New manager

There was no trial. That’s why she raised a civil action. No idea where you’re getting the not proven verdict from.

Aberdeen should have went nowhere near him. It was an appalling decision

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by afc1903mad

I agree, the club should stay clear of rapists and any other convictions that would bring the club into disrepute.
It would seem from the outside, he took advantage when she was in no fit state to consent.
I think the laws may have changed since then which address this.

As it stood, he was charged and the trial returned a not proven (effectively not guilty) before he signed with us. Subsequently well after he left us, he was tried civilly and found guilty.

The timing was however he had been accused, tried and found not guilty, so to try and tarnish the club is plainly wrong, but some do like to try and tarnish the club whenever they can.

Point of note, for clarity as I’m sure some will need it.Anyone convicted of a crime which directly impacts the victim (murder, kidnapping, rape, peado etc) should absolutely get the book thrown at them. The punishment should fit the crime.

---

Not proven is a hell off a lot different from not guilty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nice1simmy

Not proven is a hell off a lot different from not guilty

---

I would agree.
Think it’s some sort of legal wording / definition

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason89

There was no trial. That’s why she raised a civil action. No idea where you’re getting the not proven verdict from.

Aberdeen should have went nowhere near him. It was an appalling decision

---

Skimmed the google search which had linked the Goodwillie / Robertson case
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-43044323

It seems there was no initial as the prosecutors deemed there was insufficient evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by afc1903mad

Skimmed the google search which had linked the Goodwillie / Robertson case
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-43044323

It seems there was no initial as the prosecutors deemed there was insufficient evidence.

---

Makes you wonder what corroborating evidence they expected given that there were 3 in the flat and she was apparently almost paralytic. If she’s in such a state course there’s not going to be physical marks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by afc1903mad

I would agree.
Think it’s some sort of legal wording / definition

---

No, you said 'not proven' was effectively 'not guilty' so now you're contradicting yourself?
As i said there's a BIG difference between the two verdicts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nice1simmy

No, you said 'not proven' was effectively 'not guilty' so now you're contradicting yourself?
As i said there's a BIG difference between the two verdicts

---

There really isn't.
They're both verdicts of acquittal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InversneckieDob

There really isn't.
They're both verdicts of acquittal.

---

I would rather be found not guilty of something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aldo1983

I would rather be found not guilty of something.

---

I wouldn't care either way if I was acquitted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by afc1903mad

Skimmed the google search which had linked the Goodwillie / Robertson case
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-43044323

It seems there was no initial as the prosecutors deemed there was insufficient evidence.

---

It wasn’t insufficient evidence, it was that they didn’t think they could ‘win’ in Livingston single mum vs Scotland’s top QC

There’s a difference there.