Goodwillie Court case.

Hugh Watt wrote:

tigertony wrote:

When Argyle signed him the case had been archived as ''not enough evidence'' and I suspect DG was confident that a civil trial would find in his favour. To me two sentences in the report speak volumes:
She claimed Goodwillie and Robertson, 30, raped her at a flat in Armadale, in West Lothian, following a night out.
She said she could not remember what happened after being in a Bathgate bar and woke up in a strange flat the following morning.

So - if she can't remember .....

DG has no criminal record and, in England, would pass a DBS check. He could just pay the money and walk away but he is absolutely focused on clearing his name completely.

You really a clueless moron aren't you.

If consent is not given then its rape, its no wonder with attitudes like yours that of 1000 rape cases 994 walk free. Which has happened in this case, however in this instance the woman waived her right to anonymity and decided she determined to gain some justice.

In this case was consent given?

Tone even if you doubt her, surely you must find the fact that two professional footballers took advantage of an inebriated woman must be distasteful.
Would you and a friend ever consider such a course of action?

seadog wrote:

Tone even if you doubt her, surely you must find the fact that two professional footballers took advantage of an inebriated woman must be distasteful.
Would you and a friend ever consider such a course of action?

Absolutely distasteful seadog! I'm just trying to see it in the eyes of the criminal law vs civil law and maybe I'm being pedantic so I'll refrain on this thread from now. Overall the parting of ways with DG was the only option.

And in that regard you've clearly failed.

"There is no proof of anything on either side so, as in the eyes of the law, not enough evidence to prosecute. I think I'll stick with the law enforcers"

Obviously there is proof otherwise the judge in the civil case would not have found in the plaintiffs favour and branded Goodwillie "unreliable and selfish"

What do you think they use other than the rule of law in a civil court? A coin?

I'm not sure you're correct Hugh. Proof is surely required in criminal proceedings but not so in a civil case.

Otherwise why bother with the latter. The word 'probability' is a lot less precise and even a bit subjective.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

I'm not sure you're correct Hugh. Proof is surely required in criminal proceedings but not so in a civil case.

Otherwise why bother with the latter. The word 'probability' is a lot less precise and even a bit subjective.

Of course proof is required in civil proceedings - how else would they make a decision?

Both kind of court examine all the evidence - or proof - that's put before them. The main difference is that criminal courts decide if somebody's guilty or not guilty (not innocent, just not guilty) beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil courts decide whether somebody's liable for harm or damage to another person on the balance of probabilities. So they weigh up the evidence - or proof.

I'm not defending the players getting into that situation or the woman, however the big difference in civil actions in most cases is there's no jury, so the balance of probabilities is reliant on one person rather than a jury in the criminal court.

Graiser, are you saying you prefer social decision making should be decided by grass root community rather than some removed technical officiating plant ? If only, eh. And there was me thinking you were all about going along with the judgement of your better.s .... DA/JB knows best and all that crap. Never took you as a communist ?
Must be raining, naughty Graiser's got his souwester on. Dress for the argument.

The one sad thing about this particular thread is that it illustrates perfectly why so many rapes go unreported, let alone acted upon by the CPS andfairly tried in a court of law. It's a nightmare, almost exclusively for women. Read the report and take your blinkers off..

beesrus wrote:

Graiser, are you saying you prefer social decision making should be decided by grass root community rather than some middle class officiating plant ? If only, eh.
Never took you as a communist ?
Must be raining, naughty Graiser's got his souwester on. Dress for the argument.

Just saying how it is, it's common knowledge a conviction is more likely in a civil court because of the reasons Peggy mentions above.
Like it or not Goodwillie is not a criminal in the eyes of the law, but did he and his mate act honourably? Definitely not.

Justice is without a doubt an imperfect art where human beings are concerned, often usurped by the government of the day, powerful individuals, or low cunning. In this case, not so, hopefully.
One last thing, I'm not a fan of "blood money" that several countries adhere to, and is the "punishment" in this case. In effect it means you can buy anything, and puts the well off above the poor in the punishment stakes. That shouldn't be. Equal under the law.

Graiser wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Graiser, are you saying you prefer social decision making should be decided by grass root community rather than some middle class officiating plant ? If only, eh.
Never took you as a communist ?
Must be raining, naughty Graiser's got his souwester on. Dress for the argument.

Just saying how it is, it's common knowledge a conviction is more likely in a civil court because of the reasons Peggy mentions above.
Like it or not Goodwillie is not a criminal in the eyes of the law, but did he and his mate act honourably? Definitely not.

You can't be convicted in a civil court. Criminal courts deal with the criminal law: if you're found guilty (convicted) of a criminal offence you go to prison or pay a fine or do community service or whatever.

Civil courts deal with disputes between individuals. If you're found liable (not convicted, just liable) in a civil court, you pay damages / compensation to the individual you've harmed or done wrong to. And while they might not have juries, civil courts are still bound by the law and precedent - and in many cases there's more than one judge or decision maker.

Pleased to see there have been calls for an enquiry into why, when the evidence before the civil court was so compelling, the CPS (Scottish version - don't know if they're called that) felt there was no chance of a conviction, which is why it never made it to a criminal court. So hopefully it might yet.

Peggy wrote:

Graiser wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Graiser, are you saying you prefer social decision making should be decided by grass root community rather than some middle class officiating plant ? If only, eh.
Never took you as a communist ?
Must be raining, naughty Graiser's got his souwester on. Dress for the argument.

Just saying how it is, it's common knowledge a conviction is more likely in a civil court because of the reasons Peggy mentions above.
Like it or not Goodwillie is not a criminal in the eyes of the law, but did he and his mate act honourably? Definitely not.

You can't be convicted in a civil court. Criminal courts deal with the criminal law: if you're found guilty (convicted) of a criminal offence you go to prison or pay a fine or do community service or whatever.

Civil courts deal with disputes between individuals. If you're found liable (not convicted, just liable) in a civil court, you pay damages / compensation to the individual you've harmed or done wrong to. And while they might not have juries, civil courts are still bound by the law and precedent - and in many cases there's more than one judge or decision maker.

Pleased to see there have been calls for an enquiry into why, when the evidence before the civil court was so compelling, the CPS (Scottish version - don't know if they're called that) felt there was no chance of a conviction, which is why it never made it to a criminal court. So hopefully it might yet.

Thanks for the clarity Peggy

Graiser wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Graiser, are you saying you prefer social decision making should be decided by grass root community rather than some middle class officiating plant ? If only, eh.
Never took you as a communist ?
Must be raining, naughty Graiser's got his souwester on. Dress for the argument.

Just saying how it is, it's common knowledge a conviction is more likely in a civil court because of the reasons Peggy mentions above.
Like it or not Goodwillie is not a criminal in the eyes of the law, but did he and his mate act honourably? Definitely not.

Like it or not, in the eyes of the judge who presided over the civil case, and considered both sides of the argument two footballers have been found to be rapists. It beggers belief that you seek to label this as merely dishonorable behavior.......

Peggy wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

I'm not sure you're correct Hugh. Proof is surely required in criminal proceedings but not so in a civil case.

Otherwise why bother with the latter. The word 'probability' is a lot less precise and even a bit subjective.

Of course proof is required in civil proceedings - how else would they make a decision?

Both kind of court examine all the evidence - or proof - that's put before them. The main difference is that criminal courts decide if somebody's guilty or not guilty (not innocent, just not guilty) beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil courts decide whether somebody's liable for harm or damage to another person on the balance of probabilities. So they weigh up the evidence - or proof.

Agree they make a decision on any evidence(is there any?). However, is this not a case of He said/She said. The police didn't want to know and Goodwillie was refused permission by the civil court judge to be allowed to ask the claimant any questions.

This is all very sensitive and I wouldn't be surprised of a Ched Evans style repeat.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Peggy wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

I'm not sure you're correct Hugh. Proof is surely required in criminal proceedings but not so in a civil case.

Otherwise why bother with the latter. The word 'probability' is a lot less precise and even a bit subjective.

Of course proof is required in civil proceedings - how else would they make a decision?

Both kind of court examine all the evidence - or proof - that's put before them. The main difference is that criminal courts decide if somebody's guilty or not guilty (not innocent, just not guilty) beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil courts decide whether somebody's liable for harm or damage to another person on the balance of probabilities. So they weigh up the evidence - or proof.

Agree they make a decision on any evidence(is there any?). However, is this not a case of He said/She said. The police didn't want to know and Goodwillie was refused permission by the civil court judge to be allowed to ask the claimant any questions.

This is all very sensitive and I wouldn't be surprised of a Ched Evans style repeat.

The whole judgement is online, and contains tons of evidence. The police did want to know, and gave evidence in the civil case. Goodwillie was denied permission to represent himself because it would have meant him cross-examining her and that's not allowed in such cases. The judgement was that she was too intoxicated to consent, which means they raped her.

PatDunne wrote:

Graiser wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Graiser, are you saying you prefer social decision making should be decided by grass root community rather than some middle class officiating plant ? If only, eh.
Never took you as a communist ?
Must be raining, naughty Graiser's got his souwester on. Dress for the argument.

Just saying how it is, it's common knowledge a conviction is more likely in a civil court because of the reasons Peggy mentions above.
Like it or not Goodwillie is not a criminal in the eyes of the law, but did he and his mate act honourably? Definitely not.

Like it or not, in the eyes of the judge who presided over the civil case, and considered both sides of the argument two footballers have been found to be rapists. It beggers belief that you seek to label this as merely dishonorable behavior.......

Like it or not Goodwillie is not a criminal in the eyes of the law. He has no criminal record. You are completely free to call it as you like but he has no criminal record and is not a convicted rapist.

FFS read the judgement. There's a summary here with a link to the full decision at the end.

The court found that they both raped her, therefore they are both rapists, conviction or no conviction. That's why all the headlines called them rapists.

It seems to me that the Scottish Crown Office did not prosecute due to the lack of certainty.

The judgement Peggy's link provides uses the expression 'in the judges opinion' a number of times.

The claimant was originally seeking £500,000 damages, turned down £115,000, and is awarded £100,000.

Pretty sordid all round.

PatDunne wrote:

Graiser wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Graiser, are you saying you prefer social decision making should be decided by grass root community rather than some middle class officiating plant ? If only, eh.
Never took you as a communist ?
Must be raining, naughty Graiser's got his souwester on. Dress for the argument.

Just saying how it is, it's common knowledge a conviction is more likely in a civil court because of the reasons Peggy mentions above.
Like it or not Goodwillie is not a criminal in the eyes of the law, but did he and his mate act honourably? Definitely not.

Like it or not, in the eyes of the judge who presided over the civil case, and considered both sides of the argument two footballers have been found to be rapists. It beggers belief that you seek to label this as merely dishonorable behavior.......

Your quite fond of twisting words aren't you, I added that "honourable" wording because if I'd left it as they are not "criminals in the eyes of the law" no doubt you and a few others would have picked that too pieces as well.
Without doubt they will be seen as rapists and indeed are rapists, as no doubt many still view Ched Evans the same even though subsequently winning his appeal, and his case is very similar to Goodwillie's.
The old saying the "law is an ass" could have some merit in rape cases such as these.

Peggy wrote:

FFS read the judgement. There's a summary here with a link to the full decision at the end.

The court found that they both raped her, therefore they are both rapists, conviction or no conviction. That's why all the headlines called them rapists.

Yet not in the eyes of the criminal court which is the only one that matters. Which is why the verdict is shakey and more than likely be overturned or sent to the CPS on appeal.

Peggy wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Peggy wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

I'm not sure you're correct Hugh. Proof is surely required in criminal proceedings but not so in a civil case.

Otherwise why bother with the latter. The word 'probability' is a lot less precise and even a bit subjective.

Of course proof is required in civil proceedings - how else would they make a decision?

Both kind of court examine all the evidence - or proof - that's put before them. The main difference is that criminal courts decide if somebody's guilty or not guilty (not innocent, just not guilty) beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil courts decide whether somebody's liable for harm or damage to another person on the balance of probabilities. So they weigh up the evidence - or proof.

Agree they make a decision on any evidence(is there any?). However, is this not a case of He said/She said. The police didn't want to know and Goodwillie was refused permission by the civil court judge to be allowed to ask the claimant any questions.

This is all very sensitive and I wouldn't be surprised of a Ched Evans style repeat.

. The judgement was that she was too intoxicated to consent, which means they raped her.

Jesus wept.....

So let's just imagine you get a phonecall from your sister, or your daughter, one morning. She's woken up, naked and in pain, on her own in a strange flat and has to ask someone in the street outside where she is. She has no memory of what happened but forensic evidence shows that two men have had sex with her. Obviously you're going to tell her she's making it all up.

Yes, it's an outrage that they weren't prosecuted, but a lot of questions are being asked about that. There are always attempts to reach a settlement before civil cases get to court, so we shouldn't read anything into that.

And I'd take the opinion of a judge who's heard all the facts and knows the law over the uninformed assumptions of random people on the internet any day.

Peggy wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Peggy wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

I'm not sure you're correct Hugh. Proof is surely required in criminal proceedings but not so in a civil case.

Otherwise why bother with the latter. The word 'probability' is a lot less precise and even a bit subjective.

Of course proof is required in civil proceedings - how else would they make a decision?

Both kind of court examine all the evidence - or proof - that's put before them. The main difference is that criminal courts decide if somebody's guilty or not guilty (not innocent, just not guilty) beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil courts decide whether somebody's liable for harm or damage to another person on the balance of probabilities. So they weigh up the evidence - or proof.

Agree they make a decision on any evidence(is there any?). However, is this not a case of He said/She said. The police didn't want to know and Goodwillie was refused permission by the civil court judge to be allowed to ask the claimant any questions.

This is all very sensitive and I wouldn't be surprised of a Ched Evans style repeat.

The whole judgement is online, and contains tons of evidence. The police did want to know, and gave evidence in the civil case. Goodwillie was denied permission to represent himself because it would have meant him cross-examining her and that's not allowed in such cases. The judgement was that she was too intoxicated to consent, which means they raped her.

Devil's advocate here, if the lady was too intoxicated to consent, would it also be reasonable to assume that the players were also to intoxicated to not be aware whether the act had been consensual or not ?

Peggy wrote:

So let's just imagine you get a phonecall from your sister, or your daughter, one morning. She's woken up, naked and in pain, on her own in a strange flat and has to ask someone in the street outside where she is. She has no memory of what happened but forensic evidence shows that two men have had sex with her. Obviously you're going to tell her she's making it all up.

Yes, it's an outrage that they weren't prosecuted, but a lot of questions are being asked about that. There are always attempts to reach a settlement before civil cases get to court, so we shouldn't read anything into that.

And I'd take the opinion of a judge who's heard all the facts and knows the law over the uninformed assumptions of random people on the internet any day.

If it was any of my daughters then I would immediately think the worse case, however it's so difficult to know the exact circumstances, why is it assumed the players have memories of what happened if the woman hasn't ? It's a difficult one to prove.
I'm condoning any of it, best solution if all men and particularly the financially well off footballers steer clear of those situations and women do the same.

Here's an idea: instead of all the supposing, why don't people read the case? It's all in the public domain and I've even provided a link. If you'd read it you'd know that they both claimed she consented.