Curly. The first thing a lawyer checks is if the have a COI. I have it all the time and the fact good old DF is there suggests he doesn't. And I'm certain as can be that the question will have been asked by more influential people than us as to whether one exists. You have to accept here is no COI. None at all.
Anyway, what about that obfuscating and hilarious "evidence" reported as coming from Murray!
What a fool thinking he could worm his way out of the facts presented before him. Seems like they couldn't afford a shredder at Ibrox either
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I tend to agree curly. Very strange situation (as ever)
I don't think there will be complete answers for the fans though. Regardless of this trial.
Many people wanting to save face. A jury. A clever qc. No doubt missing minutes.
Fvckin mess.
Also, the charges leveled at whyte are not necessarily what we presume him predominantly guilty of.
By that i mean, even if he has purchased the club by fraudulent means and bumped ticketus - it does not conclusively prove he was intent on asset stripping, liquidating, profiting and in cahoots with subsequent owners.
Albeit i accept certain details may come out during the trial - without relevant charges to these accusations we want know fvck all.
Until the kerrydales enlighten us i suppose.
Being a QC and representing your client is completely different to being an impartial juror. There's the difference.
A COI only exists where someone has reprebtation for both sides or has some history of it. In this case a legal one. DF does not represent OldCo regardless of his possible bias. (Which I doubt anyway)
No matter how much anyone wants to believe it there is no COI here. Sorry. 👍
representation
Even 👍
Right. Off to work now.
I know I know 😂😂
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Curly 💩 - I'm mumpsimus and I know it.' (except on a Wednesday, that is my obstreperous day ) - ITS JIST A BIG CLIQUE N'AT (U1103)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by My POV-got my name back for a couple of days! (U10636)
posted 9 hours, 9 minutes ago
Don't know if you'll see this Curly, I understand how Findlay could be viewed as being conflicted, but do you think that would or could adversely affect the prosecution's case or the defence's case?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All I want is for the entire truth to come out POV so that the fans can then make an informed judgement on the previous going ons
There is no doubt in my mind that DF has a COI. Lets not forget here that having a COI does not mean that the person will be conflicted and will gain any benefit, it only means he will be in a position to do so
DF has a deep and long standing dislike of SDM
He was of course a former vice chairman and was not happy with how his tenure ended
He has close relationships with Ally and Walter
He has had professional relationships with most witnesses called thus far
He had (and still has) inside information to a lot of the going ons at Ibrox
I could go on but I don't want to say too much on here as I have some extremely deranged people following my every word
I think you have to ask yourself two questions here to determine if he has a COI
1. If he was not a QC would he have been allowed to sit on the jury?
2. Would he gain personal satisfaction in shifting blame onto the old board and exposing them in public?
I don't know how anyone can say he does not have a COI and I am surprised more of this has not came out in the press
As said though, as long as we get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth then I will be happy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely spot on (yuk i hate saying that to curly)
DF is a talented QC who clearly is upset about the actions of the murray regime and is unsing his role to make the point. Its difficult because a defence who is impassioned is absolutely what you want as a defendant but for the public to fully know the balance of truth it isnt actually always that effective.
You are aiming to 'win' not to illuminate. You want the truth then hold an enquiry.
Oh and rangers died
Of course not because he's not impartial and knows one of the parties involved.
No COI. Sorry. Define COI in acting in a legal capacity. There is no COI in this case. More kernes people than us would have had him thrived otherwise. Don't you think Rangers would have objected? Come on.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 24 seconds ago
Of course not because he's not impartial and knows one of the parties involved.
No COI. Sorry. Define COI in acting in a legal capacity. There is no COI in this case. More kernes people than us would have had him thrived otherwise. Don't you think Rangers would have objected? Come on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thing is though ginger if the prosecutor was smart he/she would play on that and lay traps not for whyte but for findlay. Im not sayong this is a coi that would prevent an impartial trial - indeed given that someone can technically represent themselves i would have thought it really doesnt matter - just that it makes for a proper subjective messy battle
Admittedly this may be happening but my donations are too low to see everyones tweets on the subject
Conflicts of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit."
Perhaps not in an exact legal sense. Definitely not comfortable with it and think there is a COI in a more... Traditional sense?
I know what I'm trying to say.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Nope.
Any hint of a possible COI and DF wouldnt be near this case.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 24 seconds ago
Nope.
Any hint of a possible COI and DF wouldnt be near this case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok so legally there isn't a coi.
But with his background, relationships and knowledge surely he shouldn't be involved.
He would likely be called as a witness in this case had there been another qc.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Curly 💩 - I'm mumpsimus and I know it.' (except on a Wednesday, that is my obstreperous day ) - ITS JIST A BIG CLIQUE N'AT (U1103)
posted 1 minute ago
Well perhaps we are caught up in semantics and definitions Finger but he is most certainly not impartial and that is the issue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye that's a better way of putting it.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Yeah i think we are looking at this differently a bit.
There isnt a legal coi. Clearly if one can defend themselves then there are atrict definitions of this that dont preclude someone like DF being engaged. So gonger is right.
Equally, if anyone thinks that with DF as defence the trial is going to shine an accurate light on what went on then they should take into account his own interest and accept that the truth may be compromised as a result.
In an enquiry it would certainly be a coi. In a trial it is not.
Of course rangers died so technically this is a mock trial anyway
Suits csc
Finger????
Gonger????
ffs
😡😡😡😡
😂😂😂
Curly-I accept pretty much what you say, but do you think the COI is detrimental to anyone? That's more what I was getting at.
If anyone on the jury had a COI then I can accept how that could influence their decision making process. But would this possible COI for Findlay affect his role? And in what way.
Sign in if you want to comment
The Craig Whyte Trial
Page 5 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 27/4/17
Curly. The first thing a lawyer checks is if the have a COI. I have it all the time and the fact good old DF is there suggests he doesn't. And I'm certain as can be that the question will have been asked by more influential people than us as to whether one exists. You have to accept here is no COI. None at all.
Anyway, what about that obfuscating and hilarious "evidence" reported as coming from Murray!
What a fool thinking he could worm his way out of the facts presented before him. Seems like they couldn't afford a shredder at Ibrox either
posted on 27/4/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/4/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/4/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/4/17
I tend to agree curly. Very strange situation (as ever)
I don't think there will be complete answers for the fans though. Regardless of this trial.
Many people wanting to save face. A jury. A clever qc. No doubt missing minutes.
Fvckin mess.
Also, the charges leveled at whyte are not necessarily what we presume him predominantly guilty of.
By that i mean, even if he has purchased the club by fraudulent means and bumped ticketus - it does not conclusively prove he was intent on asset stripping, liquidating, profiting and in cahoots with subsequent owners.
Albeit i accept certain details may come out during the trial - without relevant charges to these accusations we want know fvck all.
Until the kerrydales enlighten us i suppose.
posted on 27/4/17
Being a QC and representing your client is completely different to being an impartial juror. There's the difference.
A COI only exists where someone has reprebtation for both sides or has some history of it. In this case a legal one. DF does not represent OldCo regardless of his possible bias. (Which I doubt anyway)
No matter how much anyone wants to believe it there is no COI here. Sorry. 👍
posted on 27/4/17
representation
Even 👍
Right. Off to work now.
I know I know 😂😂
posted on 27/4/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/4/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/4/17
comment by Curly 💩 - I'm mumpsimus and I know it.' (except on a Wednesday, that is my obstreperous day ) - ITS JIST A BIG CLIQUE N'AT (U1103)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by My POV-got my name back for a couple of days! (U10636)
posted 9 hours, 9 minutes ago
Don't know if you'll see this Curly, I understand how Findlay could be viewed as being conflicted, but do you think that would or could adversely affect the prosecution's case or the defence's case?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All I want is for the entire truth to come out POV so that the fans can then make an informed judgement on the previous going ons
There is no doubt in my mind that DF has a COI. Lets not forget here that having a COI does not mean that the person will be conflicted and will gain any benefit, it only means he will be in a position to do so
DF has a deep and long standing dislike of SDM
He was of course a former vice chairman and was not happy with how his tenure ended
He has close relationships with Ally and Walter
He has had professional relationships with most witnesses called thus far
He had (and still has) inside information to a lot of the going ons at Ibrox
I could go on but I don't want to say too much on here as I have some extremely deranged people following my every word
I think you have to ask yourself two questions here to determine if he has a COI
1. If he was not a QC would he have been allowed to sit on the jury?
2. Would he gain personal satisfaction in shifting blame onto the old board and exposing them in public?
I don't know how anyone can say he does not have a COI and I am surprised more of this has not came out in the press
As said though, as long as we get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth then I will be happy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely spot on (yuk i hate saying that to curly)
DF is a talented QC who clearly is upset about the actions of the murray regime and is unsing his role to make the point. Its difficult because a defence who is impassioned is absolutely what you want as a defendant but for the public to fully know the balance of truth it isnt actually always that effective.
You are aiming to 'win' not to illuminate. You want the truth then hold an enquiry.
Oh and rangers died
posted on 27/4/17
Of course not because he's not impartial and knows one of the parties involved.
No COI. Sorry. Define COI in acting in a legal capacity. There is no COI in this case. More kernes people than us would have had him thrived otherwise. Don't you think Rangers would have objected? Come on.
posted on 27/4/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/4/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/4/17
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 24 seconds ago
Of course not because he's not impartial and knows one of the parties involved.
No COI. Sorry. Define COI in acting in a legal capacity. There is no COI in this case. More kernes people than us would have had him thrived otherwise. Don't you think Rangers would have objected? Come on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thing is though ginger if the prosecutor was smart he/she would play on that and lay traps not for whyte but for findlay. Im not sayong this is a coi that would prevent an impartial trial - indeed given that someone can technically represent themselves i would have thought it really doesnt matter - just that it makes for a proper subjective messy battle
Admittedly this may be happening but my donations are too low to see everyones tweets on the subject
posted on 27/4/17
Conflicts of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit."
Perhaps not in an exact legal sense. Definitely not comfortable with it and think there is a COI in a more... Traditional sense?
I know what I'm trying to say.
posted on 27/4/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/4/17
Nope.
Any hint of a possible COI and DF wouldnt be near this case.
posted on 27/4/17
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 24 seconds ago
Nope.
Any hint of a possible COI and DF wouldnt be near this case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok so legally there isn't a coi.
But with his background, relationships and knowledge surely he shouldn't be involved.
He would likely be called as a witness in this case had there been another qc.
posted on 27/4/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/4/17
comment by Curly 💩 - I'm mumpsimus and I know it.' (except on a Wednesday, that is my obstreperous day ) - ITS JIST A BIG CLIQUE N'AT (U1103)
posted 1 minute ago
Well perhaps we are caught up in semantics and definitions Finger but he is most certainly not impartial and that is the issue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye that's a better way of putting it.
posted on 27/4/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/4/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/4/17
Yeah i think we are looking at this differently a bit.
There isnt a legal coi. Clearly if one can defend themselves then there are atrict definitions of this that dont preclude someone like DF being engaged. So gonger is right.
Equally, if anyone thinks that with DF as defence the trial is going to shine an accurate light on what went on then they should take into account his own interest and accept that the truth may be compromised as a result.
In an enquiry it would certainly be a coi. In a trial it is not.
Of course rangers died so technically this is a mock trial anyway
Suits csc
posted on 27/4/17
Finger????
Gonger????
ffs
😡😡😡😡
😂😂😂
posted on 27/4/17
Curly-I accept pretty much what you say, but do you think the COI is detrimental to anyone? That's more what I was getting at.
If anyone on the jury had a COI then I can accept how that could influence their decision making process. But would this possible COI for Findlay affect his role? And in what way.
Page 5 of 7
6 | 7