Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Katrine Trolle, First Cross Examination.

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.



















25 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

"in fact he never had a sunbed at home. Ms Trolle insisted that her story was correct."

As far as I know TS used to go to sunbed shops. No problem to prove that. I remember him talking about it on his radio show.

Anonymous said...

She sounds exactly the sort of woman you'd go for if you were a bloke who liked swinging. Oh, see what I've done there, anyone who thinks casting aspersions about her personal moral values is wise?

hard case said...

'The court resumed after lunch and the Advocate Depute finished his examination of Katrine Trolle with a few brief queries'


You might have phrased that better.

BTW It's counsel, not council.

Anonymous said...

No, it's not - after much pressing by Council Katrine Trolle admitted under oath while giving evidence in open court to having had between 10 and 20 affairs. In fact, she initially said that she had no idea of the number. Make of that what you will.

James Doleman said...

Thanks hardcase, my only defence is that it is late and it'e been a long day.

Anonymous said...

" Councel asked which was the truth? her testimony then or her testimony now, the witness responded strongly that she was telling the truth now."

Didn`t we hear the same thing from an earlier witness!.

Anonymous said...

"Didn`t we hear the same thing from an earlier witness!."... the one that answered with "this is my truth"? What does that mean - that there are other truths?

Plot Tracer said...

"I have to say that, for me at least, this was a reminder that this case is more than just a courtroom game, people's lives, liberty and self respect are at stake."

and your thoughts on the witnesses allegedly maligned by the accused at the civil case and their tumoil etc since?

James - you are doing a good job reporting - but feel you should keep it as pure reporting.

James Doleman said...

I perhaps didn't put it well Plot Tracer but Gail crying was a genuine thing not an act. I went outside when the court was cleared and realised anew that this is not a game and for a moment questioned the whole process and my role in it.

That's not to diminish anyone else's problems, not in any way.

James Doleman said...

But you are right, I'll take it out.

Anonymous said...

`Didn`t we hear the same thing from an earlier witness!.`

I think it was C.Fox.

Larry Arthur said...

plot tracer, james didnt specify anyone, it is a poignant point, that any number of people involved face serious consequences. It was gail sheridan crying that reminded him but he didnt say his sympathy was with one person. have you ever had so many editors to work for James?

James Doleman said...

" have you ever had so many editors to work for James?"

I try to think of it more as lots of factcheckers, the comments have corrected at least three factual mistakes I've made this week alone.

jim mclean said...

As far as I know TS used to go to sunbed shops. No problem to prove that. I remember him talking about it on his radio show.

October 19, 2010 11:56 PM

I used to go to the bookies but i dont have a horse in the living room.

Anonymous said...

"that this is not a game" - but it is just a game for the laywers, just another trial on the judicial bedpost, but it is NEVER a just a game for the accused.

Anonymous said...

"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."

Is this 200 quid or 200 thousand quid? Or is it meant to be 20k?

Lorraine said...

You're doing a good job Jamesie, but the more I read, the sadder I'm getting...

Anonymous said...

"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." I'm in agreement with Paul MBride here. Katrine Trolle's story is the most salacious and titillating of them all, its especially so when you consider that the NoW were prepared to pay George McNeilage megabucks for foggy video with muffled sound.

donaldb said...

Lorraine/James.

It is tragic, I even questioned my own role going along on Monday. I think your own comment James was a perfectly acceptable piece of reportage.

I suppose peoples interest in this case are on all sorts of different levels, legal, future for a left of Labour party in Scotland, defending personalities, a detective story etc etc.

And if I were either party, to think that others were using the tragic situation I found myself in as some sort of educational experience, or worse as entertainment would just compound the misery. Id think they were verging on being not quite human - vultures almost.

A lot of the anonymous comments are extremely useful. It would be helpful to know who is who. When you 'choose an identity' just click Name/URL - and make a name up. You cant be identified, but its useful to know where people are coming from.

zimmerman said...

I was in court for the first time on monday,the witnesses seemed to be singing from the same songsheet,...could'nt remember then,can remember now?
Today's testimonies had a similar ring to them,i see a pattern emerging.

Anonymous said...

Do you, Zimmerman? Nice to see Doleman publishing your contemptuous comment.



I see a pattern emerging, too..."you lie, you lie, you lie, too, and you, and you, and you..."

Yes, the accused has only one defence.

Anonymous said...

zimmerman

You have put on one of the best posts I have seen on this whole blog. I was thinking the same thing. Something is going on.

Anonymous said...

me too, I've actually thought that the witnesses were all very credible to begin with, then like a chocolate egg their credibility has - in my opinion - melted away, it's the same old same. I really wish and Prentice would change tack and serve up something difference because this dish is beginning to stink something rotten.