Outrage over David Goodwillie’s footballing career should have come years ago, his victim has claimed.
Speaking for the first time since Raith Rovers provoked widespread anger by signing the player, Denise Clair questioned where the outcry was four years ago when he was playing for Clyde.
She also hit out at those who have “shamefully” helped him to continue playing while turning a blind eye to the civil court’s finding that he raped her.
Ms Clair, 30, told The Sunday Post: “Of course people should be outraged and scandalised that a man like that was about to play for Raith Rovers, but he has never stopped playing.
“He was picked for Clyde four days after judges rejected his appeal and confirmed he raped me. That was four years ago and that’s when people should have been outraged and scandalised.
“Or, going even further back, they should have been outraged and scandalised when the prosecution against him was dropped 10 years ago for reasons which have never been properly explained to me.
“David Goodwillie has already shown he is shameless, but everyone who helped him carry on his career without a word of remorse should be feeling ashamed today.”
Raith Rovers were widely condemned last week when the signing was confirmed, with novelist and long-time fan Val McDermid publicly announcing her disgust at the move and withdrawing her sponsorship.
Nicola Sturgeon added to the criticism and called for the sport’s authorities to step in.
However, Ms Clair claimed that the First Minister was not so vocal when other politicians backed a campaign four years ago calling for Clyde to sack him.
Ms Clair said: “The First Minister was correct to condemn Raith Rovers last week, but I don’t remember her saying anything at all four years ago about why he was still playing for Clyde or why the case against him was dropped.
“I certainly do remember and still appreciate the very few politicians who did their best to raise it and being met with indifference. I’m glad Val McDermid spoke out last week but Goodwillie’s continuing career was not some secret that has just been exposed. It should not have needed a celebrity endorsement for people to be revolted by it.
"I have to ask why it has taken so long for people to stand up and say all the things that are now being said?"
A spokesman for COPFS said that Ms Clair was given reasons for the decision not to prosecute in August 2011.
He added: "This case was looked at very carefully by Crown Counsel who concluded that there was insufficient evidence in law to raise criminal proceedings.
“In light of the decision in the civil case, the Lord Advocate instructed that all the available case materials and the civil judgment be considered by Senior Crown Counsel who had no previous involvement in the case.
“Senior Crown Counsel concluded that, looking to the evidence as a whole, the decision not to raise criminal proceedings was the correct one.”
Ms Clair’s comments come as it was revealed that at least five other women are planning to pursue civil actions against alleged rapists.
According to the Mail on Sunday, the women were either told that a prosecution was not possible or their case collapsed due to insufficient evidence.
For an accused to be convicted in a criminal trial, the case must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the standard of proof is lower in civil proceedings, with the case being decided on the balance of probabilities.
A handful of women have been successful in pursuing civil cases in recent years, however campaigners say they should not need to go down this route.
Sandy Brindley, chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland, said: “It’s an indictment of the failings of the criminal system that women are turning to the civil system.”
The Crown Office spokesman said all sexual cases are treated seriosuly and sensitively and will be prosecuted appropriately when there is "sufficient credible, admissible and reliable evidence".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel