 |
| Katrine Trolle outside Court, pic by AP |
Due to a family commitment I was unable to attend court this morning, I have spoken to some people who were there this morning and got their accounts, which I will collate and post later. If any readers were in court this morning I'd be grateful if they could share their impressions either in the comments below or by email to sheridantrial@gmail.com. Meanwhile here is a link to the BBC Report of this morning's events.
Court resumed after lunch and Mr Sheridan continued his cross examination of Katrine Trolle. He began by asking her about an email she sent to police, in 2007, which contains this paragraph; "I told the Lawyer I will not be good at the trial, he said he would think of something." Ms Trolle then confirmed that the Lawyer she referred to in the email was Kenneth Lang a lawyer acting on behalf of News International (owners of the News of the World) Mr Sheridan then asked if the police had ever discussed Mr Lang with her, she did not recall and if she still had the emails between her and Mr Lang to which she replied "no." Mr Sheridan then reminded the witness of her previous assertion that she wanted "nothing to do with the News of the World (NotW) to which she resplied that she drew a distinction between the newspaper and the Lawyers employed by them.
Mr Sheidan then asked "how on earth" a Lawyer from the NotW would know there was to be a trial when he himself had not even been charged with any offence until the 16th December 2007. The witness said she did not know. Mr Sheridan then asked if Grant (Grant Wilson a police officer Ms Trolle was in contact with in his capacity as an investigating officer in the case) had told her there would be a trial to which Ms Trolle replied he "may have done."
The witness was then asked if she agrees that if a multi-national corporation wanted to to give someone money that they could "disguise" that by, for example using a foreign bank account or "paying for trips"? to which she said they possibly could. She was also asked about being put up in a luxury hotel in Edinburgh by News International. The witness again denied she had ever been offered or taken any payment for her story. Mr Sheridan told that other crown witnesses had taken money from the NotW and there was a "pattern" The witness however again insisted she had not taken a "single penny."
Mr Sheridan then asked Ms Trolle if she recognised the name Ryan Sloane, to which she said she did not think she did. Mr Sheridan told the witness that Mr Sloan was a solicitor employed by his Lawyer Aamer Anwar and that he had visited her home in Elsinor in Denmark to take a statement from her in August 2009. She was asked if she had said to Mr Sloan that she didn't think she had a choice about going back to Glasgow to testify and agreed that he had not made any comment about this and moved on. Mr Sheridan then showed the court a letter, from the procurator fiscal informing Ryan Sloan that Katrine Trolle had contacted their office by email and complained that he had told her twice that "she did not have to attend the trial." Mr Sheridan pointed out to the witness that if this had been true it could have lead to serious charges of suborning a witness and contempt of court. When Mr Sheridan asked the witness if she now remembered the incident now she said she did.
Mr Sheridan informed the court that after an investigation it was decided to take no further action against Mr Sloan. He then put it to Ms Trolle that Mr Sloan was a "young solicitor whose career could have been ruined by your false accusation." He then said to Ms Trolle "you do not care who you hurt or who you destroy, and with that ended his examination and returned to the dock.
The advocate Depute, Alex Prentice QC, then briefly re-examined Ms Trolle. Ms Trolle told the court that she did not know her accusation against Mr Sloan was such a serious issue and that she had "just wanted to be kept informed." It was also suggested to her that Kenneth Lang's discussion of a "trial" could refer to the NotW's appeal against the verdict in the 2006 libel case, to which she agreed. He also asked her about photographs shown to her by the NoTW's lawyers, including one of a supposed eyewitness to Mr Sheridan being present at the Cupids club in Manchester. She said that she had, in her earlier testimony, described these people from memory and that she had only been shown photographs of these potential witnesses of which she "mostly remembered" one that showed the "caucasian woman on a fishing boat. This lady was further described, by Mr Prentice's as "not dressed" on the photo, a statement with which concurred.
Finally Mr Prentice asked again if Ms Trolle had recieved any money for her story, to which she repeated she had not. Mr Prentice also asked the witness about a recent long holday she had taken and how she had paid for it, to which she responded that she had funded it out of the sale of her house in Dundee. Ms Trolle was then allowed to step down from the witness box and the court adjourned until tomorrow morning,
79 comments:
bit of a typo James, it's Ryan Sloan NOT Ryan Scott.
re typo: unless there is a ryan scott who works for aamer anwar - ryan sloan is not young, he is middle-aged.
Thanks anon, I don't know where I got Scott from!
you're welcome!
"Mr Sheidan then asked "how on earth" a Lawyer from the NotW would know there was to be a trial when he himself had not even been charged with any offence until the 16th December 2007."
And then this!
"Mr Sheridan then asked if Grant (Grant Wilson a police officer Ms Trolle was in contact with in his capacity as an investigating officer in the case) had told her there would be a trial to which Ms Trolle replied he "may have done."
BEFORE the CPS had made a decision, they KNEW!!!. How does that one work??????.
"may have done" - translation - "he did"
"BEFORE the CPS had made a decision, they KNEW!!!. How does that one work??????." Translation: they had ALREADY made a decision to prosecute, nothing unusual in that, in that the ACCUSED is ALWAYS the LAST to know. Even down to minor details, such as a change of trial diets, the accused is always kept in the dark for as long as possible.
TS really means the day that he received the Indictment - a decision to prosecute will have been taken long before that and all interested parties (except the accused) will have been informed when that decision was known.
-6.21 Thanks for your translation which is another contempt of court, published by James Doleman.
I'd imagine police officer is going to have a fair idea if an investigation, her or she is working on, is going to go to trial or not.
What's this about the NOTW paying for her hotel and travel costs to come to the trial? She was called by the NOTW as a witness. Would it not be a bit weird if they refused to pay her costs for coming to Scotland?
"emails between her and Mr Lang to which she replied "no."
They can be recovered as far as I know?. I am almost sure they can.
"-6.21 Thanks for your translation which is another contempt of court, published by James Doleman." - rubbish. "may have done" is just an euphemism like "not really", we all know what it means. No change there, buddy!
"Translation: they had ALREADY made a decision to prosecute,"
They couldn`t have. The case at that stage, hadn`t been presented to the CPS to make a decision.
"They couldn`t have. The case at that stage, hadn`t been presented to the CPS to make a decision." - it was a "done deal" as they say, already sewn up on the golf course.
-6.34. James Doleman may be happy to publish your contempt of court. But the fact is that it is not for anyone to say what a witness's evidence is a "euphemism" for.
The way they knew is because it was absolutely plain what was going to happen as soon as Tommy engaged in the mad cap scheme of suing the NotW. He was warned time and again by friends and comrades about the situation he would find himself in, advice he not only chose to ignore, but instead decided to go to war with those who were stating the obvious.
" fair idea if an investigation, her or she is working on, is going to go to trial or not."
She said
"I will not be good at the trial"
Not
I will not be good if there is a trial.
"But the fact is that it is not for anyone to say what a witness's evidence is a "euphemism" for." - nonsense, I was in court buddy, she even said it in that playful, teasing way, we all knew what she meant. Go and take your contempt of court bollocks back to the murdoch empire where it belongs. Pathetic!
She said
"I will not be good at the trial"
That's referring to the first trial. She said that to the NOTW lawyer.
The point in question is whether or not there would be a second trial, the criminal trial. This one!
Hello anon, we have a comments policy which allows complaints about specific comments, if you do have any concerns please email us.
"He was warned time and again by friends and comrades"
"friends and comrades" LOL.
"That's referring to the first trial. She said that to the NOTW lawyer." - but it wasn't a trial, Jessica, it was a Defamation Action.
Just watched Katrine Trolle on Reporting Scotland - she was actually posing for the cameras kissing her boyfriend.
And she says she does not want the publicity that this case is bringing her...
In keeping with the smartarse tone of a lot of the comments here, I feel I should point out there is no such thing as CPS in Scotland- its the Procurator Fiscal/Crown Office who decide whether to pursue a prosecution or not.
"its the Procurator Fiscal/Crown Office who decide whether to pursue a prosecution or not." - but in consultation with the Police. It's the Procurator Fiscal/Crown Office that directs the investigation.
And she says she does not want the publicity that this case is bringing her... she is enjoying the attention all right Katrine Trolle... no doubt about that.
of course- just correcting the CPS thing.
The real news today was this meeting between a police officer, on his own, a journalist and Trolle in a Glasgow flat, months before the PF has decided to proceed and 6 months before sheridan is even interviewed. They are discussing the 'trial' and having coffee and donuts.
Also, it's inconceivable that a lawyer would refer to a civil proof as a trial.
James, there has been nothing even approaching contempt of court so far on your blog, remember, although I cannot go into details as jury were not present, the ruling re previous discussions on contempt last Monday. There is a clear guideline in this case as to what is acceptable to the trial judge. Nothing on this site comes even close to the limits established by press that has already been allowed.
Also, look at comments in the press re the Sheridans. As they are also witnesses anything that has been establsihed as acceptable in comments about the couple give a broader guideline as to what is acceptable.
Ignore them as it is clearly people who are trying to block the evidence they dont want people to discuss.
"of course- just correcting the CPS thing." - it's because too many people are watching too many English-based detective dramas, they should be sticking to quality home-grown productions instead.
Let's see if we can really tear katrine to shreds, eh guys?
Nice one.
I notice that Tommy didn't contradict her description of his bedroom, of the positioning of the wedding photo...
I notice, too, that Gail's reaction to these "lies" was not righteous anger but distress. How very telling.
Taggart
I stand corrected. I have been away from home far too long, methinks.
"of the positioning of the wedding photo..." oh, come of it. I was positioned on say the dressing table... do you think that they Sheridan's hide their wedding photo under the bed. Must try harder, anonymous.
"I notice that Tommy didn't contradict her description of his bedroom, of the positioning of the wedding photo..."... and people move their furniture about all the time their trinkets about, there would have been no point in Tommy wasting his time going down this road
how to you know that Gail wasn't seething inside, boiling with anger? because that's how it looked to me - what's your point caller?
It is not my intention to defend every detail of the police investigation. However I feel I should point out that a lot of people realised almost immediately after the civil trial that there was the serious possibility that TS would end up facing criminal charges, so it's hardly surprising that some people were informally talking about a trial at the time in question. TS really is clutching at straws here.
"I notice, too, that Gail's reaction to these "lies" was not righteous anger but distress. How very telling."
It tells me that Gail was distressed by the thought that even what her bedroom looked like was being discussed in public - this must all be a horrible experience for her to have to sit through.
...I assume that's what you meant by your comment.
Campbell McGregor, its not ordinary people that are using these words, is it!!!. It is the legal profession and the police. Try to keep up, please.
TS really is clutching at straws here. - really! I respect your opinion Campbell McGregor, but Tommy isn't clutching at anything, he is on trial and defending himself against the charges to his best ability. We haven't even heard all the evidence that is to be presented. I'm sorry, but "clutching" at anything just doesn't come into it.
'What's this about the NOTW paying for her hotel and travel costs to come to the trial? She was called by the NOTW as a witness. Would it not be a bit weird if they refused to pay her costs for coming to Scotland?'
My understanding was that during the defimation trial she was still living in Scotland! It is interesting the she, and a few others, were put up in a 5 star hotel during the 2006 action and that flights were arranged to get others back to give evidence for the Defimation case and to get others away as soon as they had given their evidence.
For someone to say that they were terrified and anxious about giving evidence the public display was in total contadiction to this.
Wooooooah haven't read the whole thing yet but fairly noticeable mistake at the start - katrine's email didn't say she 'wouldn't be good at the trial', it said 'kenneth the (notw) lawyer said it wouldn't be good if I wasn't able to be at the trial (because she was travelling) but he would try to think of something' - fairly misleading (though I'm sure honest) mistake!
Hello anon, I've rechecked my notes and that is what I have, you may well be right though and I'll check tomorrow.
I don't think though, with respect that is changes the point. The intent of the defence question was to show that Ms Trolle that she had been discussing a "trial" with the NOTW Lawyer, which is still true in either version.
But as I said I'll check tomorrow,
all the best
J
Activist and typist, surely?
Two further errors for correction - tommy Sheridan did not say that Ryan sloane had been cleared of any misconduct, he said the matter had been dropped, which simply means it wasn't pursued and no conclusion was drawn on mr sloane's behaviour either way.
Also, katrine trolle did not say she had only been shown one picture of the 4 aforementioned potential cupids/afterparty witnesses, she just said the only one she could remember the photo of was of one of them
Thanks James for your reply, was just concerned that it seemed to imply the witness felt she was a weak witness which isn't true, the words 'not good' referred to something entirely different
" tommy Sheridan did not say that Ryan sloane had been cleared of any misconduct, he said the matter had been dropped,"
iirc he said something along the lines of "no further action" so I'd say that either cleared or drop work. you could not just say "dropped" because that could imply it was considered unimportant and not investigated, which I doubt was the case.
On the photos she said "she mostly remembers one photo" so I'll give you that one and correct it.
Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated.
No further action is NOT the same as cleared. It is not enough for you to doubt something is the case. You need to trade in facts.
With respect again it appears we will be hearing from the witness directly, so I think we can wait till then to tie down exactly what happened. But I'll rephrase it
By way of a minor correction; there are only four male solicitors in Scotland with the surname Lang. The Kenneth Lang referred to therefore appears to be a partner in Mellicks, Glasgow. While they may well have been instructed by News International, and had their fees paid by N. I., he was not "employed" by the News of the World, although he may well have been working on their appeal in 2007.
The reference to "trial" in 2007 appears to emanate from Miss Trolle, not Mr. Lang. As the decision to indict Mr and Mrs Sheridan was not made until 2009, but the police investigation began in October 2006, it seems feasible that any reference to "trial" was purely hypothetical.
Good point on "employed" thing voice of reason, I've changed that to "Kenneth Lang a lawyer acting on behalf by News International"
"The reference to "trial" in 2007 appears to emanate from Miss Trolle, not Mr. Lang."
What made her say that?. She would not have said it unless she had been told it. If you read it again Mr. Lang does not correct her, he would have, would he not?, "he said he would think of something".
5 star hotel - yeah, Balmoral in Edinburgh - 5-star unadulterated luxury. why not book her a room in the travelodge if it was just for utility.
Anyone remember the name of the hotel she stayed at? I really should have written that down... something like Civitas (I know that's something else, but it was not The Balmoral).
TS didn't comment on the luxury of the hotel, so I assumed it wasn't anywhere fancy, but I could be wrong.
I thought it reasonable that the NotW paid for it & some expenses, given she was a witness for their libel defence. I'd be annoyed if I had to travel every day to Dundee in rush hour to sit around for a week waiting to be called in a libel action.
One thing I would add to the Prentice re-exam - he clarified some of the timelines of the all-nighter to Manchester, specifically asking when they left Manchester, to which KT responded "when it was getting light". Considering TS's "must attend" commitments to the actual cultural festival that day, this could be crucial.
I got the name of the hotel as the Carlton, which is a four star hotel on the North Bridge in Edinburgh. You can get a room in advance for £80 /night but a more comfortable room s £130. KT said it had two rooms so it wasn't the standard accommodation.
Hotel website here:
https://www.barcelo-hotels.co.uk/book
Question.
NotW are in Glasgow?.
Kenneth Lang works for Mellicks, in Glasgow?.
Why was KT put up in an Edinburgh hotel?. Was this because the police dealing with this case were in Edinburgh?.
Why was KT put up in an Edinburgh hotel? - the Defamation Action was beng held at the Court of Session in Edinburgh to which KT was a witness - does this answer your question, caller?
Thanks for your reply.
"does this answer your question, caller?"
No.
That would have been true if the trial was taken place!, it was not at that point. That was to be at some long future date.
"That would have been true if the trial was taken place!, it was not at that point. That was to be at some long future date." - well, in that case it gives us cause for concern, suspicion even, are you satisfied now, caller?
"- well, in that case it gives us cause for concern, suspicion even, are you satisfied now, caller?"
No.
What I would like to know is, if KT was in Edinburgh, at a hotel, it must have been to talk to the police. KT`s hotel bill should have come out of police funds, not being paid for by News International.
This is all becoming a bit confusing caller, this is all becoming a bit confusing, I've got other callers on the line and am going to have to move on... suffice to say caller that if it was part of a Police investigation that the Police should have been funding it, maybe she was offered that and that the Police funds only stretched to the Travelodge and NoW being aware that she would be in Edinburgh offered her "alternative" accommodation, does that answer your question now, caller, I am really going to have to move on...
"NoW being aware that she would be in Edinburgh offered her "alternative" accommodation, does that answer your question now, caller, I am really going to have to move on."
No.
You seem to be guessing as to what happened. I would like someone with a little more intelligents/knowledge to tell me. Just that it may give the impression that somekind of collusion between police and News International was going on?. Just trying to clear the questions/points I made in my posts above.
well, caller, it does at least point to some sort of "exchange of information"...
and, caller, it could give the impression that some sort of payment in kind was going on. But back to your original point, if we have ascertained that KT did indeed visit Edinburgh as part of a Police investigation (to give a pre- defamation action statement) why did the NoW pay for her hotel accommodation? I can see where you are coming from, caller...
If Anonymous wants to argue with itself, it would be useful if either half of the brain had some sort of correct information to furnish the argument.
KT was put up for a week in Edinburgh during the Libel Action Sher V NotW. She was there for the week during which she could have been called as a witness. From the current trial and the testimony she provided, it sounded like she was only called at the end of the week, and was hanging around until then.
Going by how witnesses have been called or not called in the current trial, this seems normal. There are a small pool of witnesses for each day, but there is no guarantee all will be called that day, and the pool can change from day to day.
So say that the NoW wasn't around to pay for KT's accommodation, would she be expected to fork out herself, or would she not get "expenses" like a member of a Jury, it's still unclear the NoW involvement.
Jury's have to wait around for days on end too, and sometimes they are put up in hotel accommodation. Will someone please explain why the NoW paid for KT's hotel accommodation.
"Will someone please explain why the NoW paid for KT's hotel accommodation."
Plus expenses?. It may make for some interesting reading to find out how much those expenses? (If there were expenses?) came to?.
`Plus expenses?. It may make for some interesting reading to find out how much those expenses? (If there were expenses?) came to?.`
All the `expenses`(if any?) she may have received from news international group?.
"expenses" can mean anything, it's a catch-all... it could even mean something like "future earnings".
Has she at any point been issued a bank card?/store card?, or had accounts opened at dept stores?. Would all that come under "expenses"?.
Re: "Has she at any point been issued a bank card?/store card?, or had accounts opened at dept stores?. Would all that come under "expenses"?".
You're suggesting she was paid in Tesco Clubcard points?
I'm finding this wild and unfounded explanation hilarious. No, sorry - laughable.
Why not suggest she was paid in nuclear warheads? Or lifetime subscriptions to NotW publications?
I'm finding this wild and unfounded explanation hilarious. No, sorry - laughable. - don't be daft... it's only by speculating, throwing ideas into the ring that we are going to get to the bottom of this sordid KT expenses scandal. Too many questions, not enough answers!
James Doleman
I see you let Whatsy attack others on your blog but don`t allow others to answer him!!!. Showing favouritism James Doleman.
Hello anon, if you have a specific problem please email me. I'd rather not have the comments section descend into a discussion about itself.
James Doleman
Rich,lol. What were you doing putting Whatsy post on then!!!.
You couldn`t make it up.
The commentator you mention took the time and effort to write up a session of the court I could not attend. They also, on my view did an excellent job of it.
So that's the end of that, any other points you may have "anon" you can email me about.
Best rgds
j
"So that's the end of that"
yawol, mein furher
Sieg heil
A
That was just silly "anon "
I was hoping that we could have a comment section that contained serious discussion of what is a very serious trial.
Don't feed the trolls
Post a Comment