Jump to content

 

 

The Disreputable David Murray back on Scotland’s rich list with £150million fortune


Recommended Posts

Mate I've been following every tweet from the court case and have yet to see Findlay dismantling anything at all in the prosecutions evidence.

Findlay is doing what he always does, which is surrounding the case with garbage .

"Was Murray innocent ? Were the board neutered ? What were the banks objectives ?

But absolutely nothing about Whytes behaviour.

As was said already in evidence - Murray and the bank didn't care where the money came from - that is not what the trial is about.

 

He's trying to sow enough seed of doubt in order to at least get "that bastard verdict" that's all he needs to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being said that the sale to white should be referred to TOP as neither Murray nor the bank were equitable with all shareholders,also being said that the CO case hinged on murray/bank not knowing tickets was involved, DR blew that line out of the water.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mate I've been following every tweet from the court case and have yet to see Findlay dismantling anything at all in the prosecutions evidence.

Findlay is doing what he always does, which is surrounding the case with garbage .

"Was Murray innocent ? Were the board neutered ? What were the banks objectives ?

But absolutely nothing about Whytes behaviour.

As was said already in evidence - Murray and the bank didn't care where the money came from - that is not what the trial is about.

 

That's precisely Findlay's job....take focus away from his client & pass the blame to someone else, in order to either make his client look innocent (no laughing at the back), or at the very least less guilty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's precisely Findlay's job....take focus away from his client & pass the blame to someone else, in order to either make his client look innocent (no laughing at the back), or at the very least less guilty.

 

He's known for setting up for a not proven when the client is obviously guilty. Quietly put it into the juries head that hey we all know this guy appears to be guilty as sin but are we completely sure? Forget that mountain of evidence against him and concentrate on this tiny little unknown triviality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought DF was known for being the countries top defence lawyer,criminal cases must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,which it is the prosecutions remit to do so.

 

After reading of mcgill tying himself in knots and contradicting IS and his recollection of LBG involvement,I think there is more than reasonable doubt that prosecution claims of murray and co being unaware of ticketus are stretching credibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading of mcgill tying himself in knots and contradicting IS and his recollection of LBG involvement,I think there is more than reasonable doubt that prosecution claims of murray and co being unaware of ticketus are stretching credibility.

 

My interpretation was that McGill was clear and concise and came across as the most credible witness yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My interpretation was that McGill was clear and concise and came across as the most credible witness yet.

 

Hard to tell from necessarily selective 'tweets', but I'd agree with that.

McGill's examination also involved a lot of paper productions (letters, e mails, contract documentation, etc) which the bewhiskered one did not seem to dispute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.