Skip to main content

MSPs call for explanation of Goodwillie rape case halt

David Goodwillie's accuser 'couldn't consent to anything'

Key witnesses said yesterday that footballer David Goodwillie's accuser "couldn't consent to anything" on the night they had sex as MSPs demanded to know why prosecutors dropped rape charges.

The star footballer faced new testimony from a Bathgate pub's stewards yesterday that Livingston woman Denise Clair appeared "hit by a sledgehammer" and barely capable of speech as a "stone-cold sober" Mr Goodwillie bundled her into a taxi on the night of January 1 2011.

Ms Clair, who has waived her right to anonymity, is suing the footballer for £500,000 in damages after Scottish crown prosecutors told her they did not wish to proceed against Mr Goodwillie.

Mr Goodwillie has strongly denied the allegations, telling reporters in 2012 he had done "absolutely nothing wrong."

But a door steward who encountered Ms Clair twice that night told the Scottish Daily Record yesterday that there "wasn't a hope in hell of her consenting to sex."

The steward said she had spoken to a "very compos mentis" Ms Clair in the bathroom around midnight: "She could hold a conversation, look me in the eye and hold herself properly at that point."

But when she had encountered the pair leaving the pub two hours later, Ms Clair "looked like she had been hit by a sledgehammer."

She said: "She was like jelly, her eyes were rolling about in her head and she was trying to speak to me but she wasn't coherent.

"I actually took her inside the double doors of the club, away from the two guys she was with, as I wanted to speak to her on her own. But I physically had to hold her up.

"The state that lassie was in, there wasn't a hope in hell of her consenting to sex - even the next day," she said.

Ms Clair's MSP Neil Findlay led calls for Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland - who signed off the decision to drop her case - to launch an urgent review.

"Witnesses describe Denise as being incapacitated, so she deserves a explanation about why the evidence was not tested in court.

"We all deserve to hear that explanation," he said.

A Crown Office spokesman said the decision not to proceed followed "careful consideration of the evidence."

OWNED BY OUR READERS

We're a reader-owned co-operative, which means you can become part of the paper too by buying shares in the People’s Press Printing Society.

 

 

Become a supporter

Fighting fund

You've Raised:£ 11,501
We need:£ 6,499
6 Days remaining
Donate today