David Goodwillie

[zander]

Someone tell the judge he's "good with the ball at his feet" he got away with it here for a year and half might work in the Civil Court.

[DelMonte]

Prey tell. What's the worst that could happen

Learnt my lesson, I'll stick to the Rooney thread from now on.

[Lencarl]

Goodwillie was told by a judge that he wouldn't be allowed to cross-examine the woman accusing him of rape.

 

Lord Armstrong said he considered the interests 
of justice would be best served if the woman was not cross-examined by a party litigant and that the 
footballer be legally 
represented so that his case can be put forward in the most effective way.

[BWG]

So what happens if he doesn't get legal representation then? Can the trial even proceed?

[tup]

I'd just cross examine her myself if I was him.

[daytripping]

I tried defending myself in Paisley once, was arrested for running on to the pitch after Bett scored in the closing minutes, the year we lost the league in the last game at the hun, was a fucking disaster, even had the 2 coppers telling the judge I wasn't so bad such was my poor cross examining skills, they ended up feeling sorry for me.....GUILTY, £75 fine. Was a heart stopping moment when the trainee novice judge started discussing alternatives and jail sentences, was another judge there showing him the ropes that said to just fine me.

 

In this instance I agree he shouldn't be allowed to question her but I also don't think the money grabber should be allowed to take him to court, it's for the CPS to decide these things, they didn't believe a charge existed.

[Dandyesque]

Different standard of evidence required.

 

Criminal offence needs to be beyond all reasonable doubt

 

Civil offence is on the balance of probability.

 

And she has every right to sue him for emotional damage caused

[daytripping]

Different standard of evidence required.

 

Criminal offence needs to be beyond all reasonable doubt

 

Civil offence is on the balance of probability.

 

And she has every right to sue him for emotional damage caused

 

You honestly think she would take an admission of guilt and an apology for her "emotional damage" or does she want greenbacks?

 

I know what I believe, i'm a good character judge and don't believe her story for a second, nor do the fiscals, she's after cash imo, hope she gets fuck all.

[360]

https://stv.tv/news/east-central/1378283-footballer-david-goodwillie-raped-woman-at-flat-judge-rules/

 

A former Scotland international footballer and his ex-teammate have been ruled to be rapists and ordered to pay £100,000 in damages.

A mother-of-one who was left "devastated" by a Crown decision not to prosecute sued striker David Goodwillie and his then-Dundee United colleague David Robertson.

She said they raped her at a flat in Armadale, in West Lothian, after a night out in nearby Bathgate.

The woman said she could not remember what had happened since she was in a Bathgate bar until she woke up in the flat the following morning.

The 30-year-old originally sought £500,000 in compensation but damages were later agreed at £100,000 in the civil action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

The woman maintained she was incapable of agreeing to sex because of her alcohol consumption but Goodwillie, 27, who now plays with Plymouth Argyle, and Robertson claimed intercourse had been consensual.

A judge said: "Having carefully examined and scrutinised the whole evidence in the case, I find the evidence of the pursuer (the woman) to be cogent, persuasive and compelling."

Lord Armstrong said: "In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday, January 2, 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders (the footballers) 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."

The judge said he found neither Goodwillie nor Robertson to be credible or reliable on the issue of having a reasonable or honest belief that she was consenting.

He rejected evidence relied on by the players that the woman was not particularly affected by alcohol and was no more drunk than anyone else in the company they had been in that night.

Lord Armstrong said there was evidence of flirtation between the woman and Robertson earlier in the evening but the judge added: "The mere fact of sexual attraction does not preclude rape."

The judge said of former Blackburn Rovers and Aberdeen striker Goodwillie: "The first defender was not an impressive witness.

"Particularly in relation to his assessment of the pursuer's condition, his evidence was given with a view to his own interests rather than in accordance with the oath which he had taken.

"I did not find his evidence to be persuasive."

Lord Armstrong said: "Like the first defender, I assessed the second defender as a witness who was being selective as to what he was prepared to tell the court and whose evidence, directed as it was entirely to his own interests, was partial and partisan.

"He did not present as a witness who was being entirely candid. On the significant issues arising in the case, I did not find his evidence to be credible or reliable."

Lord Armstrong said the woman had enjoyed life before the incident but this had changed following the decision not to proceed with a prosecution.

She was told by Crown Office in July that year that it was not going ahead with criminal proceedings.

Lord Armstrong said: "She found that decision difficult to understand and had felt that she had not been believed.

"She felt that her life had been destroyed by something which had happened although, because of her lack of memory, she was not fully aware of what it was that had caused that effect".

She had experienced suicidal thoughts and it was only last year that she felt comfortable forming an intimate relationship again.

Lord Armstrong said: "She maintained emphatically that she would never voluntarily have had sexual intercourse with two men simultaneously and that she had never ever done that before.

"As she put it, she would never ever agree to do that."

The judge said the woman's memory loss was best explained by "the phenomenon of alcoholic blackout".

He said on the basis of expert evidence, witness testimony and forensic findings of the woman's blood alcohol level, he held that during the period the woman was in the flat she "lacked the level of cognitive functioning necessary to make reasoned decisions and consequently lacked the ability to give meaningful consent by free agreement".

[RAZOR]

Wonder if Plymouth will stand by him.

[Dynamo]

So what's the legal mumbo jumbo then.

 

Paying a fine but not going to prison? Not enough evidence?

[craegDAMH]

So what's the legal mumbo jumbo then.

 

Paying a fine but not going to prison? Not enough evidence?

 

Not enough evidence for a criminal court but enough for a civil court it seems. They haven't been convicted of anything, they have just been sued and have to pay damages.

[BWG]

Life destroyed by something she can't remember? Aye OK.

[boboisared]

Life destroyed by something she can't remember? Aye OK.

[Pudgie]

I'm not really sure how someone can be judged to have raped someone in a civil court, with the same evidence yet it can't be used in a criminal court. I get the differences between civil and criminal cases but I don't really understand how such severe allegations can be confirmed without sufficient evidence.

 

Surely to Christ if he has raped her then there needs to be a criminal case?!

 

 

EDIT: Apparently not. Less proof is needed apparently and that's ok according to www.gov.scot. News to me! I thought all serious cases had to be through criminal courts.

[BillyStarkDivinHeeder]

Lord Armstrong said: "Like the first defender, I assessed the second defender

 

Shows what he knows, Goodwillie is a striker.

[boboisared]

Lord Armstrong said: "Like the first defender, I assessed the second defender

 

Shows what he knows, Goodwillie is a striker.

Bravo.

[The Boofon]

Lord Armstrong said: "Like the first defender, I assessed the second defender

 

Shows what he knows, Goodwillie is a striker.

 

 

Objection.

 

Conjecture. No evidence to support this statement.

[Pudgie]

 

 

Objection.

 

Conjecture. No evidence to support this statement.

[Big Man]

Guilty as fuck. All right thinking people ken that.

[Big Man]

[Reed or deed]

And the moral of the story is:

 

It is not illegal to rape someone but it will cost you a hundred grand .

[BWG]

And the moral of the story is:

 

It is not illegal to rape someone but it will cost you a hundred grand .

 

I don't even get how something can be dismissed from criminal court and pursued in civil. Mental.

[manboobs109]

The moral of the story is that even if a bird says "please shag me" if she's had a drink you can still get done with rape.

[slinkyvagabond]

This is like the OJ Simpson trial all over again.

 

Goodwillie is pretty much finished I'd say.

[Redstar]

 

 

Goodwillie is pretty much finished I'd say.

 

Not much of a career left to finish if the truth be told...on the bench in a D Adams managed side is as close to finished as you get...regardless of any court judgment.

[Big Man]

 

I don't even get how something can be dismissed from criminal court and pursued in civil. Mental.

 

It wasn't dismissed from any criminal court. That implies judicial oversight.

 

The Crown Office simply concluded there was not enough evidence to prosecute, and didn't bring it before the courts.

 

This is more common than you think, people pursuing civil actions when the COPFS (for whatever reason) choose to do nothing.

 

Next time you have consensual sex with a stranger take a video, just in case she wakes up and forgets what she did last night.

[Parklife]

 

I don't even get how something can be dismissed from criminal court and pursued in civil. Mental.

 

Because the level of proof is completely different.

The moral of the story is that even if a bird says "please shag me" if she's had a drink you can still get done with rape.

No, the moral of the story is don't rape drunk women.

[BWG]

Because the level of proof is completely different.

 

No, the moral of the story is don't rape drunk women.

 

You're missing the point. I'm aware of the differences between civil and criminal court, the point I'm making is that when you've been acquitted from criminal, some money chasing cunt shouldn't then be able to sue you in civil.

 

She got pished and shagged someone, we used to call that a mistake.

[Parklife]

You're missing the point. I'm aware of the differences between civil and criminal court, the point I'm making is that when you've been acquitted from criminal, some money chasing cunt shouldn't then be able to sue you in civil.

 

No, it's you who's missing the point.

 

Not enough evidence to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" in a Criminal case but there's enough evidence to prove based on the "balance of probabilities" required in a Civil case.

 

It's pretty simple to understand.