Video: Judge says jury should pay no heed to claims of Craig Whyte as a Rangers pantomime villain

The judge in giving legal directions, said to the jury to take a “long hard look” at what they have heard and be “impartial” pointing out that Mr Whyte's defence said they should pay no heed to what they have read, seen or heard about Rangers in the time from when Mr Whyte bought the club for £1 from Sir David Murray in 2011 to date.

Donald Findlay QC, defending, in completing his summing up earlier told the jury that they would be the first in the country to ever consider the crime of "financial assistance" and that a secret £24 million loan from London-based agency Ticketus against future club season ticket sales which was conditional on him becoming the club owner, was not illegal and did not amount to fraud.

Whyte, 46, denies the two charges against him, one of acquiring the club fraudulently in May 2011 and another of “financial assistance” under the Companies Act – which centres on the £18m payment, between Whyte’s Wavetower company and Rangers, using Ticketus to clear the £18 million bank debt with Lloyds.

Part of the allegations against Whyte is that he pretended to Murray and others that “funds were available” to make all agreed-to payments.

Lady Stacey told the jury: "Mr Findlay said Mr Whyte had been portrayed as a pantomime villain, now I don't know if you ever read or saw any report to that effect. But if you did, put it out of your minds, please.

"What has happened to Rangers or to anyone else...are not matters you have heard evidence about, and that is for a good reason. They are not on trial. What happened to them, or didn't happen to them, or what the press or social media may have said in the last six years is neither here nor there."

She added: "Please do not be swayed by emotional consideration or any prejudices. "Some of you may be sympathetic to people in the case, others may take a dim view of big business and large amounts of money being moved about by businessmen. You only have to say these things out loud and think about it for a moment to see that these matters are irrelevant to your role.

"I am asking you to apply a cool head and take a good long hard look at all that has been put before you and make your decisions based on the evidence."

She said Mr Whyte had neither given evidence or led evidence from any other witness but he "doesn't need to" and that the jury were not entitled to assume the Crown had as a result proved his guilt.

"He doesn't need to prove his innocence. That's presumed for the purposes of the trial," she pointed out.

"He is quite entitled to leave it to the Crown to prove his guilt if they can. He doesn't have to prove anything. So you must not draw an adverse inference on Mr Whyte, because he has not given evidence. Earlier Mr Findlay said that for the Murray group it was a "matter of necessity" that the club was sold, that Mr Whyte was "the only show in town" and that "failure could not be contemplated".

And he revealed an email written by former Rangers finance director Mike McGill to solicitor David Horne, a key adviser to Mr Murray and Murray Group Donald Muir among others a month before the club takeover was complete saying: "I don't think the purchaser has enough resources... In simple terms we have no idea if they have the funds to run the club after purchase."

Mr Findlay said: "If you have no idea what do you do. You find out or you pull the plug. What did they do? Absolutely nothing."

Another email two weeks before the sale was complete from Mr McGill to Mr Horne said that "the useless twits don't have the funds" but decided to continue with pursuing the deal.

"Ladies and gentlemen that tells you all you need to know," he said. "They didn't care . They just didn't care. The deal was all that mattered."

Last week Advocate Depute Alex Prentice QC said Mr Whyte had committed fraud by dishonestly representing to Mr Murray that he had funds "immediately and unconditionally" for the takeover.

The prosecutor's assertion came as a High Court jury heard conflicting views over the interpretation of a single sentence in the takeover share purchase agreement, which has become a key factor in deciding the fate of Mr Whyte.

The prosecutors maintain the key to Whyte's guilt comes in his signing up to a share purchase agreement which included a clause that Mr Whyte and his company Wavetower "warrant and undertakes" that it has "immediately available from its own and third party resources on an unconditional basis (subject only to completion) the cash resources necessary...."

But in completing the defence summing up, Mr Findlay said that the mention of third party funding "tells any and every businessman that.. it is coming from a source other than the individual.. and inevitably there will be some condition". He added: "Nobody in the commercial world has any difficulty with it.

"The funding obtained from Ticketus was entirely legitimate. Whether it was a good business plan or a bad business plan is not the issue here. There was nothing illegal about. There was nothing unusual or untoward about it. Of course it benefitted Rangers, it saved it £1m a year in interest payments."

He argued that Mr Whyte had got the Ticketus money by providing personal guarantees which "is in any view, putting your own money at risk".

Prosecutors argued that what Mr Whyte's deal was "financial assistance" because he used a club asset, the purchase price of season tickets for the purpose of the purchase of the majority shareholding. It was argued that the effect of the Ticketus contract was that the club effectively funded the purchase of its own shares.

But Mr Findlay said there were exceptions in the Companies Act which which allows for deals to be done "in good faith and in the interests of the company".

And he argued it was in the interests of Rangers for the bank debt to be paid off, and for the club to make £1m a year in debt interest savings. Judge Lady Stacey is due to complete her summing up to the jury on (Tuesday).

The trial continues.