided by the jury at the direction of the trial judge.

 

The crown office is also very political, the lord advocate is a political appointment and he can veto any prosecution his crown team wants to undertake at any moment – he gets the final say on absolutely everything that goes to court.

Also Phil Taylor was found guilty of sexually assaulting two women at the time he was world darts champion. The evidence in that case was from the two women whilst Taylor and another man said the assaults did not happen. Again a case where the crown prosecuted a high profile individual on evidence based entirely on the word of two people.Your suggestion that the crown would not proceed with such prosecutions involving high profile people on the basis of such evidence is mistaken.

 

I have to confess i don't know anything about the phil taylor case. I googled it quickly and supposedly it took place in 1999? I was about 13 then so i have no idea how the crown office was being run. I do have plenty of experience of how its run now though, both in the course of my work and from friends who are trainee PF's and work elsewhere within COPFS. Also, ive been told that the crown office is a lot more political, post devolution, than it once was.

 

I have no idea what the word on Chambers street is but was Derek Ogg not the head of the sex crime unit at the time and thus a "fair match" for Mr McBride?

 

He was yes, no longer is. Ogg would of been ample match for McBride. Ogg had a ridiculous case load though, i doubt he would of been assigned to a diddy wee rape like that, he would of handed it down to someone in his unit. He wasn't just involved in NSCU, he's involved all over the shop. He prosecuted the Malcom Webster trial, and he's been heavily involved in drafting the crowns arguments for the upcoming appeal.

 

He's back working for the good side now though, so they're feart of him. He was before he joined the crown, and even more so now he's spent time with them, the top man for sexual offences work in Scotland.

 

You did say that the " primary causality of the outcome of any trial is always the legal counsel involved." I was merely pointing out that the evidence is a bigger factor I don't dispute that the lawyer doesn't have a bearing on the outcome. I imagine if you take a man off the street and put him up against a well trained and experienced lawyer the difference would be massive. But even the best trained lawyer could not get a conviction if there was no evidence.

 

No evidence at all = no prosecution. That's obvious. If there was no evidence at all goodwillie wouldn't even of been charged. Sometimes when there is evidence (especially scientific and forensic evidence), which can be disputed and bogged down in legal arguments (this is where the knowledge and the experience of the defence counsel becomes crucial) the crown know its a risk to attempt to lead it. This will help to inform their overall decision to proceed or not.

 

No I am not a law student I was just interested in this subject enough to challenge some of the statements you were making.

 

All this is just my opinion based on my experience of how the crown work in my dealings with them. As you've guessed my views are not exactly impartial – but they're not impartial for a reason. If you're interested in this, you should go down to the high court in Aberdeen, or Edinburgh and just find a trial to observe (you can go in an ask for a list). As long as you don't drink or take notes in court no one will bother you. Just spend a day observing and listening to the evidence, and how the in-competencies of the crown and the conduct of the police unravel in court for real and how the judge rips them apart (sometimes it won't because sometimes there's no impropriety but more often than not something juicy along these lines will happen). Its a massive eye opener and really makes you think – so many things go unreported by the press. I did that when i was 16, it opened my eyes, and its why i chose to study law.

[Frank Butcher]

Sorry, i just assumed you were a law student, and sorry for the length of the post.

 

Are you a law student? ? sorry i was just assuming by the length of your posts,

 

That you might have been hinting at the fact you have or are studying law, am I right ??

[Big Man]

Are you a law student? ? sorry i was just assuming by the length of your posts,

 

That you might have been hinting at the fact you have or are studying law, am I right ??

 

Na im not a law student, im a plumber. The laws just something i do you know... in-between jobs an that.

 

 

[Guest]

Goodwille called up to the Scotland squad and Maguire left out.

 

Think that highlights the fact that Bebo only got a couple of call ups because it wouldn't have looked too good if a potential rapist was representing his country. Can't see him getting anywhere near the squad for again for a while now.

[Monkey]

Pulling this back OnT in regards to Goodwillie my main observation was that as mentioned previously for anyone to try and 2nd guess why the case was dropped is pointless. Having looked at reports further it was over two weeks after the incident that Goodwillie was arrested by the police and charged, at that time he was reported to have said "no comment" to the police questions and provided a DNA test. That test would have taken a couple of months to be processed and at that point who is to say that the evidence did not come back that it was not even him that had had sex with her that night?

 

I just felt your suggestion that the fact he is famous and has a good lawyer had a bearing on the case as being slightly naive. Also your suggestion that

 

But if you go out and commit rape, and you have money, are reasonably well educated and have a solid defence advocate – i'd say there's at least a 75%+ chance you will get off consequence free. Sadly, my gut feeling is that this may have happened here.

 

I found extremely concerning, as mentioned by someone else you have appeared to have pre-judged Goodwillie's guilt in the absence of knowledge of the evidence and suggested that money and good lawyer are the major cause of his non prosecution and also for the low conviction rate. Of the 70% of rape trials where there was an acquittal how many do you suppose had "money" and paid for their own defence as opposed to getting Legal Aid? I would guess that at most one or two people had to pay for their own defence and even then I would think I'm being generous and in actual fact everyone prosecuted got their costs paid for.

 

The low conviction rate can be perhaps be more readily attributed to the fact that most juries will find it very difficult to convict an individual in a situation where it is one persons word against another where the issue concerns whether the women had consented to sex at the time.

 

 

 

No crime could ever make it to the criminal courts where it was literally the word of one person against another. There are protections against that.

 

But lots do, as with the example given above with both parties agree they had sex but the man says it was consensual, there is a fight in the street man A is prosecuted for assault because man B says he was assaulted but man A says he was acting in self defence. Someone reports their car stolen and a guy gets stopped driving it car but he tells the police he was lent it. All cases where it is one persons word against the other.

 

With Goodwillie there must of been a significant lack of evidence for the crown not to proceed as there has been what might be described as "negative" press over the decision and it would clearly have been easier if it was anything close to a borderline case to put it into court and then any decision to convict or acquit is the responsibility of the judge or jury and not a decision that anyone at the crown could be criticised for.

[RTYD]

Goodwille called up to the Scotland squad and Maguire left out.

 

Think that highlights the fact that Bebo only got a couple of call ups because it wouldn't have looked too good if a potential rapist was representing his country. Can't see him getting anywhere near the squad for again for a while now.

 

 

Aye Derby's

[tightbreeks]

A lot of the old buffers that are judges may still believe that because a woman has got a bigger hole than a man that they are in turn asking for it all the time. old school, and into freudian law n that.

[Big Man]

I found it extremely concerning, as mentioned by someone else you have ''appeared''...

 

Herein lies the problem, your perception. At no point did say i think david goodwillie is guilty of rape. That would plainly be ridiculous; he is innocent until proven guilty.

 

What i did do is second guess the crowns decision not to prosecute the case. I didn't do that based on any evidence or an intimate knowledge of the case, i did that based on my personal experience of how the crown operate in sexual offences cases that i have worked on or have a knowledge of. I know them to prosecute cases when they shouldn't, and do nothing when they should.

 

That is my opinion, and my opinion is subjective. At no point did i attempt to present my opinion as fact. Me second guessing the decisions of the crown is like a weather man second guessing the weather.

 

Nobody pays their legal fees in solemn cases (and i never said they did), unless they choose to use an advocate that's not on the legal aid list. Where money is important, is commissioning medical reports, expert witnesses, extra forensic and lab work that the legal aid board won't pay for.

 

The low conviction rate can be perhaps be more readily attributed to the fact that most juries will find it very difficult to convict an individual in a situation where it is one persons word against another where the issue concerns whether the women had consented to sex at the time.

 

I don't know why you've chosen to write this, at no point did i ever attempted to attribute the low rape conviction rate in this country to anything.

 

But lots do, as with the example given above with both parties agree they had sex but the man says it was consensual, there is a fight in the street man A is prosecuted for assault because man B says he was assaulted but man A says he was acting in self defence. Someone reports their car stolen and a guy gets stopped driving it car but he tells the police he was lent it. All cases where it is one persons word against the other.

 

Right, this is just incredulous. As it stands no person in Scotland can be convicted of a crime based on the evidence of a single person i.e. where it is literally one persons word against the other and no other evidence. Please go and educate yourself about corroboration and criminal procedure before you start listing examples like this.

 

This is good for corroboration: http://www.amazon.co...12370815&sr=1-1

 

This will tell you about criminal procedure: http://www.legislati...995/46/contents

 

- In the rape example you give, there would have to be DNA evidence, or CCTV prior during or after the incident, or a 3^rd party who was witness to the act, or had interaction with the complainer after the act, or something else. One person cries rape in the absence of any other evidence would never make it to trial, and in the very unlikely event it ever did, by law the case would have to be thrown out by the judge.

 

- Exact same principle applies to the assault

 

- You've provided a possible source of corroboration in your example? The police stopped the man driving the car... they could tell the court about his demeanour/behaviour. Its not the word of one person against another.

 

Are these actual examples that you know of personally, because if they are i'd be interested to learn to more, or are you just throwing around hypothetical's?

[diamondsr4ever]

bigman,

 

I think you'll find somewhere in a reply to me, that your gut feeling was he was not innocent

[Big Man]

My gut feeling is that he got away consequence free.

 

I didn't explicity say i think david goodwillie is guilty of rape - i wouldn't do that, that would be wrong.

[diamondsr4ever]

My gut feeling is that he got away consequence free.

 

I didn't explicity say i think david goodwillie is guilty of rape - i wouldn't do that, that would be wrong.

 

consequence free....right, same as the accuser?

[Monkey]

I found it extremely concerning, as mentioned by someone else you have ''appeared''...

 

Herein lies the problem, your perception. At no point did say i think david goodwillie is guilty of rape. That would plainly be ridiculous; he is innocent until proven guilty.

 

I must apologies then as I have misread your comment,

But if you go out and commit rape, and you have money, are reasonably well educated and have a solid defence advocate

[Big Man]

I think goodwillie dodged a bullet in not having his case to proceed to trial, that is all i was trying to convey. Perhaps i overstated my case a little.

 

Well, the legal aid system is quite complicated. In short you're wrong about that. For serious crimes such as murder and rape, when you first appear on petition before the sheriff you will get your legal aid forms stamped and signed there and then. Your income has nothing to do with it. You can elect to decline the legal aid support and pay for representation that is not on the legal aid list yourself (though this is very rare). Both of the men indicted for the Lockerbie bombing chose to do this for example.

 

Where there is means testing for criminal legal aid is in cases when the panel is not in custody. Perhaps you are cautioned by the police or invited for voluntary questioning and you want to seek legal advice first. Or in certain summary cases. You can read more about that here:

 

http://www.slab.org...._in_custody.pdf

 

You got caught in the middle of a petty squabble between me and barrasie_afc. I was just highlighting the current statistics. I didn't in anyway attempt to discuss the underlying factors which contribute to those figures. That 75% comment (like i said at the time) was purely subjective and my opinion based on experience.

 

 

Just to make myself clear, if a women accuses a man of rape and when he is interviewed he says we had sex but she consented. There is no dispute sex took place but the only issue is whether the women consented the case will resolve only around one persons word against the other and who the jury believes.

 

Right, i think we may have got our wires crossed a little bit. Could you qualify what you mean by ''the word of one person against another''?

 

Let me reiterate for the avoidance of doubt: if there is a case like you suggest where a woman accuses a man of rape, they both acknowledge that intercourse took place, but he maintains it was consensual and if there is no other evidence – the case would not get passed the criminal courts. The onus is on the crown in rape cases to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt, that complainer did not consent or that the panel was reckless as to whether she consented. Every single fact that they rely on for a prosecution has to be corroborated.

 

If there is no other evidence, or other party present there can be no corroboration. Corroboration can come in the form of scientific and forensic evidence, or someone testifying as to the distress of the complainer following the alleged incident. It can come from many possible sources.

 

If there is a case like you say, with evidence like i suggest in the above paragraph then it is not the word of one person against the other, and the jury would have to decide on issues of credibility and what weight (if any) should be attached to the evidence – like you said.

 

So, if A says B raped them, B says it was consensual and there is absolutely no other evidence (whatsoever) – i doubt this would go to court.

 

This is OT, but Just because you seem interested in this you should know that after the Cadder Ruling (which you've probably read about), this type of situation you describe is very rare. In all rape cases, now that we are allowed access to clients before the police are allowed to speak to them we would always advise that they don't make any comment about whether or not intercourse took place.

 

Likewise if a man in a house claims to have been assaulted by another man and the guy accused says "yes, I punched him but he pulled a knife and tried to stab me" again the case would resolve around one persons word against another as there is no dispute that a punch was thrown.

 

Again this depends on the circumstances. Are there any other witnesses present? Was the police called to the incident? Was there anyone outside who could testify that they heard a disturbance inside the house? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then its possible the case could proceed to trial, and the jury would have to decide which version they believed. But if the answer to any of those questions was yes then in the legal sense it is not be the word of one person against the other.

[Broughty Ferry Arab]

Anyway, he's signed for Blackburn Rovers

[Big Man]

Breaking news ladies and gentleman. The lassie who accused david goodwillie of rape has launched a civil action against someone i can't name (wink wink!!!!!!!) and another man whom i also cannot name. I don't think any media outlets are carrying the story yet, but i have it on very good authority from a colleague who works for the crown.

 

The truth may get to come out at last.

 

[Big Man]

Looks like i lied, somone has reported the story:

 

http://www.dailyreco...86908-23326590/

 

Edit: This is particularly interesting

 

A Crown Office official twice offered to fill out criminal injury compensation applications for me, which was strange given the decision they took not to proceed.

 

- Lassie who was not raped by david goodwillie

 

[barassie_afc]

Read this in the Hunday Mason yesterday, lassie was oot her tits on drink and drugs and seemingly was incapable of saying no........ goodwillie and robertson are being pursued