As was decided in court last Thursday, but only told to the jury today, Lord Bracadale has granted a motion by the defence to recall a number of the previous witnesses to put fresh questions to them. The witnesses to be recalled are:
- Barbara Scott, former SSP minute secretary
- Allison Kane, former SSP treasurer
- Allan Green, former SSP national secretary
- Colin Fox, SSP joint national spokesperson
- Duncan Rowan, a former SSP regional organiser
- Felicity Garvie, a former personal assistant to Tommy Sheridan.
- Carolyn Leckie, former MSP
- Catriona Grant, former SSP co-chair
After the conclusion of Rosie Kane's testimony today we heard from the first of these witnesses, Colin Fox. The Advocate Depute, Alex Prentice QC, formally recalled the witness but asked no questions, leaving Mr Sheridan to begin his examination.
Mr Sheridan opened by asking Mr Fox, his successor as convener of the Scottish Socialist Party, if he wished to change anything from his previous evidence to the court. He said he did not. There followed a discussion about Mr Fox's election as convener and the degree to which Mr Sheridan had supported his bid. Mr Fox stated that while Mr Sheridan had supported him he was not "particularly forthright" in public.
Mr Sheridan then asked about a car journey taken by Mr Fox back from Glasgow to Edinburgh after the "9/11" meeting. He enquired who else was in the car at the time to which he testified that, to his best recollection there was only himself and Graham McIvor who was driving the car. Mr Sheridan put it to him that Catriona Grant, Barbara Scott and Rosemary Byrne were also in the car to which Mr Fox stated was "most unlikely" as the car was not big enough. He was asked if he was party to any discussions in the car between himself and Barbara Scott to which he replied no as he did "not recall her being in the car." On the subject of Ms Scott he was shown a transcript of his testimony at the initial libel case in Edinburgh in 2006 where he stated he did not recall Barbara Scott taking minutes. He responded that he probably saw her and presumed she was as that was her role.
Mr Sheridan then continued probing what he saw as discrepancies between Mr Fox's testimony in this case and other statements he had made under oath in 2006. He was shown another transcript of his evidence where he stated he had not seen the disputed minute until a couple of months before the July 2006 trial. He said that was his recollection now. Mr Sheridan then accused Mr Fox of tying to confuse the court which he strongly and forcibly denied. Mr Sheridan then asked if Mr Fox had ever been cautioned by the police for perjury, to which he responded "of course not." The court then rose for lunch.
After the break Mr Sheridan continued to concentrate on supposed contradictions between previous testimony given by Mr Fox. On being accused of lying Mr Fox responded that the "only person telling lies here is the person charged with perjury." Mr Sheridan also asked Mr Fox if he recalled telling two people, named as Joyce Drummond and Irene Lang, that Tommy had never admitted the cupid's allegations, to which Mr Fox said he no recollection. Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that he had told the two people mentioned that there was a "plot" to get Mr Sheridan involving the Scottish Socialist Voice (the newspaper) the youth wing (SSY) and the Woman's network. This Mr Fox denied and speaking of Drummond and Lang said " They would say black was white they are so loyal to you." Mr Sheridan went on to list other people who supported his version of events and asked if he had "Svengali like powers to induce loyalty" Mr Fox said he could not speak for them but it was Mr Sheridan who had put them in that position.
There then followed a long discussion about the events of the May 28th 2006 National Council meeting, called while Alan McCombes was in prison for not disclosing documents relevant to the forthcoming libel trial. Mr Sheridan and Mr Fox disagreed vehemently about the exact nature of the vote taken at the end of that meeting, and if that vote represented defeat for the SSP executive's strategy of defiance. Mr Sheridan asked Mr Fox how he had voted that day, to which Mr Fox said he did not recall. He also said he did not recall his summing up of the meeting as his focus was to get Mr McCombes out of jail.
Mr Sheridan then went on to ask Mr Fox about the Sunday Herald article of May 28th 2006, which Mr Fox said he did not recall seeing at that time. He was asked if this article had been raised at the SSP National council of the same day, to which he again responded that he "didn't recall". Mr Sheridan expressed incredulity at that statement and had Mr Fox read a motion passed at the meeting condemning the leak and demanding the person who was the source of the story resign. Mr Fox insisted that he did not recollect that motion being passed. Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Fox if he knew the identity of the story's source, to which he replied he did not. Mr Sheridan then informed Mr Fox that the court had heard testimony that Alan McCombes was the source and if he thought it was cynical of "brave Mr McCombes staying in jail to stop the release of minutes (of the 9/11 meeting) when he had already "scuttled off to the press" with the story. Colin Fox responded that it was not something he would do but would not comment further.
The witness was then asked about a video shown to the court during his previous testimony. (see post on video below) Amongst other things he was asked if he knew if the "SSP member" who made this video was paid by the News of the World? He then asked if the SSP as a party had received or been offered any money from the video? and finally, if the SSP member involved was still in the party. Mr Fox told the court he had no idea and he "knew nothing about it."
Mr Sheridan questioned the witness about their alleged meeting in the "Beanscene" cafe in Edinburgh on the 18th of June 2006. A meeting which is the subject of a charge of "Suborning" a witness (ie Mr Fox) to give false testimony. Mr Sheridan pressed Mr Fox to be clear on the details to which Mr Fox said that he was as "sure as he could be" that the meeting happened on this date as it was his Birthday and Mr Sheridan's wedding anniversary. Mr Sheridan produced his diary which does not mention any meeting with Mr Fox, however the witness insisted it did occur.
Finally Mr Sheridan asked Mr Fox about the 9/11 executive meeting and if he recalled if the accused had mentioned anything about getting advice from the National Union of Journalists. (NUJ) Mr Fox said he did recall that. He was then asked to read from his testimony to the 2006 libel trial when he had been asked the same question and had responded " I don't remember any reference to the NUJ, I'm a member and I'd recall that." Mr Fox said that had been four years ago to which Mr Sheridan remarked that it was "amazing how much your memory has improved in the last four years." Mr Fox insisted that he had at all times told the truth to the best of his recollection and, after Mr Fox strongly denied he had ever or ever would commit perjury, Mr Sheridan finished his examination. The Advocate Depute declined the opportunity to further question Mr Fox and with that the court rose for the day.
The case continues.
Mr Sheridan then asked about a car journey taken by Mr Fox back from Glasgow to Edinburgh after the "9/11" meeting. He enquired who else was in the car at the time to which he testified that, to his best recollection there was only himself and Graham McIvor who was driving the car. Mr Sheridan put it to him that Catriona Grant, Barbara Scott and Rosemary Byrne were also in the car to which Mr Fox stated was "most unlikely" as the car was not big enough. He was asked if he was party to any discussions in the car between himself and Barbara Scott to which he replied no as he did "not recall her being in the car." On the subject of Ms Scott he was shown a transcript of his testimony at the initial libel case in Edinburgh in 2006 where he stated he did not recall Barbara Scott taking minutes. He responded that he probably saw her and presumed she was as that was her role.
Mr Sheridan then continued probing what he saw as discrepancies between Mr Fox's testimony in this case and other statements he had made under oath in 2006. He was shown another transcript of his evidence where he stated he had not seen the disputed minute until a couple of months before the July 2006 trial. He said that was his recollection now. Mr Sheridan then accused Mr Fox of tying to confuse the court which he strongly and forcibly denied. Mr Sheridan then asked if Mr Fox had ever been cautioned by the police for perjury, to which he responded "of course not." The court then rose for lunch.
After the break Mr Sheridan continued to concentrate on supposed contradictions between previous testimony given by Mr Fox. On being accused of lying Mr Fox responded that the "only person telling lies here is the person charged with perjury." Mr Sheridan also asked Mr Fox if he recalled telling two people, named as Joyce Drummond and Irene Lang, that Tommy had never admitted the cupid's allegations, to which Mr Fox said he no recollection. Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that he had told the two people mentioned that there was a "plot" to get Mr Sheridan involving the Scottish Socialist Voice (the newspaper) the youth wing (SSY) and the Woman's network. This Mr Fox denied and speaking of Drummond and Lang said " They would say black was white they are so loyal to you." Mr Sheridan went on to list other people who supported his version of events and asked if he had "Svengali like powers to induce loyalty" Mr Fox said he could not speak for them but it was Mr Sheridan who had put them in that position.
There then followed a long discussion about the events of the May 28th 2006 National Council meeting, called while Alan McCombes was in prison for not disclosing documents relevant to the forthcoming libel trial. Mr Sheridan and Mr Fox disagreed vehemently about the exact nature of the vote taken at the end of that meeting, and if that vote represented defeat for the SSP executive's strategy of defiance. Mr Sheridan asked Mr Fox how he had voted that day, to which Mr Fox said he did not recall. He also said he did not recall his summing up of the meeting as his focus was to get Mr McCombes out of jail.
Mr Sheridan then went on to ask Mr Fox about the Sunday Herald article of May 28th 2006, which Mr Fox said he did not recall seeing at that time. He was asked if this article had been raised at the SSP National council of the same day, to which he again responded that he "didn't recall". Mr Sheridan expressed incredulity at that statement and had Mr Fox read a motion passed at the meeting condemning the leak and demanding the person who was the source of the story resign. Mr Fox insisted that he did not recollect that motion being passed. Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Fox if he knew the identity of the story's source, to which he replied he did not. Mr Sheridan then informed Mr Fox that the court had heard testimony that Alan McCombes was the source and if he thought it was cynical of "brave Mr McCombes staying in jail to stop the release of minutes (of the 9/11 meeting) when he had already "scuttled off to the press" with the story. Colin Fox responded that it was not something he would do but would not comment further.
The witness was then asked about a video shown to the court during his previous testimony. (see post on video below) Amongst other things he was asked if he knew if the "SSP member" who made this video was paid by the News of the World? He then asked if the SSP as a party had received or been offered any money from the video? and finally, if the SSP member involved was still in the party. Mr Fox told the court he had no idea and he "knew nothing about it."
Mr Sheridan questioned the witness about their alleged meeting in the "Beanscene" cafe in Edinburgh on the 18th of June 2006. A meeting which is the subject of a charge of "Suborning" a witness (ie Mr Fox) to give false testimony. Mr Sheridan pressed Mr Fox to be clear on the details to which Mr Fox said that he was as "sure as he could be" that the meeting happened on this date as it was his Birthday and Mr Sheridan's wedding anniversary. Mr Sheridan produced his diary which does not mention any meeting with Mr Fox, however the witness insisted it did occur.
Finally Mr Sheridan asked Mr Fox about the 9/11 executive meeting and if he recalled if the accused had mentioned anything about getting advice from the National Union of Journalists. (NUJ) Mr Fox said he did recall that. He was then asked to read from his testimony to the 2006 libel trial when he had been asked the same question and had responded " I don't remember any reference to the NUJ, I'm a member and I'd recall that." Mr Fox said that had been four years ago to which Mr Sheridan remarked that it was "amazing how much your memory has improved in the last four years." Mr Fox insisted that he had at all times told the truth to the best of his recollection and, after Mr Fox strongly denied he had ever or ever would commit perjury, Mr Sheridan finished his examination. The Advocate Depute declined the opportunity to further question Mr Fox and with that the court rose for the day.
The case continues.
67 comments:
Well, that was a very heated afternoon.
TS definitely scored a few points with Fox's repeated "as far as I can recall" comments. He seemed reluctant to say definitively that anything definitely happened, and was drawing some exasperated sighs from the gallery.
At one point it looked like TS had landed a knockout blow when CF testified about the events and vote at the volcanic meeting where there was the big vote in support of the strategy of defiance - initially, CF's testimony seemed totally contradictory to the evidence of the meeting minutes (only "draft" minutes mind, like the other draft minutes TS was so keen to disregard when they mentioned him confessing to the Swingers' Club). There was a very long pause as CF apparently blanked and could not explain the discrepancy, but then came back with an eventually reasonable explanation. TS still won that little encounter in my opinion, but CF saved what could have been a serious defeat on those minutes.
The whole defence approach on the Beanscene meeting had me baffled and didn't seem to go anywhere. I felt as if TS was expecting CF to let something slip that he was ready to pounce on but it never happened. Or maybe it was mostly covered during CF's previous testimony with Anne Scott QC.
An especially interesting moment was when TS was pressing an equivocal CF to answer a question definitively "beyond all reasonable doubt". The advocate depute objected to this and the judge agreed that it was up to the jury to decide on all "beyond all reasonable doubt" questions. I thought this showed a large part of the defence strategy of establishing slight but reasonable doubt of prosecution witness testimony by getting into the extremely fine detail of events to find discrepancies between the witnesses' recall of events.
I think I'm going to stop reading the comments from now on. They're boring as hell, and most have the stench of agenda about them. It's bordering on 'spam'.
Another point regarding the "Tape" - in response to a question on this morning's session.
The Tape was mentioned today in court - TS quizzed CF on his opinion of the contents of the tape - CF stated the tape seemed "bona fide", prompting TS to cast doubt on CF's technical ability to ascertain whether the tape was "bona fide". This was quite a nasty little exchange that showed the antipathy between the two men.
TS then tried to lure CF into denouncing anyone who would deal with or accept money from the NoTW, which, after denouncing the NoTW and both men asserting their credentials as "good socialists" (a phrase used frequently to the point of tedium today), CF declined to condemn George McNeilage if he was paid by the NoTW as he himself had also been paid for columns in the NoTW, despite condemning what they stood for.
It would really help if people could use some sort of pseudonym rather than "Anonymous" when posting. Just click the Name/URL radio button and type whatever name you like in there.
Thanks for those two excellent Good observations "whatsy"
There may have been no "knockout blow" but in my opinion Colin Fox was by far the best witness the prosecution had the first time round, he was not as impressive today because of, as you say, the large number of "can't recall" comments and the errors if fact (such as saying Alan McCombes was in prison for 10 days when it was three)
I agree, Whatsy, it's the oldest trick in the book... sowing (or trying to) seeds of doubt, by relying on very small, insignificant details: "Come, come MsK, surely you can remember what colour knickers you were wearing on the night of the pivotal 9/11 meeting",,, "sorry, I really can't remember, you've got me all flustered.".,,, "just answer the question"... that's how it comes over - in my opinion.
"can't recall", "to the best of my recollection" never sounds good... to non committal, like hedging your bets cos you don't know what you are going to get asked next... in my opinion
Re: Anonymous (grrr)
"in my opinion Colin Fox was by far the best witness the prosecution had the first time round, he was not as impressive today"
Interesting to note that, as I wasn't there for Fox Round 1. I think I started to understand today why TS sacked his counsel, or maybe less understand it as think it may not be the maddest idea he's ever had.
There was no prosecution first time round, Tommy Sheridan was the bringer of a case between him and the NOTW. It was not the Crown vs Tommy, as this is (the Crown being the instigator), it was Tommy vs NOTW (Tommy being the instigator)
Re: Anonymous again
"There was no prosecution first time round, Tommy Sheridan was the bringer of a case between him and the NOTW. It was not the Crown vs Tommy, as this is (the Crown being the instigator), it was Tommy vs NOTW (Tommy being the instigator)"
If that's aimed at my last comment, I meant Fox Round 1 in this trial when Maggie Scott was his QC, rather than the civil case.
Did anyone else notice the lawyer next to Prentice (in the wig) wincing at CF's "can't recall"s?
fair point, anonymous, it was tommy that set the whole ball rolling when tommy "took on" the now - lest we forget
On Friday when Rosie Kane was on the stand I did notice that at one point all three prosecution lawyers were doing the old Facepalm
@ whatsy re: alex prentice qc and the reason that he doesn't wear a wig. alex prentice is not an advocate (member of the faculty of advocates)) i.e he has never been "called to the bar" - he is a solicitor-advocate which confers "rights of audience" on him in the high court.
For Tommy or against him the general consensus was Maggie Scott was not up to the job.
"tommy "took on" the now - lest we forget"
I hate to point out the bleeding obvious, but he didn`t have much choice, did he!. A LOT was at stake for him. Where do I begin?.
I noticed that too, James, the prosecution lawyers don't appear to be happy bunnies. but as they say, it's early days, very early days in fact for this trial.
I've noticed a number of court officials wincing at Sheridan's questions, it's got nowt to do with anything, so what's your point caller? Oh, trying to discredit witnesses, I get it. Maybe we should just stick to the words that have been recorded in court rather than biased interpretations of what people's facial expressions might have meant?
re-M. Scott QC "not being up to the job".
It's quite possible he took the decision to represent himself on his QC's advice!
Talking about QCs - what's happened to Paul McBride QC, haven't head a peep out of him or will he not show his face until the evidence against Gail is led?
Re Another Anonymous:
"I've noticed a number of court officials wincing at Sheridan's questions, it's got nowt to do with anything, so what's your point caller? Oh, trying to discredit witnesses, I get it. Maybe we should just stick to the words that have been recorded in court rather than biased interpretations of what people's facial expressions might have meant?"
I think you've got several wrong ends of the stick there.
It's just an observation of what is happening in court, and I really don't think any such comments on this blogpost could be considered biased. For once, the comments so for on this afternoon seem fairly reasonable.
As a courtroom newbie, I think the reactions of those most experienced in the courtroom is well worth observing and commenting on.
Re: "It's quite possible he took the decision to represent himself on his QC's advice! "
Ha! Good point! I had not considered that.
If anyone is looking for "bias", they should go and read a "murdoch empire" rag.
Ha! Good point! I had not considered that. - like when me driving instructor said: sorry, lindsay, i just can't teach you to drive.
whatsy, re the beanscene thing, i think Sheridan was trying to establish that Fox knew 'definitely beyond doubt' now as a comparison to his police statement where he said he 'thinks' or 'thought', that seemed to be a theme, establishing that Fox was more sure about his new version of events than he was four years ago.
I would think that we must have more to see about the charge of subornation. It wouldn't have made it to court if it was just a police statement from one person against a denial from another.
On Kane, I didnt see winces from the prosecution but I thought it significant that Prentice didnt get Kane back up to reiterate her accusations and confirm she was telling the truth. That would be normal practice for the prosecution to end with each of their witnesses stating their case again.
I think she was as bad a prosecution witness as you can get and that Prentice might be hoping he can get through the SSP witnesses and on to other aspects of the case as soon as possible.
I think the SSP/minutes thing is getting muddier rather than clearer and that would suit the defence more than the prosecution, IMHO.
The other aspects, the tape, the swingers party etc, might be a better field for the prosecution at this stage. Not that I am suggesting these things are clearer evidence, just that they could hardly be muddier than what we have heard so far.
Tommy should wear a wig in court, he would look quite fetching in horsehair.
Tommy should wear a wig in court, he would look quite fetching in horsehair. lol Tommy can't wear a wig in court... he's never been "called to the bar" - he's teetotal!
"Prentice might be hoping he can get through the SSP witnesses and on to other aspects of the case as soon as possible." - that's my take, Prentice MUST have something else up his sleeve. Otherwise, this whole farce is just ridiculous.
Re: Victor English
re the beanscene thing, i think Sheridan was trying to establish that Fox knew 'definitely beyond doubt' now as a comparison to his police statement where he said he 'thinks' or 'thought', that seemed to be a theme, establishing that Fox was more sure about his new version of events than he was four years ago.Ah, you're right there, he made that point rather well I thought. He did make a big deal about how important the Beanscene meeting was to his case in his preamble, then didn't do much with it. I still expected him to hit upon something a bit more substantive - especially during that stuff about staying in a hotel and driving his sister's car to Haymarket or something, but maybe the "memory getting better" thing was all there was.
On Kane, I didnt see winces from the prosecution but I thought it significant that Prentice didnt get Kane back up to reiterate her accusations and confirm she was telling the truth. That would be normal practice for the prosecution to end with each of their witnesses stating their case again.
I think she was as bad a prosecution witness as you can getThat's interesting, as I went in expecting to find her useless and was quite impressed by her. I assumed Prentice's not re-questioning her was due to her saying everything she had to say during cross-examination, and it would have been hugely repetitious. She did seem to get a lot of latitude for elaboration in her answers from the court, as did TS in his statements/questions to her.
Plus, as I thought she clearly got the better of TS, it was better to let that hang in the air as the last memory of her in court.
as cunning as a fox - look at those sleekit eyes. well... in my opinion.
"as cunning as a fox - look at those sleekit eyes. well... in my opinion." lol Well, that's the prosecution case blown. Alex Prentice may as well pack up and go home.
Re: Alex Prentice may as well pack up and go home.
They all like to go home early it seems - start after 10, quit at 3:15 with several breaks and a full hour for lunch.
Quitting at 3:15 today "in the interests of time"!
Quitting at 3:15 today "in the interests of time"! - don't forget that they knock off early on Friday. Small wonder these trials drag on for forever and a day.
Mr Prentice has a big witness tomorrow whom I believe he told the jury was "flying in from overseas" not that anyone should speculate on who that might be I hasten to add.
Re Jim M - "Maggie Scott not up to the job".
Re Victor English's comments on Alex Prentice QC not re-examining Kane.
Re Starting at 10 and finishing at 3.15
Re Paul McBride QC's silence
Why do some people on this blog try to second guess professional lawyers?
And yes, I will remain anonymous.
Fox said
"the car was not big enough"
Anyone know the make of the car?. My little Polo can get five people in.
Ah-ha, good ole Tommy cooking with gas today, at least I think that was the smell. Thank goodness he's got rid of the useless professional QC (what did the hell she know anyway?), the news of the world conspirators conspired to set Tommy up with her to foil his noble struggle (probably). Today though Tommy showed that the murdochian impostors of the discredited SSP and their fanatical anti-tommy running dog conspirators are conspiratorial conspirers for all to see. Er,.....
Anonymous said...
Fox said
"the car was not big enough"
My little Polo can get five people in.
the size of these peoples heads probably has something to do with that.
This blog has been very informative. Thanks James for giving a very balanced view to the daily events. For those of us unable to access the court, it helps to read this account
"running dog conspirators"
Some of the posts on here are getting downright silly!.
Day 9 in the Big Brother House .....
Sir Hon. Judge decides that it is more prudent a theme of innocent until proven guilty in his court thus TS is able to conduct his defence outside the dock. After convincing the court room that she was TS new best friend, Ms Kane allegedly spoke about the evictions urging fellow house mates to evict TS from the BB house. Summoned to the diary room for this breach of BB rules Ms Cane allegedly said her motive for this was to rescue us from this broken cog in the well oiled machine of socialism. BB had to dismiss Ms Cane who curtsied as she packed her cape and stockings. Cane was replaced by Mr Fox who was late on arrival to the BB house. when asked to account for his alleged lateness said he said he suffers from the extremely rare condition of Benjamin Buttonitus - Ask him in 3 years time and he would be able to tell you his exact whereabouts today but ask him today ......
Andy
I agree it is sad to see TS "shred what is left of his reputation."
But I disagree with your reference to a "useless professional QC".
"Socialism", as I understand it, is more than anything else a philosophical and sociological, and yet highly political, approach to how a "state" should re-d-distribute the wealth of the "state", as "earned" by the masses producing the "commodity", which will then, it was hoped by Marx, would then enlighten the "masses" to their own contribution to the community of "comrades" (I use the word advisedly).
If, as I understand the concept, the means of production are identified, then the follow-through should mean that the ends of production are met by the product - effectively coming out the other end.
What, then, is this trial going to produce?
Perhaps the truth. Or, as one commentator recognises, not this trial but perhaps the appeal, and re-trial.
Where does this leave socialism? I remember when comrade meant comrade, and communism was an issue to be considered with Marx i mind. Don't. DON'T let go of the ideal, just because of a trial.
Re Anon post 12:24 am
I am not an SSP supporter. I don't actually support anyone, but myself. And, I will not declare my support for either "TS", the "Crown", or any bloggers here.
I am my own person. And, I am proud of that. I agree with a great deal of what Marx and Hegel said, but that is my own personal view.
To "yes I will remain anonymous"
What's wrong with "second-guessing" professionals. But, I don't think I was doing that. The prosecution don't usually want a jury's last memory of a witness to be responding to the defence. Its usual to get them back up for a short time just to re-state their position clearly "yes i...." "No i am not lying to the jury". I don't think you can take all of the disparate points you highlight and group them as a theme of the debate.
And, you can be anonymous but still use an identity for the purposes of being able to communicate points. There are too many anons here to make sense of the thread.
To Whatsy, I agree Sheridan seemed to stop short re the beanscene thing, we will probably hear more about that when he is in the witness stand. My point was that the prosecution must have more on this, not Sheridan. We have still to see evidence on this. There must be other corroborating evidence or it simple wouldnt have made it to court. The other charge we have (swingers party) sees allegations of confessions in one meeting, a tape that alleges confession to the confession at that meeting, witnesses who will say they were at the club with sheridan etc.
The subornation charge will be the same, all we have so far is Fox's statement, that wouldnt make it past a PF never mind into a court. So there will be other stuff to come on this, then we will see more about where Sheridan was going with his story.
Victor
Thank you for your post. I've now tried to delineate me from the other "anons".
I agree that my post was "disparate". My answer: so what? BUT, with all due respect to you, I do recognise a fellow traveller on the litigation road.
One question: What does OQTM mean to you?
If you can answer that, then you gain even more respect than I have for you now.
James Doleman
You missed one at 12:10 AM
Sorry, Victor, my mistake. I should have said "TOQTM". Missed out the first T. I'm not trying to make it a hard question, or "Q", but I did make a mistake in the post which I apologise for.
Now, see if you can get it. It is, imo, a relevant issue in the current trial.
Tractacus,
Are you serious? You want me to answer a question to earn your respect? I suggest that your Tractacus is more tractacus coislinianus than spinoza!
I didn't say that you're post was disparate, you're point was clear, the examples were disparate so I challeneged the idea that ther was a developing theme of second-guessing professionals in this thread.
The examples came from different people for differing reasons.
I have been a socialist for 60yrs, and reading what I have today, i am on the verge of calling it a day.
Before this case, socialism was on its belly. Today I think the axe came down on its head.
One question: What does OQTM mean to you? - this isn't a pub quiz. btw what does OQTM mean?
Will be interesting to hear from penman, smith, byrne, and mciver. Very interesting.
What's this about "disparate" comments! This is just random comments on a blog - not a Tolstoy novel.
Exactly Tolstoy! I suspect those who are nit-picking over words are trying to deflect from the debate. They are probably from one of the political groups involved who would rather we didn't discuss points.
Although, there does seem to be as many characters as a Tolstoy novel, and a more complicated plot.
Re tractatus
Re Jim M - "Maggie Scott not up to the job".
Re Victor English's comments on Alex Prentice QC not re-examining Kane.
Re Starting at 10 and finishing at 3.15
Re Paul McBride QC's silence
Why do some people on this blog try to second guess professional lawyers? What is the problem with doing that? We're likely never to get an explanation of why a lawyer does some things in court, and the subsequent proceedings in court may not clarify why, for example, Prentice didn't question Kane before she was free to go. I thought it was an interesting element to discuss, and I saw a different perspective from Victor on the matter.
Hell, even the initially dubious comment about Maggie Scott not being up to the job elicited an interesting alternative explanation as to why TS is representing himself.
Lawyers may be very clever and highly qualified, but they're not infallible.
It's a blog - if we can't discuss this sort of thing and it's not sub judice, what would you rather discuss?
'on Alex Prentice QC not re-examining Kane.'
Re-examination of a witness is only allowed in respect of fresh evidence elicited in cross examination which was not brought out in the original examination. It can't be used simply to restate what was previously said just to get the last word on the subject.
hard case
Well said. That was my point about not second guessing professional lawyers.
And Whatsy, I do agree, it's a blog and of course everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Victor, you've turned what I meant as a compliment into me trying to point score. "The one question too many", is what it means.
To get back to Colin Fox’s statements in court I am extremely disappointed he said that Tommy was not ‘particularly forthright’ in publically supporting him in the convenor ship election. Anyone like me who attended this conference, knows full well that this is blatantly untrue and that Tommy gave Colin his full backing in this election publically and during the conference and sincerely celebrated his win afterwards.
I am also completely amazed that Colin stated that he cannot recollect the motion calling for the resignation of the person responsible for the Sunday Herald article at the 28th May NC meeting. As the mover of the emergency motion from the Inverness branch at that meeting no-one could forget the time wasting by the anti Tommy factions who did everything they could to try and stop the motion being heard. To say he cannot recall the motion being passed is beyond belief. I can assure you that anyone attending that meeting would never forget it.
Hard Case, Yes, but in reality there is almost always that chance in any cross-examination that opens up the opportunity to re-examine. In this case, Sheridan had led the jury so far away from Kane's original assertions, and she herself had gone off on such tangents that it would have been better, IMHO, for Prentice to bring the jury back to the point where he started.
I didn't question Prentice not re-examining Fox and wouldnt have been too surprised if he didn't re-examine the re-called witnesses.
I dont think the idea that it was a question too many applies here. By the end of Sheridans cross-examination Kane seemed, IMHO, to be accusing Sheridan of being mad and on a crazed mission to destroy the SSP. Kane's role was to bear witness to him confessing at a meeting. I'm surprised that Prentice didnt want to re-examine here to bring the jury back to the point.
However Tractacus, now that you are back making points and moved on from whataver quiz or game you thought we were playing, your QTM might be a better answer to Whatsy's point about Sheridan seeming to stop short with Fox on one particular issue than my explanation.
I dont envy the jury, or the person who looks after the comments on this blog.
Re: Anne
I am also completely amazed that Colin stated that he cannot recollect the motion... anyone attending that meeting would never forget it. I was amazed by that too. I wasn't at the meeting, but from what I've heard in court it sounded like it was unforgettable.
The only explanation I can think of was that Fox was utterly bewildered during the meeting and lost control of what was going on.
Otherwise, I find it incredible.
@ Victor English - I couldn't agree with you more.
Whatsy - Colin co-chaired the meeting and I cannot understand why he denies remembering the outcome. There was a vote on the motion and how he cannot remember the result and the whole heated and passionate debate is beyond me. I see no reason for him to lie about it. The meeting was obviously discussed in depth afterwards by everyone on both sides of the debate - how could he possible forget that. Like you I find it incredible.
Anne MacLeod
Thanks for putting that info on. I agree with you 100%, it`s incredible.
Susanne, yea right!?!
Yours
Danial
Post a Comment