Rangers v Celtic

Corroboration is required in Scots law as the evidence of a single witness, however credible, is not sufficient to prove a charge against an accused or to establish any material or crucial fact

 

That's called perjury Dev. You could go to jail for that, telling lies, under oath, whilst giving EVIDENCE.

 

And yet Torbett was found guilty and sent to jail thanks mainly to Birts testimony.

Oooft.

 

So let's get this straight here Dev.

You are saying Birt lied under oath?

 

Not the victims testimony [emoji85] [emoji28]

 

Why are Celtic supporters so intent on defending *****philia?

 

Not a single one of us have ever come to Richard Gough's aid, ya tramp.

 

Derp

 

^^^
Incel

 

There is a reason why you are considered as an utter mong. You are unbelievably, thick as f@ck

 

Imagine knowing less about corporate responsibility and the chain of evidence than an "Utter Mong".

Lol

 

^^^Head used for Badger Bait^^^

 

^^^
Arse used for Gough bait.

 

Don't recall Gough being in a court of law for splaying Taig Fartpipes.

 

.

 

please log in to view this image

 

It would be perjury if Birt was proven to have lied under oath, but as the person he's accusing (in this case Jock Stein) is dead, and not around to contradict his testimony then it's not perjury.

Anything can be stated under oath, only when direct evidence presented to the same court proves the statement to be false is that potentially perjury.

What? Torbett got sent to jail because Birt said "Jock Stein knew"?



You're tying yourself in knots here.

 

No, I've already explained "the evidence of a single witness, however credible, is not sufficient to prove a to establish any material or crucial fact".

So who corroborated Birt's testimony that Jock Stein kicked Torbett out of CBC?

Anyone?