You don't accept the thrust of the conspiracy argument because you don't want to. Instead of ignoring the new facts, you would alter your opinion to include the new information if you were being honest.
1) Your evidence free opinion that Salmond has no chance/intention of a political comeback is contradicted by reports even in mainstream media and statements by some leading SNP politicians.
2) It is not debatable that some witnesses lied after swearing on oath. What kind of weak argument is this? It's just that you prefer to believe that defence witnesses rather than prosecution witnesses lied. It is also clear that many incidents were given a more sinister framing than the reality.
3) You state, "To invade someone's space in the workplace by touching their hair, nose, buttocks, kissing on the lips, may seem trivial, but it would not be acceptable in any other day to day working environment..."
The hair touching incident was known as some kind of running joke in the office. Others testified that all in the office tugged her tight curly hair which sprung back. It was a joke that all including the complainant were comfortable with. You may ask yourself why none of these other incidents involving others doing the same thing became sexual assault allegations some years after the event.
The other incidents are similar or denied. Specifically the touching the buttocks allegation is absurd and again made years after the event.These are all allegations that some in the SNP had spent much time and resources acquiring by way of a huge fishing trip only to sit on them to deploy when required.
The standard of proof required to smear someone in a political selection battle is decidedly lower than that required to convict in a criminal trial. Sexual allegations obtained by fishing, not reported despite being criminal, sat on to be used as required, case falls apart as prosecution tacitly accepts the defence evidence. Are you there yet, Steve? It was a political smear job to be deployed when Salmond makes his return to frontline politics.
4) Your final point displays nothing but your unwillingness to accept the truth. What do you think the not proven verdict means? There were 13 jurors with 8 required for a majority verdict. So 8 or more of the 13 decided not guilty or not proven. At the most, 5 jurors thought him guilty. At least 8 didn't.
Finally, I must admit given the definitions accepted by you, that I have probably been both the perpetrator and victim of a number of sexual assaults over the years. I have also witnessed other people committing sexual assaults by touching others noses and hair and even kissing on the lips unsolicited. Context is everything though, Steve, something the jury and others see but which passes you by, deliberately I suspect, although I don't entirely rule out the alternative.
I've no axe to grind at all. I've never even been to Scotland. The fact that witnesses give affidavits, wait months at home with the trial looming and then proceed to swear an oath on the Holy Bible means that I take all evidence seriously. It's true that second hand you can't look into witnesses' eyes, hear their tone of voice or hear the totality of the evidence.
Alex Salmond is finished in Scottish politics in a leading role. He had had enough of the job of SNP leader twenty years ago and only returned because John Swinney didn't connect with the electorate. Nicola Sturgeon has made astonishing progress as leader, she is popular and any idea that she has resorted to dirty tricks due to insecurity is in my view improbable.
As I have said several times now, when one becomes the victim of a sexual assault the first response is often to conceal it, possibly due to wanting it to go away, a sense of shame or not feeling that you are going to be believed. Once you have support or are told that the same thing has happened to others is often the time when you may come forward, sometimes years after the event.
It's high time we had a zero tolerance of these kinds of incidents. You may wish to read the following article:
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,sexual-crimes-in-scotland-reach-highest-level-since-records-began_10853.htmTo end on a touch of humour within this legal imbroglio: not proven I have been told means
"not guilty, but don't do it again.."