The next witness to appear was another recalled witness, Barbara Scott, the former minute secretary of the SSP and this first witness to appear in the trial. (an account of her initial testimony can be found Here and Here ) Mr Sheridan began by asking the witness when she had been advised that she was to be recalled to court. The witness said it was on or around the 11th October. He asked her if she had discussed her evidence with any other Crown witness since then to which she replied that there had been "general chit chat while they were waiting around (in the witness room) but not about her evidence. Mr Sheridan then asked Ms Scott if she had made any comments about other witnesses to which she replied no.
Mr Sheridan then asked Ms Scott if she had commented about witnesses on Facebook, specifically the Facebook page of Eddie Truman, press officer for the Scottish Socialist Party. The witness replied she could not remember and Mr Sheridan then asked for a brief adjournment.
When the court returned Mr Sheridan read a series of Facebook entries to Ms Scott puportedly written by her, Catriona Grant, Rosie Kane and Eddie Truman. These included an entry from Rosie Kane describing Mr Sheridan's supporters as "pillocks, tadgers and tossers" and Mr Sheridan himself as a "horror." A post was also read out from Ms Scott saying the treatment of Katrine Trolle was "nothing short of terrible abuse" and a post from Mr Truman, in relation to Ms Trolle's, which said "never forgive never forget." The witness agreed she had made these comments and was asked if her previous statement that she had not discussed witnesses in the case was either a "lie or a mistake?" She insisted that she did not lie.
Finally Mr Sheridan asked Ms Scott if she knew a Anne Edmonds. The witness stated that she was an older lady who had been in her SSP branch. Ms Scott added that they had fallen out after, she claimed, Anne Edmonds had told her that it was "her duty as a socialist to lie in court" Mr Sheridan put it to Ms Scott that she had made a very serious allegation to which the witness responded that it was "100% true." He then finished by asking Ms Scott if Duncan Rowan had left the SSP executive meeting before any votes had been taken. She agreed and with that Mr Sheridan ended his examination. As the Advocate Depute had no questions Lord Bracadale informed the witness she was free to go and Ms Scott stepped down from the witness stand.
33 comments:
Will the comments dry up now seeing as Sheridan has started entering internet chat into the trial?
'Anonymous' comments are not anonymous by the way. Not unless they've been posted through a separate server protecting the IP address etc.
The addition of SiteMeter.com to the blog will make it easier for people to be traced.
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s45doleman&r=15
Sorry, that's a wrong account of exactly what Mr Sheridan read out in court as an excerpt from facebook - it did not mention anything about Katrine Trolle being cross examined specifically, he just said that BS had commented 'its nothing short of terrible abuse what has happened to her', and frankly it's inappropriate to attempt to link this directly to any evidence, as Mr Sheridan himself seemed to accept when he declined to pursue the manner beyond that. What 'happened to' KT could refer to a whole manner of ways that BS feels KT has been treated by TS, it doesn't need to refer to cross-examination, so please try to refrain from reporting court proceedings in such an obviously prejudicial manner by shifting words around and missing parts out.
BS also raised the concern in court that a number of comments on this particular blog she feels imply that witnesses are lying - perhaps a more stringent comments policy in future, if this blog (which I and many others appreciate as one of many good if not entirely complete sources of info on what's been happening each day in court) doesn't wish to fall foul of the courts as well.
Hello anon, according to my notes the date of the comment from Barbara Scott on Katrine Trolle was stated as the 22 October the day after her cross examination ended, so I thought it was a reasonable assumption. However I accept it is an assumption so I'll reword it.
On comments policy I do do my best to screen and delete comments, however I do need people to report comments they disagree with properly (by email) rather than comment in the comments as it were. The easiest thing to do of course would just be to shut them down, but hopefully it will not come to that.
On sitemeter, it has been there since the blog started and I use it to track where I am getting traffic from and screen out abusive commentators. I would never use it for anything else but if people are worried I would remove it.
Removing sitemeter:
It's not a big deal in my opinion. If they are keen enough to find out who has been posting comments I imagine they could just ask blogger.com.
Sitemeter just makes it easier for them.
Can additional witnesses be called at such a late stage?
James you should refrain from making assumptions if you are still pretending this is a neutral blog.
You seem to have missed two parts of Ms Scott's evidence out - she was questioned about the car journey home from the 9/11 meeting where an argument took place and also about Duncan Rowan. Why are these missed out?
Hello Joan, well I'm not "pretending" this blog is neutral, I'm trying my best to make it that way.
I didn't cover those two points simply for questions of time and space, I can't cover everything said by every witness and so have to be selective.
Ms Scott's version of the car journey has already been covered in her previous testimony (which I linked to) and her testimony about Duncan Rowan was nothing different from what we have already heard from other witnesses in my opinion.
However as always I'm open to argument about putting it in.
Was in court all day today as an observer in the gallery and think in reply to the above comment by the blog author - my interpretation was that what BS alleged happened in the car back from 9-11 meeting was different as she was asked a different set of questions relating to it - by Maggie Scott QC I was under the impression she was just asked who was in the car, this time TS asked her that question but also asked her about what conversation had took place in the car, to which she replied that there had been an argument between herself and Ms Grant as BS had been unhappy at the way the minutes had been taken from her at the end of the meeting and she also mentioned 2 comments she alleged were made in the car - 1 being from Graeme McIvor "shut the eff up" as they were distracting him from driving, and potentially significantly 1 from Pat Smith being "Catriona is right, these minutes are going to be very important".
So imho that exchange was new testimony that hadn't been delved into by Maggie Scott QC. Can't remember what the exchange about Rowan was.
Looking back I think I did mention the Rowan thing thus:
"He then finished by asking Ms Scott if Duncan Rowan had left the SSP executive meeting before any votes had been taken. She agreed "
I'll think about the car thing.
I wouldn't worry too much about sitemeter - it's actually quite interesting. Any "interested parties" would just contact blogger. Sitemeter doesn't really ID anyone, might narrow someone down to a specific ISP - and most internet traffic flows through btcentralplus.com. You'll also notice that a lot of visitors are "unknown". I would sleep easy unless anyone gets a knock at the door.
Hello Magnum PI, lets not go there please.
No problem
RE: Sitemeter
True Magnum.
I'm guessing that sitemeter provides the same or similar information that blogger.com can provide. A court order to a US company would probably take a while. It might even fail? Probably not I suppose.
If a UK isp were to receive a court request for info I think they would fall over themselves to dish it out.
"on this particular blog she feels imply that witnesses are lying"
Is it not the case that some witnesses when they have been asked if they are telling the truth now or at the first trial or in their previous statements?, have said...They are telling that truth now?.
Jessica Fletcher P.I.
I don`t think the authorities will be too concerned about what a few bloggers are saying. However, they may well be concerned about going over witnesses testimonies in this trial and comparing them to testimonies given in the first trial?. We will have to wait and see on that one?.
Hi Jessica
Re: Sitemeter
From what I can see, Sitemeter does not reveal the full IP, it leaves of the last octet (that's what the #). Sitemeter will no doubt have a record of the full IP.
All an "interested party" needs to obtain the account details in the IP address. They would need to obtain this from blogger.com (blogger is owned by google, notice your browser connecting to google) or sitemeter, or from google.
UK IPSs hand out accounts details like sweets; they wouldn't even ask for a court order. I wouldn't think that US-based companies would be too reticent either.
We only be making innocent, flippant comments on a blog, but since, this is a sensitive issue with a lot at stake for a lot of parties, maybe you are right to be concerned. If so, you should take precautions to hide your identity.
Is it really possible to be 100% anonymous on the internet though.
Magnum P.I.
However, they may well be concerned about going over witnesses testimonies in this trial and comparing them to testimonies given in the first trial?... who you talking about? TS?.
True Magnum.
@Anon
"I don`t think the authorities will be too concerned about what a few bloggers are saying."
Well it's not really just a few bloggers is it? Some people here are clearly connected with the political parties involved. At points TS's defence has been to say that people are lying due to political motivation. And if it's no big deal why are you posting under 'anon'?
TS that has introduced internet chat into the trial. The authorities might have to follow if he kept pushing it.
True Jessica Fletcher P.I.
At least some of us have the assuredness to post under our real names.
Magnum P.I.
If people change their behaviour i.e. stop posting because of a fear of what might or might not happen, could that not be construed as "intimidation".
As has been said, some of the witnesses have admitted their testimonies were untrue at the first trial. Remember, they have said...I am telling the truth now... So what does that mean some of them were doing?. They said it.
"As has been said, some of the witnesses have admitted their testimonies were untrue at the first trial. Remember, they have said...I am telling the truth now... So what does that mean some of them were doing?. They said it."
No, some of them have said there are minor inconsistencies, which I doubt is unexpected given that FOUR YEARS have passed between the defamation case and this trial. You're twisting words to make it seem as if witnesses have said their testimonies in 2006 were substantially untrue, which is not the case.
"At least some of us have the assuredness to post under our real names"
Absolutely!
Obviously some aren't quite as confident as ourselves, but I think that's to be expected. We are international superstars of daytime TV after all.
From Anon.
"If people change their behaviour i.e. stop posting because of a fear of what might or might not happen, could that not be construed as "intimidation".
Em, I don't know. Maybe? Maybe not?
What?
`You're twisting words to make it seem as if witnesses have said their testimonies in 2006 were substantially untrue, which is not the case.`
O.K. Some of what their testimonies said was untrue at the first trial. Remember, they have said...I am telling the truth now... So what does that mean some of them were doing?. They said it.
Why would these people post on facebook comments which TS must be arguing were actually lies? They wouldn't continue the facade in such an environment if it was indeed a facade. Sheridan's position doesn't make sense there. I'm not sure that could really have ever worked in his favour.
Sorry jessica could we not go there please!
Hello Jessica. I can assure you that the incident in court you mention was a throw away comment by a harrasses witness that no one took seriously at the time. If you have a look around the Internet or on Twitter people are saying far less considered things about the case than would ever be allowed here. The judge has told the jury not to research the case on the Internet and I'm sure if what u mention was a concern to the court or either side I would have been informed b4 now
I disagree with you there James.
I'll email you.
Please post this one.
Have you solved this case or something, Jessica?
Yes, Jessica, that's the thing about being international superstars of daytime TV, there is non anonymity - we can easily be looked up in any TV listings magazine.
Magnum P.I.
"we can easily be looked up in any TV listings magazine"
Very true.
Swings and roundabouts Magnum, swings and roundabouts.
Post a Comment