The court resumed after lunch and the Advocate Depute finished his examination of Katrine Trolle. Ms Trolle was shown a registration document for an 02 mobile phone under the name "Patrice Prolle." The witness said she did not recognise the document or the details contained in it. He then asked Ms Trolle if she had ever discussed "party matters" with Mr Sheridan to which she replied no.
Mr Sheridan had asked if he could wait until tomorrow to begin his cross examination of the witness, due to the large number of documents produced by the crown, to which the presiding judge, Lord Bracadale, agreed. Lord Bracadale explained to the jury that to make the best use of the court's time he had suggested that Paul Mcbride QC (pictured) acting for Mrs Sheridan, could examine the witness "out of turn" Mr McBride agreed to this course of action and then began his cross examination.
Mr McBride first asked the witness if she was honest, to which she replied yes. He then went on to ask her about her marriage and Ms Trolle told the court she was married from 1998 and separated from her husband in 2002. Council then asked Ms Trolle if her husband was aware she had "extra-marital affairs" to which she responded that he "might have guessed" but "she had never told him." Mr McBride then asked Ms Trolle how many "extra-martial affairs" she had, and when she responded that she did not know, asked her "more than 10?" answer, "yes" "less than 20?" answer "yes".
Mr McBride then developed his theme that if the witness could lie to her husband, his mother and her friends then she was "hardly an honest person, no?" Ms Trolle responded forcefully that she had never lied to her friends and that she had "changed" Mr McBride then asked the witness about her testimony, under oath, in the 2006 libel trial that the visit to the Cupids sex club in Manchester had happened in 2001 not 2002. The councel had Ms Trolle read from her evidence in 2006 when she had said she was "certain" of the 2001 date as she was on a student placement at the time. Councel asked which was the truth? her testimony then or her testimony now, the witness replied that she was telling the truth now.
Mr McBride then produced to the court an affidavit from Anvar Khan, again relating to the 2006 libel trial, within which Ms Khan also states the year of the alleged Cupids visit as 2001. He asked the witness if it was a "coincidence" that "you have both made the same mistake" and asked if she had spoken to Ms Khan about her evidence. This Ms Trolle denied. Mr Mcbride then asked the witness if she had ever been offered money by the News of the World for her story, to which she responded . "no." Councel put to her that the NotW had paid £200.000 to another witness in the case and that it was not credible that she had not been offered a payment by the newspaper. The witness again forcefully disagreed with any suggestion that she had being offered or taken any payment.
Mr McBride then moved onto the specific issue of the Scottish Socialist Party conference in 2005 over which Mrs Gail Sheridan is charged with perjury for testifying she had met Ms Trolle. Mr McBride put it to the witness that she was there and he had witnesses to the fact, Ms Trolle however maintaned she was not there but child-minding for her friend on that date.
Councel then took Ms Troll back to her testimony in the morning, specifically on the sketch she had drawn of the Sheridan home (see post below) He asked Ms Troll about her claim there was a "sunbed" in a spare room, and suggested that she had only added this detail as she had heard Mr Sheridan called a "sunbed socialist" in the "popular press" she had assumed he must have one but in fact he never had a sunbed at home. Ms Trolle insisted that her story was correct.
Mr McBride then spoke about the "indignity of Gail Sheridan sitting in the High court as you claim you had sex with her husband in his own family home and in their own bed." At this point it was clear that Gail Sheridan was becoming tearful and upset and Tommy Sheridan rose to ask if the court could adjourn briefly to allow her to collect herself, this was granted.
The court resumed after a brief recess and after touching on some, apparently flippant email exchanges between Ms Troll and a police officer (mails for which the titles such as " My Underwear!" and "from the mad Danish woman" were shown but not the content) Mr McBride suggested to the witness that she was enjoying the attention. Ms Troll responded that "This was not the sort of attention she ever wanted" With that councel ended his cross-examination and the court rose for the day.
The trial continues.