Insight into why Whyte was found not guilty

[Bluedell 5,350]

This is a great article and gives an insider's view as to how the prosecution was so poor and how Whyte managed to be found not guilty.

 

Jas Boyd - Craig Whyte - Thoughts

 

It has been a long, long 3 years since I said my last real words on Craig Whyte. Those of you who were around at the time will remember I was one of the biggest dissenters on Rangers Media from the outset.

 

Prior to him taking over, I had a lot of excellent contacts at the Club due to previous sponsorship etc. In the run up to the takeover I was made aware that the other Directors didn’t fancy this. A lot was said at the time about them protecting their own interests which was probably partly/mainly true, however I researched the info further and was able to spread many of the stuff later “discovered” on here whilst taking a bit of a doing for it.

 

I knew of the mortgaged season tickets within weeks of the takeover many months before the Paper broke the story and I knew of his Director Ban and his various naming alterations with adapted birthdates registered with various companies at Companies House.

 

From June 2011 to February 11th 2012, along with a number of acquaintances of mine, we pestered the life out of Mr Whyte, his representatives and solicitors demanding answers as shareholders and supporters and were met with deathly silence. An acquaintance of mine had reached his limit and through one of his contacts, learned he was at Ibrox that day. He drove in with a letter to meet Mr Whyte face to face and hand the letter over. It contained around 15 questions based around a lot of what has just come out at the trial and demanded a meeting with the 6 of us, otherwise other action would be taken. The letter was handed over and a meeting was agreed for the following week. 2/3 days later, Craig Whyte put the club into administration.

 

That was the last of it.

 

3 years on and out of the blue, two of us were contacted and interviewed in relation to the emails we had been sending to Mr Whytes solicitors back in June/July 2011 and as a result, statements were given and I became a witness for the Crown in this case. The information in these letters essentially were some direct allegations and resulted in action being taken by Mr Whytes representatives, hence the importance to the case. I took legal advice immediately and was advised to remove myself from Social Media for a while to ensure I didn’t say anything that would prejudice the case and that resulted in a years self imposed ban from posting on Rangers Media. Having rejoined in May 15, I had a further 2 year ban on discussing any material on Whyte, which has been really difficult given my views on him and what he done.

 

As a Crown Witness, I wasn’t allowed to attend any of the proceedings until both parties had rested their case, or until I had been called, if required. Contrary to the nonsense John James was spouting last week, the final witness wasn’t Donald Muir. The final witness appeared as requested however rather than giving evidence in court, the evidence became the final agreed undisputed point in proceedings saving any wasted court time.

 

Although not able to attend court, I followed the case through Twitter paying particular attention to James Doleman and Andrew Black. For all his sins, having been at court for the summaries(after being discharged), Doleman actually gives a pretty decent account of what goes on. I couldn’t help but sit and look around the court and pick out the obsessed John Clark and Jimbo from SFM (blatantly obvious) and also wonder who the other characters were on the back benches.

 

What I couldn’t say until now is what I thought of the case, through Twitter initially. Baring in mind, this is through the eyes of Twitter exchanges which cannot give all the context, but I thought the AD was incredibly poor. Im obviously not qualified in Law, but I understand DF made a number of objections yet the AD made none. Witness after witness, Findlay attacked the football team, the manager, the transfers, the previous Directors, the Tax cases etc etc etc. Absolutely NONE of which had any relevance in the case whatsoever. Why no objection ? It mattered not a single JOT as to how the previous Directors were rubbish at their job and that they were dysfunctional. They were not on trial. Craig Whyte was. Why was there no objections raised ?

 

I was completely underwhelmed by the selection of witnesses. Quite why Walter Smith and Ally McCoist were asked to appear is just beyond me. Grandstanding ?? Havent a clue.

 

Prior to the summaries, I was of the opinion that Findlay was winning. Even if the vast majority of HIS stuff was rhetoric and nonsense which had zero relevance, he is a showman. He gets jurys on his side with his quips. That was also very evident in the summaries which i was able to attend.

 

The AD summary was as dry as a bone. Zero connection with the jury. Stammering in places. Just not a good delivery in my opinion. There were a few nuggets in there though. There was an email from Whyte where he clearly asked for all references to Ticketus to be removed from the Business Plan which was going to be shared with Murray. There was no mistaking from this email that Ticketus was not to be shown anywhere. If Whyte and the rest genuinely believed Murray already knew about it, then why the request to remove them?

 

There was also the disclosure around the season tickets which may have not been as obvious otherwise. It wasn’t Wavetower who entered into the agreement with Ticketus around Season Tickets, it was Rangers. So Whyte signed the Share Purchase Agreement stating he had the funds to pay the debt owed to LLoyds on the 6th May. Ticketus then paid Rangers FC for 3/4 years season tickets on the 9th May then “Whyte of Rangers” agreed to loan “Whyte of Wavetower” the £18m that then paid the debt to Lloyds. Just incredible. Smoking gun ? Its blatant is it not ?

 

But why did the AD stop there.? Why didn’t he point out that Ticketus paid Rangers FC that money on the Monday. He could have put to the Jury that the easiest thing to do at that point would be for Rangers to pay Lloyds the money directly. Why was it that Rangers FC had to loan the money to Wavetower, who then used the money to pay the debt. Why take a convoluted path ? Why am I asking this ? Why wasn’t the AD asking this ?

 

Findlays summary was a masterclass in playing with a jury. He had them laughing and sniggering and nodding their heads. Excellent delivery. But it was boak inducing.

 

On Monday morning, he started off by reflecting on the events of Saturday night in London. He stood in front of the jury saying that sometimes when we see these atrocities from these guilty people, it puts things into perspective. We probably could have all just wrapped it up then. I mean poor Craig, he aint no terrorist, is he? Playing with minds ? Disgusting.

 

Yet again, throughout his delivery he pummelled the old Rangers Board. Laughed at them. Said Alastair Johnstone gave Bain an illegal contract. Said Paul Murrays bid was illegal. Left them all without a name. He talked of the Share Purchase Agreement and in particular the “intention” of investing in the squad as “window dressing” by Murray. I didn’t miss the Irony of his own Window Dressing where he was using a lot of completely irrelevant information to tar others in an attempt to take the focus away from his client. That’s his job of course. I get that. I was actually sitting feeling sorry for some of the Jury members.

 

During his summary, he raised that it wasn’t Whyte that tried to hide the agreement, despite the email shown by the crown to the contrary, that it was actually Ticketus. He clearly had forgotten that on the stand, the Ticketus representative Mr Bryan continually stated they were seeking reassurance from Whytes team that David Murray knew about their involvement. The court was then shown an email from Whyte to the witness stating the Ticketus deal was “pretty much” what he has discussed with David Murray.

 

Findlay then tackled the Financial Assistance argument and I admit to being astounded. He claimed, and Lady Stacy later confirmed the same, that it would not be Financial Assistance, IF, the money borrowed was to the benefit of the Company. “THE BENEFIT OF RANGERS” essentially.

 

As confirmation of this, he stated that by paying of the Lloyds debt, Craig Whyte saved Rangers £1m per year. The £1m per year was the annual repayment on a 20 year Term loan of £20m of which £18m remained outstanding. This was a clear benefit to Rangers and therefore the Financial Assistance charge should be thrown out. Again, Lady Stacy reconfirmed this in her summary. If the club benefited then, it wouldn’t be Financial Assistance.

 

She was spot on. Findlay on the other hand ?How can this be allowed in a Court of Law ?

 

Craig Whyte sold 100,339 of our Season Tickets to Ticketus to get his hands on that money. On what planet, can that ever equal “saving us £1m per year” How can selling 100,339 season tickets up front possibly “benefit the Company” ? Selling those season tickets, which led to a £26m debt, helped force us into administration ? Why didn’t the AD deal with this ? Why didn’t he cut this off at the pass? AGAIN, why am I asking this and not him ?

 

Another justification behind the Ticketus money was the personal guarantee that Craig Whyte gave against the money which should have been taken as him using his own money or guarantee. And here was me thinking his client was previously getting Legal Aid and his personal guarantee to Ticketus was already trashed in a different court case. Im assuming now he has been found not guilty that he will be paying Ticketus their £26m back. Aye.

 

He then went on to say that the money Whyte had promised from Jerome Pension Fund and from Merchant Capital was sitting in the bank ready to be used by the club when we needed it. Wait ? What ? Did we not need it in February 2012 ? Why wasn’t it used then ?

 

Findlay finshed his performance by reminding the jury that these courts have had Serial murderers sitting in the dock and that their duty in this was the same as the duty of people convicting a serial murderer before quipping that Craig Whyte was really only a pantomime villain.

 

That was it. The game was over. I knew at that point, it would take the jury less than a few hours. Everything would be dropped. The AD was horrendous. DF shouted “squirrel” the whole way through. He was the best talent on the stage. The poor jury were left with no decision to make.

 

Whyte had no money from the off. He lied to Ticketus. He lied to SFA. He lied to the fans. He lied to the press. He lied to HMRC. He was disqualified as a director. He has been disqualified again as a director. He had his home repossessed. He didnt pay a penny of tax from the club. He was arrested whilst "fleeing" abroad. He claimed Legal Aid. For feck sake man !!!!!!

 

An absolute shambles from start to finish. 29 page indictments. Thousands of boxes of evidence. Tens of thousands of documents. And the AD plays Ally McCoist and Walter Smith.

 

Bravo chappy !

 

The Rangers Fans lose again !

 

Absolutely gutted I am !

 

And i even had to cancel Vegas plans for NARSA a few months back just in case it lasted the full 12 weeks !

[26th of foot 5,845]

Thank you for an insight frothing with penetrative thought.

 

As the seven weeks unfolded, it was increasingly obvious that the Donald was playing a blinder. He shone a number of bright lights into various dark corners. Correctly, I think he identified the hapless Whyte as the pantomime villain. Further, the Donald has left no doubt as to the very real Sir Jasper. There should be a life size portrait of Murray at the top of the marble staircase. The strap line of, "I was duped" should be stamped across. It should be there to remind all climbing said stairs, that he deliberately kicked our dreams and aspirations down those stairs to save his own neck.

 

Reference the trial and the Crown's participation. The Lord Advocate must issue a statement explaining the cost to the public purse, the lack of preparedness, and the embarrassment of a seven week trial culminating in a one fag jury(ie less than two hours deliberation).

[Oleg_Mcnoleg 50]

[Oleg_Mcnoleg 50]

Fair's fair. Thought Jackson was decent on this.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/craig-whytes-case-anything-more-10574315

[ian1964 10,431]

I posted this yesterday:)

 

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?85852-craig-whyte-cleared/page8

[cooponthewing 1,139]

Fair's fair. Thought Jackson was decent on this.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/craig-whytes-case-anything-more-10574315[/quote

 

"At times, throughout the club’s administration, liquidation and Charles Green’s cut-price asset grab"

 

 

Jackson still get his spurious poisonous dig in knowing full well it was "the business" and not "the club" that was liquidated. He is as low and bitter as they come! Never allow him near our club again!

[RANGERRAB 3,291]

Fair's fair. Thought Jackson was decent on this.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/craig-whytes-case-anything-more-10574315[/quote

 

"At times, throughout the club’s administration, liquidation and Charles Green’s cut-price asset grab"

 

 

Jackson still get his spurious poisonous dig in knowing full well it was "the business" and not "the club" that was liquidated. He is as low and bitter as they come! Never allow him near our club again!

 

I wouldn't worry too much about what Keef says. He's just not very good at his job. Never has been.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Stroke of genius getting Findlay on the case, wonder who's idea that was? First thought straight away is Whyte himself, but i'm not to sure, if you wanted Whyte's silence the most expedient way is get someone who knows inside knowledge about the club and the background to this case, classic smoke and mirrors, get people to think he's there to get it right up Murray but actually to muddy the waters with historical knowledge. I know i'm reading to much John le Carr'e lol

[RANGERRAB 3,291]

Stroke of genius getting Findlay on the case, wonder who's idea that was? First thought straight away is Whyte himself, but i'm not to sure, if you wanted Whyte's silence the most expedient way is get someone who knows inside knowledge about the club and the background to this case, classic smoke and mirrors, get people to think he's there to get it right up Murray but actually to muddy the waters with historical knowledge. I know i'm reading to much John le Carr'e lol

 

You forgot the 15 idiots who sat on be jury. After a 7 week trial it took them just 2 hours to find Whyte not guilty without any defence witnesses called.

If they thought what Whyte did was perfectly legal then there is little hope for justice in this country. I suspect they had other motives however.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

You forgot the 15 idiots who sat on be jury. After a 7 week trial it took them just 2 hours to find Whyte not guilty without any defence witnesses called.

If they thought what Whyte did was perfectly legal then there is little hope for justice in this country. I suspect they had other motives however.

 

That's the second chapter of my new book, No One Likes Us, Even Jury's.