The end of Friday's morning session and the whole of the afternoon was occupied by the testimony of Rosie Kane, a Scottish Socialist party MSP from 2003 to 2007 and a member of the SSP executive throughout that period. Ms Kane was questioned by the Advocate Depute, Alex Prentice QC, who with his usual skill and precision took the witness through the key evidence in the case. He first asked Ms Kane about her history in the SSP and brought out that she was a founding member of the party. She said she had admired Tommy Sheridan and that he had "incredible charisma." She also confirmed that she attended the SSP executive meeting on the 9th November 2004 (the "9/11" meeting)
Ms Kane's testimony was in tune with that of the other eight prosecution witnesses the jury has heard from so far. She stated that: Mr Sheridan admitted at the meeting that he had attended the Cupid's club in Manchester on two occasions, that he had claimed that the News of the World (NoTW) could not prove this and that he intended to sue them for libel if they named him. She described the atmosphere at the meeting as "tense" and said her own mood was one of of sadness and disappointment. She added that she was worried about Gail (Mrs Gail Sheridan the co-accused) and thought that the SSP was "finished." She added that Keith Baldessara had added that he had information about more "inappropriate sexual activity" involving Mr Sheridan at a hotel in Glasgow. She also was shown and confirmed the accuracy of the disputed minute. After a further few questions from Mr Prentice the court rose for lunch.
The afternoon session was, in this observers opinion, the most dramatic and confrontational of the trial yet. The public gallery was almost full as Tommy Sheridan, from the dock, cross examined Ms Kane. He opened by asking her about her membership of the United Left group and then moved on to her evidence for the NoTW in the libel case. The witness stated that she thought Tommy Sheridan had "wangled a win" and accused him of "attacking and smearing his friends," looking directly at Mr Sheridan she said "My mum went to her grave hearing I was a liar. She adored you.
Asked about when she first found out about the News of the World story Ms Kane said she had went around the Scottish Parliament taking bets on who the unnamed MSP in the story was and it was not until Carolyn Leckie told her to stop that she realised it was Mr Sheridan.
What followed was a series of clashes between Rosie Kane and Tommy Sheridan. Mr Sheridan repeatedly probed Ms Kane's recollection of events accusing her at one point of "deploying her vivid imagination in the witness stand." In response to questioning about discrepancies between her evidence today and her statement to police in May 2007 Ms Kane argued that it had been six years and since then she had "lost two jobs and 2 parents so on you go." Mr Sheridan pointedly asked Ms Kane if she was still involved in a amateur dramatic society and taking acting lessons.
Mr Sheridan asked Ms Kane that if she was, as she had claimed, such "good buddies" with him why she had not asked him about the allegations, she replied that she had been "disgusted" by the nature of them and that they "flew in the face of our beliefs. Mr Sheridan then spoke of Ms Kane's "vivid imagination" and asked her if she not had a relationship with a Sun Journalist. Ms Kane asked if Mr Sheridan meant "she had nipped him in a pub." Around this point Lord Bracadale intervened, politely, to remind Ms Kane that her role as a witness was to listen to the questions asked and then answer them.
(part two to follow)
37 comments:
Going against whose beliefs? Is Rosie Kane a Consecrated Virgin?
What Sun journalist was Tommy talking about?
Anvar Khan?
what is it with these witnesses making out that they are holier than thou and that it's tommy that has a problem with his trouser zip. one of them (carolyn leckie) even admitted having an affair with a married man (alan mc combes). the hypocrisy beggars belief, it's enough to take your breath away.
How close where SSP, MSPs/members to the News International Group??????.
What the _ is going on. I have slipped into a parallel universe.
"Ms Kane said she had went around the Scottish Parliament taking bets on who the unnamed MSP in the story was"
You have to ask yourself, what is the mental age of this women.
Message to "whatsy"
I would be happy to post your comment if you could take out the bit that talks about what the jury might feel.
That's a bit of a no-no sorry.
"You have to ask yourself, what is the mental age of this women."
We really don't.
It was 500/1 on Annabel Goldie - worth a fiver at least at that point.
Any bets on John Swinney would have been money down the drain. Unless he was paying for it.
I see the Sheridanistas are out in force on this blog.
I was at the high court today, and was quite taken by the method Sheridan was attempting to discredit Kane. The approach was to ask very specific yet materially unimportant questions about the minutae of events 6 years ago, such as how long to the minute Sheridan had spoken at one of the meetings, the exact attendance of an informal meeting or the full range of all topics discussed at a meeting such as the "9/11" meeting, then ask the witness whether her memory was better than a previous witness whose recollection differed slightly about these seemingly unimportant points.
On the other hand, Kane's testimony seemed especially convincing due to the obvious hurt and emotion she feels due to the betrayal she claims Sheridan has
visited upon her. It seemed very open and honest, often to her detriment, and certainly did not seem coached in her evidence, as she indeed claimed she was not.
She seems to me that she's telling the truth - if she isn't, she's a
superb actress.
It's also very hard to work out any motivation Kane would have for lying. Does anyone seriously believe she is in the pocket of Murdoch?
I'd be very surprised if any neutral observer didn't feel the same.
Sheridan's rather petty cross-examination can't have impressed anyone.
There was also a priceless moment when Sheridan requested Kane to read out some piece of evidence, and rather patronisingly suggested she take a drink of water first as the passage he wanted her to read was quite long and her mouth might get dry.
This girl belongs in the playground, not as a member of a parliament.
Poor old Tommy (not), sounds to me like Roisie K gave him a pasting in court. However I see the witty riposte (I thought) about Tommy being the one who had a liason with a news international hack hasn't made it onto the blog. Having said that, this post is probably part of a international united left anti-sheridan cabal directed by the crypto-capitlaists of the SSP whic is being directed from an underground volcano in the bahamas.
"This girl belongs in the playground, not as a member of a parliament."
You belong in a 'spin' and 'sound-bite' section of this blog.
"There was also a priceless moment when Sheridan requested Kane to read out some piece of evidence, and rather patronisingly suggested she take a drink of water first as the passage he wanted her to read was quite long and her mouth might get dry."
What was her reaction?
LOL, the anti-Sheridan Brigade doth protest too much!. I thought the first post in the `Day 8 Morning Session` thread is pretty devastating for the prosecution witnesses, some explaining to do on that one, methinks!!!, and we were led to believe they were such good friends (not).
We the tax payers were paying Ms Kane our hard earned cash to work on our behalf, she spent her time running a betting shop in the Scottish Parliament, (did she have a licence to do that?), and her so honest!.
Great blog, will you be reporting on the body language of the witnesses as they give evidence?
Rapid eye blinking is a dead giveaway, but strangely is not picked up on by judges who hear appeals (without a jury).
Maybe the jury will notice.
Whatsy - what are you talking about - Sheridanistas on this blog? Where? I don't see any? Behind the sofa? Seriously mate, what you been smoking? It's great to have a blog that is reporting this trial in a matter-of-fact manner. Having a comment section where we can discuss aspects of the trial in a non-partisan manner is the icing on the cake. I don't even bother to read the newspapers or watch the tv coverage any more. This blog is the best!
Re: Anon1 - the patronising water bit.
Sorry, couldn't see - she was sort of turning away to battle with glasses/evidence/computer screen at that point I think.
Kane's facial expressions were well worth watching throughout - lots of eyebrow activity. There were numerous asides which don't seem to have been reported. Mostly affectionate towards Sheridan, I thought - she didn't seem to be out to get him, just to defend herself from the accusations he had made about her lying, and clearly feels hurt at how her former friend has turned out.
The whole bit about her getting into politics because of her mum, and her mum adoring Sheridan, yet going to her grave with her daughter branded a liar due to Sheridan's NoTW case was very affecting.
I agree with the comments about how Kane should never have been anywhere near the Parly, but come on - once she was there, having some humourous chat with colleagues about who was the anonymous swinger MSP is fine. Have you never had a bit of a laugh with colleagues?
To "Anon" who wrote a comment beginning "The more I read about this case the more I become convinced"
That was an interesting view and I'd like to post it, however you mentioned a couple of things within that cannot be published I'm afraid. if you could re-write it without questioning the integrity of specific groups of witnesses I'll put it up.
Thanks
JD
What makes Kane think it is relevant to this case that "she had "lost two jobs and 2 parents". Kane is constantly trying to deflect from the main points being made to her, as have others given testimony against Sheridan. Kane comes across as a very self-centered individual.
You would have thought Kane would have said, lost 2 parents and two jobs!.
Getting your priorities right there Ms Kane.
The more I read about this case the more I become convinced of things i probably can not mention due to legislation.
1. It is completely alien to the socialist movement to detail personal matters of trade union members in minutes. But in this case it appears to have happened – very bizarre. Some might argue that to dispense with such well established tradition involves consciousnesses and premeditative planning. However planned meetings or events which aim to construe something on paper (and that are subsequently kept in variety unusual secret locations) that someone or some group might later claim some kind legitimacy over for purposes related to political power are part of the well established dark side of organised religion and politics. So for example disputed, handwritten, unapproved, irregular, unofficial minute of a meeting being handed over to the state authorities as part of staged recorded television event might arguably sit nicely with machinations around the Senate and its regions of governance during the period of the Roman Empire.
2. Then we learn that two prosecution witnesses sat with George McNeilage and watched a secretly recorded video (which McNeliage claims he made) of Sheridan in a Glasgow flat. This is an interesting arrangement. McNeilage has previously publicly stated he was paid an "ironic amount" by Rupert Murdoch's News of the World for compiling this tape. Some have publicly assumed this was £300 000 - the same amount allegedly paid to Mr Sheridan by the Daily Record after he won his defamation case. At least one witnesses has also made it clear that it was in this same flat that a 'secret' meeting prior the now infamous ‘9/11' meeting was held and a pre-planned strategy to deal with Sheridan was apparently agreed.
3. It does some seem clear that SSP was becoming completely factionalised. An SSP Members Bulletin in August 2006 circulated to thousands headed "the fight for the truth" indirectly accused elements of the party (aligned with the majority of ordinary members who fully supported Sheridan) of indirectly supporting "exploitative behaviour such as paedophilia, prostitution and predatory sex". Many of Sheridan supporters argued that the approach taken by this faction’s supporters echoed the style of Rupert Murdoch's The Sun newspaper during the Liverpool Hillsborough stadium disaster when under the headline, "The Truth", it claimed that survivors were stealing money from the dead and urinating on the emergency services. These allegations were later confirmed as lies and resulted in a mass boycott of The Sun in Merseyside. Many SSP members reportedly felt that the faction’s supporters involved had openly abused their positions within the party’s executive and that the differences were now irreconcilable. This led to the formation of the Solidarity party. The faction that remained within the much reduced in size SSP even went on to claim they were "proud" of their "role in building socialist unity". Such claims seemed incongruent with reality of Scottish politics at the time.
4. It will be interesting to see how Andy Coulson performs when he comes to court and the extent to which he will repeat his approach when giving evidence to a House of Commons select committee last year, when he said he 'could not remember 'any instance of voicemail being intercepted during his six years at the paper. Channel 4 Dispatches raises an unresolved question over whether the officer who was in charge of the original investigation, the then assistant commissioner Andy Hayman, was himself a target of the News of the World. When Channel Four asked him whether his name appeared anywhere in the evidence collected by his officers, he replied: "I have never been told whether my own telephone was hacked." Hayman now works for News International.
Colin
"The more I read about this case the more I become convinced of things i probably can not mention due to legislation." - couldn't agree more, there is a LOT of things that a LOT of people would like to say, but this Contempt of Court legislation makes it feel like being stuck in a straitjacket. Having said that, the Law is the Law. And we do at least have some place to comment albeit in a roundabout, convoluted and somewhat restrictive manner.
Interesting stuff Colin. This whole murky saga does indeed stink of power, money and sex. But who has their grubby hands on the power, money and sex is the question?
"does some seem clear that SSP was becoming completely factionalised. An SSP Members Bulletin in August 2006 circulated to thousands headed "the fight for the truth" indirectly accused elements of the party (aligned with the majority of ordinary members who fully supported Sheridan)"
Oh dear, your bias is showing. Just because they called themselves the SSP Majority doesn't make it true. As for 'ordinary members' a whole load of the people who supported Tommy were members of the SWP or CWI platforms, and yet it's witnesses who are getting dirt about being factionalised.
At the end of the day it really doesn't matter what net commenters think of the witnesses, or what Andy Coulson says. All that matters is whether or not Tommy Sheridan lied in order to obtain money from the News of the World.
"All that matters is whether or not Tommy Sheridan lied in order to obtain money from the News of the World."
Considering what has happened so far?, should that not read...
All that matters is whether or not SSP members lied in order to obtain the removal of Sheridan from the SSP.
A previous jury has already decide on that one.
No, fellow, anon, that's not all that matters. If it was, then the SSP members would be the ones charged with perjury. Do you understand what is actually happening?
"No, fellow, anon, that's not all that matters. If it was, then the SSP members would be the ones charged with perjury. Do you understand what is actually happening?"
I should have answer the above in a different way, sorry.
You have to ask yourself why is Sheridan being charged with perjury?. The CPS it has been reported had no faith in bringing this case against Sheridan, it has also been reported that it was done on prussure from the police. Indeed many in the legal profession are wondering what is going on.
So, yes I do understand what is actually happening.
i have to say that some of the comments being made about Rosie are totally inapropriate and should not have passed moderation, especially as the more insulting ones also question her integrity as a witness.
the interesting thing about this blog is that most of the readers will be SSP members/ former members and the great majority of us are reading this having already made up our minds about the truth of the matter- unless the moderation becomes a bit better then it risks descending in to a bitter name calling match between anonymous people.
i would urge you all to remember than it's easy for those of us who are armchair spectators- regardless of what they say, it is harder for every single one of the witnesses.
"The CPS it has been reported "
In Scotland it is up to the indivdual Procuaror Fiscal for the area where the alleged incidents occured, in this case Edinburg,to decide if charges should be brought based on the evidence from police etc, I understand the CPS operates in England. Any reports quoting the CPS are clearly wrong.
Hello former SSP. our comments policy is here, http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/10/comment-again.html
I would say that if you have a specific comment or comments you think innaproprate then it would best to mail us at sherdiantrial@gmail.com
I have not been in court every day, but I would agree with James that Friday afternoon's session was the most dramatic yet. I thought Rosie was wiping the floor with him (although Cat and Jo did well). The best bit was when it was raised at the November 2004 executive that he might get counselling, she said "You need counselling now!". She got a laugh from the gallery at a few points including when he asked her if she had had an affair with a Sun journalist, she said "No, but you had an affair with a News of the World journalist". Other witnesses may find her a difficult act to follow.
That would matter campbell, if this was a heckling contest. But the point for the jury is that, once again, a witness struggled to explain her actions and inconsistencies. Resorting to jokes and avoiding answers to the point that the judge intervenes might feel like she is scoring points, but this is about showing incontravertable proof that, without doubt, perjury was committed. Nothing that happened on Friday looked like it advanced that argument. I am only going on reports as I wasnt there on Friday but if it was anything like Carolyn Leckie's performance the friday before I dont think it helps the prsosecution at all. It just looks like they dont want to answer the questions.
Jim M
Thanks for your reply.
Jim,in reality it doesn`t work as you say, it should, but sadly it doesn`t. The history of why the CPS was set up was to stop the police from bringing cases to court and then getting them chucked out. It was said at the time the reason was to have legal experts to make the decision and not the police. The police didn`t like this idea and have never accepted it. The police have too much power in many ways, pressure is brought from above on the CPS, it is fair to say many in the CPS think they are powerless to do anything. The police know how to pull the strings of the CPS...
http://tinyurl.com/nn7gqz
It is also sadly the same with the "The Independent Police Complaints Commission"...Not fit for purpose.
"It is also sadly the same with the "The Independent Police Complaints Commission"...Not fit for purpose."
http://tinyurl.com/yah9grk
Jim M
I should have also pointed out that the judiciary do VERY well out of any case that goes to court, guilty or innocent makes no difference to their fees, need I say more?.
Post a Comment