Jump to content

Craig Whyte Trial


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 542
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Just taken a look at Doleman's Twitter. Findlay's doing his best to Hibs this, going over a lot of irrelevant stuff that would seem to be a good plan had the Advocate Depute presented a strong case and there was a necessity for muddying, or a Perry Mason[sic] defence. But having taken the decision to call no witnesses (essentially saying "he's proven nothing, and there's no onus on the defence to prove innocence"), he's now being in quite a sporadic manner, firing off aspersions and interpretations as if the defence's case depended on some sort of scatter-gun obfuscation. It's almost as though that was his default plan before the weakness of the case played out, and he has decide to stick with it rather than building on the position of strength that emerged.

The lack of a clear presentation by the AD of exactly what constituted the crime of fraud, and in particular the fairly strong message from defence witnesses that the sale was desperately wanted by Murray, makes it look like no one was "done" (or "duped", if you prefer). That's really the key, and I think that the defence have much the better of that point simply on the evidence led and the testimony given. Without Findlay's revisiting of the irrelevant stuff I think this would be quite clear-cut, and would be acquittal.

Even now, I don't think that acquittal is any longer odds than 2-1 on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎02‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 15:37, sugna said:

Just taken a look at Doleman's Twitter. Findlay's doing his best to Hibs this, going over a lot of irrelevant stuff that would seem to be a good plan had the Advocate Depute presented a strong case and there was a necessity for muddying, or a Perry Mason[sic] defence. But having taken the decision to call no witnesses (essentially saying "he's proven nothing, and there's no onus on the defence to prove innocence"), he's now being in quite a sporadic manner, firing off aspersions and interpretations as if the defence's case depended on some sort of scatter-gun obfuscation. It's almost as though that was his default plan before the weakness of the case played out, and he has decide to stick with it rather than building on the position of strength that emerged.

The lack of a clear presentation by the AD of exactly what constituted the crime of fraud, and in particular the fairly strong message from defence witnesses that the sale was desperately wanted by Murray, makes it look like no one was "done" (or "duped", if you prefer). That's really the key, and I think that the defence have much the better of that point simply on the evidence led and the testimony given. Without Findlay's revisiting of the irrelevant stuff I think this would be quite clear-cut, and would be acquittal.

Even now, I don't think that acquittal is any longer odds than 2-1 on.

Read that wrong initially

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Half of weegie twatter committing various offences by promising untold violence against an innocent man while the other half are trying to crowdfund a Craig Whyte Statue made out of pound coins.
Great to see. 


They are desperate to keep pointing the finger at an innocent man when we all know who dropped them in it.

Its fucking great, if they can't learn from this it will keep on happening, they believed Murray's lies, they believed the Record telling them about Whyte's "off the radar wealth", Green fleeced them even though Sheffield United fans were queuing up to tell them it was a mistake and King has them happy by signing a couple of average over paid foreigners, and with a huge support ready to lap up the next lie but still doing nothing to change the regime it will carry on as it is now being brilliant entertainment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...