Goodwillie Transfer to Raith

[phart]

I posted it earlier after reading it before deciding whether to opine, but it's just a depressing read.

[mccaughey85]

4 minutes ago, phart said:

I posted it earlier after reading it before deciding whether to opine, but it's just a depressing read.

It's not a good read for goodwillie and Robertson. Sounds like she was quite intoxicated. It's still not concrete proof that she was raped but it certainly would make you think that she was too drunk to consent to sex. 

It's strange that it never made it to a criminal trial. Surely there is enough evidence there to go forward with one.

 

[phart]

3 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

It's not a good read for goodwillie and Robertson. Sounds like she was quite intoxicated. It's still not concrete proof that she was raped but it certainly would make you think that she was too drunk to consent to sex. 

It's strange that it never made it to a criminal trial. Surely there is enough evidence there to go forward with one.

 

I don't find it strange.

[aaid]

4 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

It's not a good read for goodwillie and Robertson. Sounds like she was quite intoxicated. It's still not concrete proof that she was raped but it certainly would make you think that she was too drunk to consent to sex. 

 

 

Which is rape.

[mccaughey85]

5 minutes ago, aaid said:

Which is rape.

Alot of ppl have sex when very drunk, if she was passed out then its rape, if shes had consensual sex while being very drunk then thats not rape. 

I personally think him and Robertson raped her while she was passed out but I wasn't in the room so I can't say that with any certainty. If your being truthful you can't either. 

Sadly the problem with rape cases is its often one person's word against the other/s. 

 

[mccaughey85]

16 minutes ago, phart said:

I don't find it strange.

Why's that? There seems like enough evidence there to convince a jury. 

[aaid]

4 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Alot of ppl have sex when very drunk, if she was passed out then its rape, if shes had consensual sex while being very drunk then thats not rape. 

I personally think him and Robertson raped her while she was passed out but I wasn't in the room so I can't say that with any certainty. If your being truthful you can't either. 

Sadly the problem with rape cases is its often one person's word against the other/s. 

 

The point is, if someone is intoxicated to a degree that they are not able to give informed consent then it is rape.  Being passed out or not is not relevant.

in this case I think it’s pretty obvious that she wasn’t able to give consent. 

[phart]

6 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Why's that? There seems like enough evidence there to convince a jury. 

These things often dont get to court despite there ostensibly being enough evidence.

[mccaughey85]

4 minutes ago, aaid said:

The point is, if someone is intoxicated to a degree that they are not able to give informed consent then it is rape.  Being passed out or not is not relevant.

in this case I think it’s pretty obvious that she wasn’t able to give consent. 

Yeh maybe so but what level of intoxication is too much? It's not an exact science, what we have is eye witness statements that admittedly don't help goodwillies case but it's not concrete proof and the case never made it to criminal court so both sides evidence hasn't necessarily been scrutinised in criminal court. 

Anyways regardless of that my point is goodwillie has not been convicted of the crime and it would be a dangerous precedent for society to decide who is guilty and who is not and wether that person can continue working at his/her profession. I suppose its down to raith supporters and wether they think he's guilty or not and wether they will accept him. 

[mccaughey85]

10 minutes ago, phart said:

These things often dont get to court despite there ostensibly being enough evidence.

 

12 minutes ago, phart said:

These things often dont get to court despite there ostensibly being enough evidence.

Fair enough but that doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty. 

[phart]

6 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

 

Fair enough but that doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty. 

We're not discussing his guilt though, we were discussing whether we found it strange it made it to criminal trial or not.

[mccaughey85]

37 minutes ago, phart said:

We're not discussing his guilt though, we were discussing whether we found it strange it made it to criminal trial or not.

Ok fair enough👌

[Diamond Scot]

One thing to bear in mind is that he evidence at the civil hearing would not have been the same as the evidence at the point where the crown decided whether it could go to trial or not. 

The usual advice to give an accused at police interview is no comment. Especially of the guy didnt cum. What that leaves the police with is a complainer who thinks she might have had sex but cant remember. Ie no case at all.

If the guy cums it changes the advice, usually to one of consent. At that stage there is normally enought to proceed. 

The law isnt as simple as girl cant consent so therefore its rape though. Even if the girl cant consent, if the guy has reasonable belief that she did then its an acquital. Obviously this is where the big grey area enters. Many people can fully operate whilst being completely off their face with no idea what they are actually doing. Ive seen a case where a functioning alcoholic had driven from Essex to Scotland whilst nearly 13 times the legal limit. He had only been pulled over because he had been slightly speeding and the police had a full conversation with him without suspicion. It waa only when they noticed the empty whisky bottles that they started to suspect he may have been drinking.

The law of rape is a very complex and in some ways extremely unfair one where 2 people can be equally drunk, equally incapable of consent but 1 is a victim and the other a rapist. Its worded that way through neccesity as if it wasnt then every rapist would just say he was also drunk.

What is hard when it comes to evidence though is you are saying somebody is credible and reliable when they basically cant remember anything but finding others not so when they can only recall certain aspects, no doubt partly because they were drunk and also self preservation.

[Squirrelhumper]

5 hours ago, McTeeko said:

Fitba fans are fickle. If he rattles in a hat-trick v Dunfermline most of them will be back 😏

Very .much doubt they will be.

More to life than football.  

[phart]

2 hours ago, Diamond Scot said:

 

The usual advice to give an accused at police interview is no comment. Especially of the guy didnt cum. What that leaves the police with is a complainer who thinks she might have had sex but cant remember. Ie no case at all.

If the guy cums it changes the advice, usually to one of consent. At that stage there is normally enought to proceed. 

 

There was DNA evidence after swabs.

Also the whole issue of reasonable and honets belief of consent is dealt with by Lord Armstrongs judgement, which has been posted twice now. It speaks directly in context of the cae as it was heard as opposed to generalities.

For instance the expert evidence speaks directly to

"However, there was evidence that individuals, even when obviously intoxicated and suffering from impairment of working memeory, are capable of such well rehearsed concious or automatic acts. "

"I find that, viewed objectively, there is no persuasive basis to support the contention that either man had a legitimate belief, whether reasonable or honest, that the pursuer was consenting to what took place between them in the flat in Greig Crescent."

[Diamond Scot]

8 minutes ago, phart said:

There was DNA evidence after swabs.

Also the whole issue of reasonable and honets belief of consent is dealt with by Lord Armstrongs judgement, which has been posted twice now. It speaks directly in context of the cae as it was heard as opposed to generalities.

For instance the expert evidence speaks directly to

"However, there was evidence that individuals, even when obviously intoxicated and suffering from impairment of working memeory, are capable of such well rehearsed concious or automatic acts. "

"I find that, viewed objectively, there is no persuasive basis to support the contention that either man had a legitimate belief, whether reasonable or honest, that the pursuer was consenting to what took place between them in the flat in Greig Crescent."

I know. I wasnt commenting on the Goodwillie case. Just sexual cases in general and the difficulties they pose.

I understand that both defenders admitted sex with the complainer so i imagine their solicitors advice was to go with the consent defence. 

I dont know the specifics of why the crown opted against proceeding. On the basis of the evidence in the judgement there is a sufficiency although alot of the evidence in the civil case would never have been heard in a criminal court. 

Domestic abuse courts and sexual offences are unlike any other in law. Sheriffs and Judges tend to get a feel for where the truth lies and have the confidence / standing to deliver that verdict. Juries much less so, especially with the burden of proof being higher. In most cases there tends to be some element of doubt and that doubt favours the accused.

[ParisInAKilt]

From reading the judgment I think its reasonable to come to the conclusion that Goodwillie is basically lying. I’m not a lawyer so not sure about the chances of a criminal conviction but I think a jury should have been given the chance to make that decision. 

[phart]

14 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

I know. I wasnt commenting on the Goodwillie case. Just sexual cases in general and the difficulties they pose.

I understand that both defenders admitted sex with the complainer so i imagine their solicitors advice was to go with the consent defence. 

I dont know the specifics of why the crown opted against proceeding. On the basis of the evidence in the judgement there is a sufficiency although alot of the evidence in the civil case would never have been heard in a criminal court. 

Domestic abuse courts and sexual offences are unlike any other in law. Sheriffs and Judges tend to get a feel for where the truth lies and have the confidence / standing to deliver that verdict. Juries much less so, especially with the burden of proof being higher. In most cases there tends to be some element of doubt and that doubt favours the accused.

I don't have any knowledge, I just read the judgement so hard to form any opinions.

Not sure what to make of the comments about how their pleadings and their police reports then testimony don't always add up either, and also contradicted by other witnesses.

 

[Hertsscot]

15 hours ago, Diamond Scot said:

One thing to bear in mind is that he evidence at the civil hearing would not have been the same as the evidence at the point where the crown decided whether it could go to trial or not.

By its very nature this is a crime, given the presumption of innocence, that is always going to be difficult to prove in court. About 12 years ago I was on the jury for a rape case at Chelmsford Crown Court. The circumstances were v. different to the case discussed here and eventually was postponed due to the defendant being unwell. As a jury we never got to the stage of having to decide whether it was 'beyond reasonable doubt' or not, and I couldn't help thinking that I would want a bit of guidance about what exactly was meant by reasonable doubt. What is 'reasonable doubt' to someone may look very different to someone else, exactly how much or how little doubt is needed? 

Having said that, there is no doubt that Raith Rovers have completely misread the room on this one.

[shaggycoo]

On 2/1/2022 at 12:47 PM, Debian said:

Was there a similar out cry when he went to Clyde?

 

Raith making a total cunt of it.  

 

Was thinking that myself? Was it because Clyde are in a lower division therefore them, and the players playing for them, as seen as being less relevant?? Raith should just cancel the deal.

[Hertsscot]

28 minutes ago, shaggycoo said:

Was thinking that myself? Was it because Clyde are in a lower division therefore them, and the players playing for them, as seen as being less relevant?? Raith should just cancel the deal.

Obviously the higher profile the club it (rightly or wrongly) becomes more of an issue. Is it also that Rovers have some more high profile supporters who have been willing to speak out?

[aaid]

32 minutes ago, shaggycoo said:

Was thinking that myself? Was it because Clyde are in a lower division therefore them, and the players playing for them, as seen as being less relevant?? Raith should just cancel the deal.

When Goodwillie signed for Clyde he was pursuing an appeal so there would presumably be an element of "waiting for the Sue Grey report" going on.

When his appeal was thrown out, there was criticism aimed at Clyde for continuing to employ him.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/1953126/clyde-fc-rapist-david-goodwillie/

I guess ultimately that died down, helped to an extent by Clyde's relative lack of profile.   

I suppose that Raith Rovers - foolishly - thought that it was all water under the bridge.   

At this time though I suspect the arrest of Mason Greenwood and the horrific allegations against him would probably have had the subject of rape and violence against women in the context of football at the front of people's minds.

Edit - a fair bit of cross party condemnation from politicians at the time as well.  https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/politicians-heap-pressure-on-clyde-fc-over-rapist-striker-david-goodwillie/

Edited February 2, 2022 by aaid

[Hertsscot]

29 minutes ago, aaid said:

At this time though I suspect the arrest of Mason Greenwood and the horrific allegations against him would probably have had the subject of rape and violence against women in the context of football at the front of people's minds.

I'm not sure how widely reported this was but last week also saw publication of figures showing a record number of rapes being reported in England and Wales.

[Diamond Scot]

3 hours ago, Hertsscot said:

By its very nature this is a crime, given the presumption of innocence, that is always going to be difficult to prove in court. About 12 years ago I was on the jury for a rape case at Chelmsford Crown Court. The circumstances were v. different to the case discussed here and eventually was postponed due to the defendant being unwell. As a jury we never got to the stage of having to decide whether it was 'beyond reasonable doubt' or not, and I couldn't help thinking that I would want a bit of guidance about what exactly was meant by reasonable doubt. What is 'reasonable doubt' to someone may look very different to someone else, exactly how much or how little doubt is needed? 

Having said that, there is no doubt that Raith Rovers have completely misread the room on this one.

Sheriffs give direction in their jury speeches but its still open to interpretation. Its more than they probably did it and less than im 100% sure they did it.

What ive found from talking to people on juries is that most people come in thinking they will be able to decide quite easily but when its then a real case with a real accused etc they find it much more difficult.

Id say that is the strength of the jury system but accept that when it comes to sexual offences its a big barrier as it no doubt leads to lots of acquitals.

As a principle id rather 99 guilty people went free than 1 innocent person went to jail. I stand by that general thought process but even in my own head it doesnt stand up when I think about sexual cases. 

What I would say is ive seen more than my fair share of shocking decisions by juries but also by Sheriffs. 

[phart]

I've actually sat in a jury at the high court in Edinburgh for a rape case.

this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1412741.stm

Edited February 2, 2022 by phart