New manager

[Mason89]

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

Think it matters now. The Amanda Duffy case changed that, didn’t it? He phoned the parents up after his verdict to rub it in. Pleasant fella

[nice1simmy]

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.

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

There really is,'not guilty' means it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that you're innocent,'not proven' means they cant prove either way whether you're guilty or innocent,big difference for me but you're correct in that you walk away a free man with both verdicts

[Aldo1983]

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

You wouldn't be saying that when you get sacked from the AbMad police for a not proven. Internal investigations would have their second bite at the cherry.

[Aldo1983]

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.

I hope you don't mean who I think you do? He's only won one case in years and it was ironically Whyte.

EDIT: I see it was McBride at the time. Fair enough.

[Mason89]

I hope you don't mean who I think you do? He's only won one case in years and it was ironically Whyte.

EDIT: I see it was McBride at the time. Fair enough.

That pipe smoking hun halfwit has lost more matches than Jim Duffy

[InversneckieDob]

Think it matters now. The Amanda Duffy case changed that, didn’t it? He phoned the parents up after his verdict to rub it in. Pleasant fella

That was to do with the double jeopardy rule.

[InversneckieDob]

There really is,'not guilty' means it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that you're innocent,'not proven' means they cant prove either way whether you're guilty or innocent,big difference for me but you're correct in that you walk away a free man with both verdicts

In law there isn't.
The onus of proof always lies with the Crown*.
If they fail to prove their case the correct verdict is one of acquittal.


*Exceptions can apply with some "special defences".

[InversneckieDob]

You wouldn't be saying that when you get sacked from the AbMad police for a not proven. Internal investigations would have their second bite at the cherry.

I always get results........it's a bottom line business.

[Mason89]

I always get results........it's a bottom line business.

Your record in teuchter crime solving if second to none. Not blowing my own trumpet here but I solved the stolen dug in Edinburgh mystery.

Mondo & standfreeFM talk a good game but I’m not seeing much in the way of results

[afc1903mad]

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

From the link I quoted
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-43044323

“ In November 2015, a jury found the case against him not proven, a verdict which has the same effect in law as not guilty.”