PROFESSOR Ian Brown (Letters, March 31) is quite good at throwing his own dead cat around. He says the "core issue" of the Alex Salmond case was his conduct when, in fact, it was whether his conduct, however deplorable, and whatever flaws were revealed in his character, was criminal. A jury with women in the majority who were not asked to give their moral judgment on him, found him not guilty on all but one, and not proven in the other. That jury, unlike all other commentators who were not at the trial, were able to judge the accusations based on the evidence they gave and their cross-examination by the defence. That applies also to the complainers whose joint letter implies the jury was wrong, that is unless they stayed in court to hear the cross-examination of the others, which I doubt.

We all claim to respect and accept the rule of law. But the real test of that respect and acceptance is when it is applied with an outcome that many do not want, because of the reprehensible conduct or character of the person the law is being applied to. Considerable Police and Crown Office resources, over a long period, were given to seeking evidence and prosecution on 13 charges. All failed, despite at the preliminary hearings, as we learned later from the press, elements of the defence case concerning a conspiracy was declared inadmissable.

There is, of course, another arena in which Alex Salmond's conduct, where it was admitted by his defence, will be a core issue. That is within the SNP as a party, and the SNP Scottish Government embracing the civil service, special advisers, ministers, and MSPs. It will require answers to what was known, when it was known, who knew it, and what action was taken, or avoided, and for what purpose. As for Mr Salmond's claim of a political conspiracy, political or not, if evidence is produced of one, then prima facie there is a case for another police investigation and trial – this time not of Mr Salmond, whose camp I have never been in.

Jim Sillars, Edinburgh EH9.