The Advocate Depute, Alex Prentice QC opened the questioning by confirming Ms Trolle's name and occupation. She told the court that she had joined the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) in 1999 after a public meeting addressed by Tommy Sheridan. She went on to state she first met Mr Sheridan in person at the Anniesland by-election held in November 2000. During that campaign she canvassed alongside Mr Sheridan and spent time in his car alone with him. She said they had got on well "talking and telling jokes." She also claimed they had discussed, amongst other things Danish people's liberal views on subjects such as "pornography and sex. She added that she and Mr Sheridan had both "been flirting" with each other.
She was then asked if she knew, at this time, if Mr Sheridan was married. She told the court that she knew he had a "partner' but not that he was married. She said she and Mr Sheridan had been flirting when canvassing together. Mr Prentice then moved on to December 2000 and asked Ms Trolle if she had seen Mr Sheridan at this time. She informed the court that she had been staying with her mother in law in Glasgow a and that the accused had asked if she would come and see him. She claimed he had picked her up from a bus stop and had then driven to Mr Sheridan's home where they went upstairs and "had sex." When asked if anyone else was present in the house at the time she responded "I sincerely hope not."
The court was then shown a drawing, made by Ms Trolle, of what she claimed was Mr Sheridan's home. Included in the drawing were stairs, a room labelled "sunbed" and a description of the bedroom decorations and bedclothes. Asked if she had been at the house for long she said no, as Gail Sheridan had called Tommy Sheridan to pick her up from a Christmas function. According to Ms Trolle they both dressed quickly and Mr Sheridan dropped her off near to her home.
She was then asked if she knew an Andrew McFarlane, Mr Sheridan's brother in Law she said she did. She claimed that she and Mr Sheridan had "Spent the night in his place." She said that she and Mr Mcfarlane had drank some wine then Mr Sheridan and herself had went upstairs. They were then, she told the court, joined by Mr McFarlane and the three of them had "sexual intercourse" for most of the night. The witness was then shown a series of pictures of the interior and exterior of a house and identified it Mr McFarlane's dwelling. She was also shown a photograph of Tommy and Gail Sheridan holding a small, white, West Highland terrier which she identified as being present at the house when she was there.
She further described to the court two other sexual encounters with Mr Sheridan, one on or around the 2nd October 2001 and one in Glasgow on November 2002. She claimed the second encounter had occured in Mr Sheridan's office in Glasgow city Chambers after a march on St Andrews day (Mr Sheridan was then a city councillor) When asked about the march however she could not say what it was the protest was about.
Mr Prentice them moved on to Ms Trolle's testimony about the alleged visit by her, Tommy Sheridan and others to the Cupids club in Manchester. She said that Mr Sheridan had talked to her,by telephone, about a club in Manchester and asked her to come with him. She stated she had initially said no but had finally agreed. When asked about the nature of the club she said her understanding was that it was a "place were people went and had sex." Mr Prentice then introduced into evidence a series of telephone records (a large number judging by the pile of paper) and put a mobile number to Ms Trolle which she identified as one she was using at the time.
Returning to the events Ms Trolle testified that she had got a bus to Glasgow where she had been picked up by Mr Sheridan before going to a flat owned by "Gary." There she met Andrew McFarlane Gary and Anvar Khan and they proceeded to drive to Manchester.
Mr Prentice then went through various records to establish the date of this alleged event. He produced Ms Troll's bank records and asked about various purchases made on 26th September 2002 from Primark and Debenhams. She stated these goods were a handbag and some black underwear she bought for the trip to Manchester (to go with her "skimpy dress") Mr Prentice also produced Ms Trolle;'s diary for that year which had the dates 27, 28 and 29 September 2002 marked off with the words "cultural festival" written next to them. When asked if she had actually attended a cultural festival on those dates the witness laughed and said no, and that entry represented the trip to Cupids.
On arriving in Manchester Ms Trolle said that when she saw the club she "felt like an absolute idiot, it looked like nothing from the outside." She claimed Mr Sheridan had described it as a "lovely, fancy and nice place which it wasn't" Nevertheless she entered the club and the party entered a side room and had sex "with each other." She also stated that at one point another person at the club recognised Mr Sheridan and said to her "you must be Gail then." She then told the court that the party had later left the club and went to a house with another two couples, whom she described for the court, where "we all had sex with various partners." They then left the house in the early hours, drove back to Glasgow. She then got changed in the flat and returned home. She was later asked to describe the to couples she had stated they met. She said one was an older man with a ponytail, who was in the company of a younger "asian" woman and an older couple whom she describes as "not very handsome,' and "perhaps in their 50's.
The last alleged sexual encounter described by Ms Trolle occurred in 24th October 2004 in her then home in Dundee. On this occasion she claimed there were two other present when Mr Sheridan arrived, her housemate Ruth Adamson and her then boyfriend Ralph Barrett who was described in court as a journalist for the Dundee Courier. She said both these people saw her and Mr Sheridan go to her room together where they spent the night.
She was then asked about her testimony to the libel case brought by Tommy Sheridan against the News of the World in July 2006. She told the jury she had told the truth in that case and was telling the truth now. She was also asked if she had attended the SSP conference in Perth held in February 2005 (this is the subject of one of the charges against Gail Sheridan) she denied having been in attendance as she was childminding for a friend of her's Debbie Hemmingway. then with, what even he described as a "strange question" Mr Prentice asked Ms Troll if she was a vegetarian to which she responded that she was when she was in Scotland.
Court then adjourned for lunch. Our report on the afternoon session will be available later this evening.
87 comments:
Trolle: 'we spent most of the night having sexual intercourse'.
Ouch, Tommy.
Hi Wattsy, couldn't mention that because the jury were not there at the time. (also why I had to delete the comment, sorry)
What did you think of today.
Very credible evidence today from Trolle - much more robust, concise and backed up with evidence, some presented today and some, presumably, to appear when other witnesses testify. But in this case, who knows?
It was especially interesting the way Prentice made very clear the difference, and the reason for that difference, between Trolle's NoTW testimony and this testimony regarding dates of the Swinger Club visit. And then underlining that much of the evidence presented to corroborate the timeline of events had not been presented at the previous trial.
It will be very interesting to see how TS cross-examines Trolle. I'm not at all surprised he needs extra time to prepare for that.
I have to agree with you Whatsy, in my opinion she very credible and in my opinion carried a lot more import than the likes of Rosie Kane and the ineffectual Colin Fox. In the absence of alleged bad blood, grievances, factions and axes to grind it will very interesting to see what tack Tommy takes.
Much of this evidence is really quite thin when you examine it closely:
She records 'cultural festival' in her diary and this is supposed to be code for Cupids?
Bank records showing purchases made on 26th September 2002 from Primark and Debenhams and interpreted as evidence that she was buying things for her trip to Cupids.
If the prosecution are able to bring forward independent witnesses from Cupids, such as staff or customers, or even CCTV footage showing the car driving towards Manchester, then I'll be impressed. At the moment, this is hardly convincing stuff.
"Very credible evidence today from Trolle"
You think so?. I could say just five words...Not allowed at the moment!. There again, I don`t have to say the `five words`, they will become apparent after the trial.
The SSP witnesses will probably have less effect on the outcome of this trial than the other witnesses and there is the forensic evidence of the credit and debit card trail we leave behind us in thes modern times as seen with Ms Trolle. You simply cant say you were somewhere these days when you werent. Big Brother is watching you.
"If the prosecution are able to bring forward independent witnesses from Cupids, such as staff or customers, or even CCTV footage showing the car driving towards Manchester, then I'll be impressed. At the moment, this is hardly convincing stuff." - this is the way it works though, at the moment the Advocate Depute appears to be "setting the stage" for the introduction of "hard evidence" to back up the "soft evidence" we have at the moment, Mr Prentice is already edging in "mobile phone records", although I have to question whether people can actually recall specific people's number - don't we just blindly type them in and associate them with a name. At the moment, the evidence as it stands is as flimsy as Ms Trolles underwear.
anon said. If the prosecution are able to bring forward independent witnesses from Cupids,
I believe it mentions in one of the other threads that it was accusations from two members of Cupids staff that brought the story to the NOTW inthe world. (As I have never read any news international rag I have to rely on reports from elsewhere.) One thing is still clear the result of this trial will change nobody's mind.
Indeed, The Boxer - beware the old "thread upon thread, strand upon strand, layer upon layer leading to a convincing, powerful and overwhelming case" so much loved by Advocate Deputes.
"it was accusations from two members of Cupids staff that brought the story to the NOTW"
I doubt that - I don't think any such witnesses were brought forward at the libel trial and I'm sure they would have been had they existed!
"I don't think any such witnesses were brought forward at the libel trial and I'm sure they would have been had they existed" - there wasn't any brought forward, but there were various rumours flying about that there was actual witnesses. But given that that the original trial was a civil one and the current trial is a criminal one with Police involvement meaning greater investigatory powers and the subsequent ability to "dig a bit deeper", it will be interesting to find out if any "Cupids" witnesses are called.
(As I have never read any news international rag I have to rely on reports from elsewhere.)
____________________________
oh, come on. if you have never read a news international newspaper, how do you know anything about its quality?
How much is a pair of knickers in Primark? 10p? Is that the kind of purchase that someone makes on a card. And how frequently does Ms Trolle make underwear/flimsy dress purchases. Hardly conclusive, is it.
Who is it to say that the black underwear, flimsy dress and handbag purchase weren't for a night out on the town, these items are everyday purchases for most women.
If these are actual bank statements they will not identify the actual purchase - only a receipt will do that. And who keeps a receipt for a pair of knickers from Primark? for years?
"given that that the original trial was a civil one and the current trial is a criminal one with Police involvement meaning greater investigatory powers and the subsequent ability to "dig a bit deeper", it will be interesting to find out if any "Cupids" witnesses are called.
If the claim was that two Cupid's staff brought the story to the NoTW, it would be surprising if the NoTW chose not to bring them forward as witnesses last time if they actually existed .
Even if Ms Trolle could prove that she had visited Cupid's on the dates she claims, the prosecution have to be able to prove that Tommy was with her. So far, it's just her word on that.
Sorry to be off topic, but I've just discovered that the jury is 13 women and only 2 men.
How on earth did that happen and is that likely to be an important factor? Anyone know what the split was in the libel jury and how the males and females voted in the end?
It's highly unlikely that Cupid's staff brought this story to the attention of the NoW, why would they, is TS even known South of the Border (this pre-dates Big Brother)
And why would Cupid's staff make good witnesses? how many people attend this club, is it for "very select clientèle or can anyone pop in off the street, why would they notice one particular "punter", what is the lighting like? dim?... questions, questions, questions...
Just the way it worked out at the ballot anon. I was there at the jury selection and the names were drawn at random from a large group of males and females.
I'd also say to other commentators that speculating about the jury beyond that will not be posted.
"Even if Ms Trolle could prove that she had visited Cupid's on the dates she claims, the prosecution have to be able to prove that Tommy was with her. So far, it's just her word on that."
I have been thinking that since I started to read all this.
"Sorry to be off topic, but I've just discovered that the jury is 13 women and only 2 men."
Read the comments at the bottom.
http://tinyurl.com/33tgfu9
"but I've just discovered that the jury is 13 women and only 2 men" if we are to except that this is at least in part a "sex" case, this in from established legal precedent* unfavourable to TS.
Appeals have been upheld in "sex" cases when there was an imbalance of woman on the jury, but this was only because there was inadequate numbers for the original ballot, I don't think this applies to TS as there is no way that the judge would have allowed this.
I have to admit, I was a bit puzzled as to where the Advocate Depute was going with all these different dates - Driving Tests, phone calls, purchases etc.
I think it was because Trolle had got the year of the trip to Cupids mixed up in the original NOTW trial.He seems to have been wanting the Jury to be convinced she was mistaken in the first trial. And that it was actually 2001. Tommy did try and stop this being clarified, but was overruled by the judge.
It has also been postulated that women are more like to convict - ask anyone who has ever served on a jury.
Red Chumpo, I have never read the Sun in the last 10 years since I gave up the horses and had no need for their Saturday racing section and even then I only bought it rarely., It must be 30 odd years since I've seen a copy of the NOTW. One sad thing about this case is that staff at Cupids are facing being laid of due to the downfall in customers as many no longer trust the club's commitment to maintaining members identities secret.
All in all, I find this whole trial, UNREAL!.
"One sad thing about this case is that staff at Cupids are facing being laid of due to the downfall in customers as many no longer trust the club's commitment to maintaining members identities secret."
Priceless, thank you.
"maintaining members identities secret" - is this a "members only" club then? with like records of "members"?
2001? How long are bank records kept for?
Here is an Opinion of the Court where an Appellant was successful on the grounds that women were over-represented on the Jury:
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006HCJAC09.html
It was a Jury of six men and five women that dismissed the original NoW allegations in Edinburgh - 7 to 4
in TS's favour.
The comment above that was deleted was (edited for obscenity)
"The misogynist c*** doleman continues to allow contempt in the shape of published attacks on witnesses. What a fucking misogynist c***. Anyone know if doleman or anyone in his family - anyone - is fiddling benefits?"
I'd say to anonymous that I am at court every day and if he wishes to put any of that to me in person I'd be happy to discuss it.
I'll be telling the dole where you are, you woman hating piece of scum.
Have missed large chunks of the coverage and don't get the significance of whether or not K Trolle was in attendance at the SSP conference in Perth 2005 (or why GS would want to lie about it). Could anyone explain briefly?
I am quite amused with the term misogynist being used as an adjective for c##nt although where I live there is a mandatory slap for grassing people to the SS, oh well the face of socialism.
Stailceoir - it's mentioned on the indictment re Gail Sheridan: "on 31 July 2006 at the Court of Session, Parliament House, Parliament Square, Edinburgh, you GAIL SHERIDAN being sworn as a witness in a civil jury trial of an action for defamation then proceeding there at the instance of Thomas Sheridan, MSP, your husband, residing at Paisley Road West, Cardonald, Glasgow against News Group Newspapers Limited, 124 Portman Street, Kinning Park, Glasgow as publishers of the News of the World newspaper did falsely depone: - that you saw and spoke to Katrine Trolle, c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh, at the Scottish Socialist Party Conference held in Perth in 2005, and that said Katrine Trolle told you there that the News of the World had been at her door, asking her if she had had an affair with Tommy Sheridan and had offered her money and that she hugged and kissed you and touched your "tummy";"
I'd imagine they keep bank statements indef.
Just checked the charge sheet.
The 2001 date was very important re the charge against Gail (as well as Tommy). She said she had been with Tommy the weekend of November 2001, when Trolle said they had been in Cupids.
"that you had recorded in your diary that you had travelled to Miami on Tuesday 20 November 2001 and you were in Miami on the weekend of 24 and 25 November 2001 and that said Thomas Sheridan had recorded in his diary that you were away between 21 and 28 November 2001;
that you were in Miami on 24 and 25 November 2001 and you did thus not spend every weekend in November 2001 with said Thomas Sheridan"
I guess I would have been less puzzled as to what Prentice was up to if I had known what the actual charges were!(as no doubt the Jurers are)
So Tommy had a shag. What's all the fuss about - there's worse things in life.
I'd imagine they keep bank statements indef. - did it not used to be 7 years?
@Stailceoir
That relates to Gails charge.
'the truth being as you well knew, that you did not see or speak to said Katrine Trolle at the Scottish Socialist Party Conference held in Perth between 11 and 13 February 2005 and that the said Katrine Trolle did not tell you that the News of the World had been at her door asking her if she had an affair with Tommy Sheridan and had offered her money and said Katrine Trolle did not hug and kiss you and touch your "tummy";'
"I guess I would have been less puzzled as to what Prentice was up to if I had known what the actual charges were!(as no doubt the Jurers are)" - yes, you really should read the Indictment, that way you can see how it all fits together and what Prentice's game is.
Legal Eagle said...
Here is an Opinion of the Court where an Appellant was successful on the grounds that women were over-represented on the Jury:
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006HCJAC09.html
Wrong!
You were right before this when you said it was on the grounds of the size of panel chosen from.
"[23] The submission of counsel at the trial emphasised the imbalance between male and female jurors; but in our opinion it is unnecessary to consider that aspect of the submission or the decision in Rojas v Berllaque (supra) on which it is based. It is sufficient, in our view, to consider the question in relation to the size of the panel from which the ballot was held."
Legal Eagle said...
"It has also been postulated that women are more like to convict - ask anyone who has ever served on a jury."
Can we have a source for this postulation please Legal Budgie, sorry, Eagle.
I wouldn't think it would be too difficult for Prentice to prove that Gail was in Miami when he alleges - after all, she was probably working.
Re: "Very credible evidence today from Trolle"
You think so?. I could say just five words...Not allowed at the moment!. There again, I don`t have to say the `five words`, they will become apparent after the trial.
Could you elaborate?
I must say it's a little frustrating when posts on this blog are being met with such gnomic responses. If something is incorrect or you know something that can add to understanding of events, please do so rather than issuing frankly baffling statements.
Bear in mind many reading and posting are not legally trained.
Jessica Fletcher P.I. Wrong! "unnecessary to consider"... "It is sufficient"
"Thomas Sheridan had recorded in his diary that you were away between 21 and 28 November 2001;"
So what?, keeping a diary means you write up things in advence of them happening, or as they happen. Things can change or mistakes wrote down. My wife has done it, got dates mixed up. A lot of people who keep a diary, I would think have done this.
anon said I'd imagine they keep bank statements indef. - did it not used to be 7 years?
just checked my bank account on line and by pressing two buttons was able to access every transaction for exactly 7 years, but Im sure the banks computers will go back to the beginning.
To be honest, Jessica Fletcher P.I., but your attitude you are only given credence to the "postulations" made on here and in other places, anyone want to bet on your sex "Jessica", it also appears that you have also made up your mind already regarding this case, no prizes for guessing which way. Meantime, some of us are trying to discuss the issues in an impartial and reasoned manner.
yeah, way to too many what appears to be solicitors, advocates, judges and "legally trained people" posting on here, it's like a court common room at times.
"keeping a diary means you write up things in advence of them happening, or as they happen."
too true, already got entries in my 2011 diary for december. a diary is really just a rough guide - nothing that is set in stone.
Some more thoughts on the evidence presented today:
KT mentioned that TS stopped for petrol on the way to Manchester. He better not have used a card to pay for it.
The phone numbers - I got the impression that because KT is only in the country for a limited time, the AdDep was purely getting as much out of her as possible in the available time, and will go about corroborating the details such as whose telephone number is whose later. Right now, he just wants her to confirm whatever only she can, and will be relying on future evidence and witnesses for the rest.
Today seemed mainly to present an improved version of the evidence she gave at the Civil trial, and seemed successful to me. How TS's cross-examination goes will be very interesting.
After the digressions of Kane and patchy memory of Fox, it was a relief as an observer to see a witness who could actually answer a question and confidently remember stuff. But again, this is before TS gets his chance with her (control yourselves).
Whatsy, any chance you could drop me a mail?
jamesdoleman@gmail.com
Cheers.
"KT mentioned that TS stopped for petrol on the way to Manchester. He better not have used a card to pay for it." - good point does TS look like a cash or card person? Would he be in a "covering your tracks" mindset. How many people used cards vs cash back then? But if a TS card does turn up as having purchased petrol en route to Manchester he will have a bit of explaining to do, even then it wouldn't mean that it was actually TS that has used the card.
"yeah, way to too many what appears to be solicitors, advocates, judges and "legally trained people" posting on here, it's like a court common room at times."
I think it might be more a case of people pretending to be those things.
"your attitude you are only given credence to the "postulations" made on here and in other places"
Aye OK big man.... whatever you say. You clearly don't like my opinions on this so don't give us all crap about wanting to discuss things in an "impartial and reasoned manner". You're embarrassing yourself.
That's the thing that you can't quite comprehend Jessica Big Wumin - no-one else on here has formed an Opinion at this instance, we are still at the stage of considering the evidence and won't form an Opinion until we have heard ALL the evidence.
you're really quite scary jessica... you have already made up your mind that this guy is as gulity as hell and should swing by the balls on glasgow green.
TS card
If it was used in Scotland on that date?, so what would that prove?.
After reading the description of McBride's cross examination, and how he drive a bus through her original testimony for the prosecution, I'd say TS will be feeling fairly confident about tomorrow.
no chip and pin back then so a card would need a signature to use it. even if it was only used a few miles away (in scotland) TS would still be asked what he was doing there, who he was with, where he was going, it would depend on the time, they could also worl out how much he put in the tank. lots of things.
Hello Shug, I'd ask you and others to please not speculate about the identity of other commentators. From now on I'm afraid I will delete comments relating to that.
"That's the thing that you can't quite comprehend Jessica Big Wumin - no-one else on here has formed an Opinion at this instance,we are still at the stage of considering the evidence and won't form an Opinion until we have heard ALL the evidence."
Are you high? Have you read some of the comments on here? Also, do you normally speak like that? Come down off the lighter fluid mate and join the collective normal below you.
Please also get a "nickname". People have been asked several times now to lose the Anonymous titles. It's ridiculous.
lol Jessica, have you taken your medication yet? nurse, nurse...
While I wait for James to respond to my e-mail telling me if I'm in trouble or not, I'm gonna restrict myself to a bit of self-appointed moderation suggestions.
Could everyone try to respond to the content of posts rather than attacking the person behind them? "Big man/Big Wuman"? Really, it does say more about the originator than the intended target. And not in a good way.
We're lucky enough to have ringside seats at one of the most fascinating trials in ages - can't we comment on it to a level that is respectful both of each other and the many people involved in the trial?
However, I did enjoy the hilariously self-defeating abuse the "misogynist c***" guy/gal attempted.
You has mail Whatsy.
"misogynist c***" lol - a contradiction in terms if ever there was one.
You usually find that when people like (Jessica P I) resort to personal attacks its because they have lost the argument; they have already made their tiny mind up and have nothing constructive to offer to the debate.
"You usually find that when people like (Jessica P I) resort to personal attacks its because they have lost the argument; they have already made their tiny mind up and have nothing constructive to offer to the debate."
Priceless.
"worl out how much he put in the tank. lots of things."
Remember, TS does a lot of travelling in a year. He turns up at political meetings all over the place.
Am I the only one who doesnt see how purchasing something in scotland means that you were in manchester two days later? that seems a desparate link, especially as it cant be shown what was bought.
And i dont get where people are getting this idea of credit card receipts from a petrol station, was that included in evidence or is it just speculation?
did i miss that?
"Am I the only one who doesnt see how purchasing something in scotland means that you were in manchester two days later?"
exactly, on any given day on any high street in scotland millions of women will be buying a pair of primark knickers, are they all in manchester two days later?
Anonyomous and donald b: Cheers for answering my question on why KT's attendance (or not) at the Perth conference matters.
Re: Am I the only one who doesnt see how purchasing something in scotland means that you were in manchester two days later? that seems a desparate link, especially as it cant be shown what was bought.
They drove down on what seemed to me to be quite a tight timeframe - Trolle left her job Friday afternoon, got the bus from Aberdeen to Glasgow, got picked up by TS at the station, went to Gary's flat, waited until Anvar Khan appeared, then hit the road. They were up all night driving, at the club, back at some house for further sex, then driving home in the early hours of the morning. If there's a record of TS buying lots of petrol at somewhere like Carlisle at 11pm or 6am, that would be hard to explain.
However, I don't think any such record exists, as the AdDep was not particularly precise about ascertaining the timelines of that escapade. I thought he could have been able to make fairly accurate estimations of when Trolle arrived in Glasgow and how long she was there before they got in the car to Manchester which could have tightened up when subsequent events happened and made any petrol station purchase en route even stronger evidence, but he didn't do that.
Yes, but I rather think that's the sort of evidence he'll be leading with Sheridan, don't you?
Agree, if the Advocate Depute does indeed have a credit card receipt for a tankful of petrol bought at 11pm or 6am in Carlisle on the dates in question lurking in that pile of papers of his, that's the sort of "ace up the sleeve" we wont find out about until TS is on the witness stand.
Like anon I think we might see more about this petrol stop idea, I don't think Prentice would have brought it up and left it there without more to come on that. But, I agree with the previous anon point about the purchases (presumably in Aberdeen). We only know that purchases were made, and that the witness tells us what she bought. This has no connection that I can see to proving that Sheridan is in Manchester 2 or 3 days later.
As Whatsy and James have pointed out, this is a new chapter in the case with more substantive testimony. We are no longer dealing with hearsay about whether Sheridan confessed, we are talking about the actual events with people who claim to have been there.
The main problem for Trolle is that she seems to be claiming a different date from before and that doesnt play well with a jury. If you hear different testimony from before and don't know which one to believe, then the safest instruction is to believe neither.
The sunbed in the house is very interesting as we had a previous witness (cannot remember which one) also talking about Sheridan's house.
The fact that this one is directly relevant to Mrs Sheridan's charges makes it more interesting too.
This part is better for the jury too, their poor heads must have been swimming in dates and abbreviations following all of the stuff about the SSP meetings.
There is a major significance between 2001 and 2002, it's a kind of JFK moment and ties people's memories in with events occurring in their own lives around about that time - one of the SSP meetings was even refereed to as the "9/11 meeting". It really doesn't sit well that someone could get these particular years mixed up.
It really doesn't sit well watching women having their sexual histories picked apart and being denounced as liars.
It makes me sick to the pit of my stomach.
It really doesn't sit well watching men having their sexual histories picked apart and being denounced as liars.
It makes me sick to the pit of my stomach.
Well, Anon, the same could be said about TS - he is being called a liar and having his personal and sexual life pored over in court. Its a trial, if we hear two contradictory accounts, one must be false. Unless you're seriously suggesting that TS should just accept her story and not challenge it in anyway?
No. I'm just saying. These are things which we'll have to analyse deeply after the verdict, though.
A guilty man who did such a thing would be beneath contempt, as would any apologists.
"No. I'm just saying. These are things which we'll have to analyse deeply after the verdict, though"
Analysis was never the SSP's strong point, so good luck with that!
I think there will be a long analysis of the behaviour of Solidarity members, who'll be pariahs with no party.
Can't wait to hear Graeme McIver in the witness box.
Post a Comment