Today's court session was a short one due to a member of the jury requiring to attend to a family issue. Hence the court only sat from 10am until 12 noon. It may have been a short session but it was also a fascinating one as Tommy Sheridan began his cross examination of Katrine Trolle, the witness who's allegations yesterday dominated the news last night and the press coverage this morning.
Mr Sheridan began by apologising to the jury for his "shouting' from the lectern the day before. He informed them that he had been "chastised" for this by both the judge, Lord Bracadale and his wife Gail. With that, a measurably quieter Mr Sheridan, began his questioning of the witness.
Mr Sheridan opened by bringing back to the court's attention his diary, from 2001. This had been entered into evidence by the crown yesterday (see post below "Katrine Trolle Testimony) Ms Trolle had testified then that an entry "Katrine Trolle" followed by a telephone number was in her own handwriting. Mr Sheridan pointed to other entries, also in different handwriting from his own, which he suggested to the witness belonged to his wife, Gail Sheridan. He put it to the Ms Trolle that this showed his wife had "regular access to his diary" to which the she replied "I couldn't contradict that."
Mr Sheridan then took the witness and the court through a selection of diary entries for various dates and asked her to note the word "training" in each entry for Thursday. He asked Ms Trolle if she was aware that he was at that time playing "Junior Football" (NB in Scotland "Junior football does not refer to the age of the players but to the level, one below league football) to which she responded that she thought he only played for "fun." He also asked Ms Trolle how many members the SSP had in Aberdeen in 2001 and she agreed that it would be between 20-30. He then asked if it would be unusual for the convener of a political party to contact members in a city from time to time, and again she agreed it would not.
Mr Sheridan them moved onto the alleged visit by the witness to his home in December 2000, a visit Ms Trolle told the court yesterday resulted in the two of them having sexual intercourse. He asked first if her account was the same as at the 2006 libel trial (at which she testified twice) To which the witness responded that it was. He then asked about meetings she had with police officers and asked if she was on "familiar and friendly terms with them" She mentioned a police officer she referred to as "Grant" which led to Mr Sheridan asking if she was on first name terms with him? She denied however that she had been "coached" in her evidence.
Mr Sheridan then asked about the details of Ms Trolle's testimony yesterday, where she had stated that she had not stayed at the house for very long as Tommy Sheridan had received an unexpected telephone call from his wife and had to leave to collect her from a Christmas night out.
He had her read her testimony from 2006 where she had said that Gail was working that night (as an air hostess) and that after they had sex upstairs they had talked for a while afterwards. The witness put down the difference in accounts to the stressful situation she was in "talking about my sex life in from of all these people" to which Mr Sheridan responded that it was also stressful to listen to. Mr Sheridan put it to her that this was the beauty of a "fictional story that you can chop and change details." Ms Trolle said this was not the case.
Questioning the turned to the alleged visit of Ms Trolle to the home of Andrew McFarlane in December 2001 He asked if she was sure, as she testified yesterday that Mr McFarlane was introduced as Mr Sheridan's "Brother in Law." She said she was. Mr Sheridan then put it to the witness that she had repeated a "fatal error" as Mr McFarlane had not married until June 2002 so how could he have been referred to as his brother in law 9 months before. Ms Trolle insisted that was what had been said. Mr Sheridan then moved on to photographs shown to the court yesterday that she had testified were of Mr McFarlane's house. She admitted that she had seen the photographs before, having been shown them by a lawyer, William Davidson, at her home in Denmark before the trial commenced. Mr Sheridan then asked if at any time during her meetings with the police she had been cautioned that she could face a charge of perjury. She said she did not recall any such caution. He then had the witness read a police statement in which she says " Since we met on Monday I have found an old diary and have sorted out some dates." He asked who she met on Monday, to which she responded "Grant and another person" He asked her if she was aware that no notes or accounts of this meeting had been given to the defence, she said she knew nothing about that but confirmed the meeting had taken place.
Mr Sheridan then asked the witness about photos she had been given by a Kenneth Lang, a lawyer for the News of the World (NotW) both before and after the 2006 libel trial. She told the court that one set of photos shown to her was of the couples she claimed to have met at the alleged trip to the Cupids club in Manchester. Mr Sheridan put it to her that her description yesterday was from the memory of the photographs she had seen and not from a recollection of the event. She denied this. He put it to her that she had not mentioned these meetings with Lawyers from the NotW as she did not want the jury to think she was co-operating with them. She replied that she had not been asked and may have been "helping them" but that was all.
Returning to the question of Mr McFarlane and his marriage the witness stated, under questioning, that she thought he was married because he had referred to his girlfriend as his wife, Mr Sheridan described this answer as "ridiculous" to which the witness responded that it might be unusual but not impossible. Mr Sheridan then put it to the witness that she was making up "yarns" to which Ms Troll forcefully replied "what would I gain from making this up" and 'if I made it up all the facts would be right." She stated that the events were "long ago and not that important to me at the time." and denied anyone had ever described the inside of Mr Sheridan's house to her.
Mr Sheridan then questioned the witness about further contradictions in her testimony in this trial and that she gave in the Libel case of 2006. In that case (as covered by Mr McBride yesterday) she had stated that the date of the Cupids visit was December 2001, not 2002 as she had told this court. He began to ask the witness about why the jury had not believed her in 2006, to which the Advocate depute objected as no-one could be sure what the jury had believed in that case only what the verdict was. Lord Bracadale agreed with the objection and Mr Sheridan rephrased the question adding that details were important and that her previous testimony in 2006, which she now admitted was mistaken, could have left him "bankrupt and humiliated"
Mr Sheridan then moved on to the evidence from Ms Trolle's own diary that was shown to the jury yesterday. She stated then, and confirmed now, that the entry for the 28,29,and 30 September written "cultural festival" was to cover up from her husband the visit to the Cupids club. Mr Sheridan then put it to her that the court would be hearing evidence that there was a "cultural festival" organised by the SSP on these dates and showed his own diary for that weekend in which was written "SSP people's festival Friday-Monday, must attend." The witness said she may have put that entry in as she "might have planned on going" but insisted she had not and had went to the Cupids club with Mr Sheridan instead. He suggested that this festival may have been the reason he had contacted the witness by telephone, to urge her to attend. Ms Trolle denied this was the case.
Finally Mr Sheridan asked if Ms Trolle had been offered money for her story from the NotW in any of her three encounters with one of their journalists, Andrea Vance. The witness stated she had not been offered or had taken any money from anyone for her story. Mr Sheridan asked her that in light of payments given to other witnesses in the case, "life changing amounts of money"
as he put it, that it was ridiculous for her to claim she had never been offered a payment. The witness continued to insist that she had never been offered and more importantly had never accepted a penny for her story.
With that exchange the court rose for the day, with Mr Sheridan due to continue his cross examination of Ms Trolle tomorrow morning.
67 comments:
Its too sad, I dont want to play any more and then there will be all the counting up of points as if it was a debating society at Oxbridge.
Why write anything in her diary - why not just leave it blank?
Good move of TS's part to quiet down, it's a court of law - not a political soapbox. Besides, there is no need to shout in a courtroom to be heard, there are microphones and speakers everywhere.
TS was asked to quieten down, so he may not have had much choice in the matter.
An interesting element not covered yet was the evidence of Gail Sheridan's diary. There were various appointments such as "BA Party" and "Tanning" in there as you would expect, with TS particularly highlighting the tanning appointments in both his and his wife's diaries.
He then moved on to some December (2001 I think) entries in his wife's diaries, around the time TS was released from jail for a breach of the peace on a protest. There were the usual appointments and such - e.g. Pick Tommy up from jail, Get nails done (never a dull moment!) - which suddenly were replaced by entries like "stayed indoors all day with Tommy", or "At home with Tommy all day, except to walk together in the snow to the Tanning shop". These entries seemed out of place to me, as everything else was appointments and times obviously done in advance at different times, different pens etc, whereas these were done with the same pen in the same style and commented retrospectively on the activities of that day. I didn't see any other such entries in the pages we saw of GS's diary, although we didn't see many other pages.
The point of this evidence was to show that the Sheridans went outside to get tanned, rather than on the sunbed that the witness had drawn in her diagram of the inside of their house. The witness was asked why the defendants would walk in snow to a tanning shop if they already had a tanning bed in the house. The witness suggested they might be making it up, to which TS asked her if it was credible that, as the police raided the Sheridan house at 7am to collect evidence including these diaries, Mrs Sheridan would hurriedly scribble these entries in her diary.
Whenever she made these entries, it's certainly fortunate for TS's defence that his wife chose to use her diary for these few days to start recording at the end of the day her daily routine with her husband, and which could later be used by him in court as part of his defence.
Thanks Whatsy, I didn't cover the sunbed stuff for reasons of space.
"These entries seemed out of place to me"
I think that is explainable due to the dates which were iirc between Christmas and New Year. I think TS introduced then to show that Gail and he were getting on and having a nice an intimate time together in Dec 2001.
James - re: Sunbed digression - you could very well be right, as I didn't grasp any significance about the dates when the snow & sunbeds episode in GS's diary occurred, and if TS is ever likely to have some time off it would indeed be over the festive season after coming out of jail.
A good day overall for the defence I would say. There was some tedious nitpicking at the start about handwriting and GS's access to her husband's diary all to prove that having "Katrine Trolle, Tel 01224xxxx" written in her handwriting in his diary was not something he tried to hide from his wife. Then, some equally minor establishment that he usually had football training on a Thursday evening.
After that, I thought TS did a good job of undermining the credibility of the witness, forcing her to change testimony she gave in 2006 and yesterday.
In particular, she stated very clearly that she had never been offered money by NotW, but soon, under cross-examination, changed this to never having received money from them. It was hard to argue with TS that it was not credible that she had not been offered money for her story from the press when others in the whole sorry tale have been offered (as TS claims evidence will confirm) large "life changing" sums.
Fascinating reading. Tommy would appear to have identified a number of significant areas to explore in cross examination!
thing is that if you were using a sun-bed as much as the Sheridans that you would eventually cave in and buy one - cheaper, more private, on tap 24/7 and saves a trip to the tanning shop in the snow/rain. it's like anything if you were baking a lot of bread you would buy a breadmaker. and people DO like to buy gadgets... even ones that they never use.
Good point Whatsy, we generally use a diary to record FORTHCOMING events, the GS diary is reading like that of a teenagers where you write up the musings of the day. How many times do you record a diary entry in retrospect, maybe to take a note of something significant, but to record the insignificant, minutiae of everyday life.
Seems totally implausible that KT was never offered money from the NoW considering that they paid George Mc Neilage "a life-changing sum" for a crummy video-tape. When money talks, morality walks!
The diary stuff was very good for the defence, there is no way that Gail Sheridan could have foreseen the sunbed story and the idea that she added this was, as Mr Sheridan said, ridiculous.
Sheridan pointing out that the couple tracked through the snow to a salon undermines the sunbed story and the fact that there actually was a socialist 'cultural festival' that weekend takes the punch out of Trolles claims that it was code for a dirty weekend of swinging.
It's not clear from the reports I have so far whether this News of the World meeting was significant or not. Was it after the libel proof or before? Although the fact that she was shown photographs in advance does mean that her identifying them in court was more of a stunt than evidence.
I had thought that Ms Trolle was a better turn for the prosecution but after McBride's cross and now the reports I have of Sheridan's I'm not so sure. And there is more to come from her tomorrow I believe?
We should remember though, that the full scenario will not become apparent until Sheridan himself is on the stand. The cross-examination can appear to drive a hole through Ms. Trolle's evidence but Prentice might have more to come on this that turns the tide back in the prosecution favour.
If Tommy and Gail did ever own a sunbed, I'm pretty sure the prosecution would be able to find evidence to prove it, if only the person who sold it to them! (I'm sure if Tommy had bought a sunbed in Glasgow he would have been recognised!)
maybe the Sheridans had previously had some sort of "tiff" and this was the reason for all the lovey-dovey "spent all evening with tommy stuff".
No-one else to back-up this "sun-bed" story?
"but Prentice might have more to come on this that turns the tide back in the prosecution favour." - like a receipt for a sun-bed in the name of TS lol
But if there was a "receipt" for the sunbed purchase, that would have had to have been disclosed to the defence in advance of the trial.
Yeah, but is it "full disclosure" - this disclosure issue has been the bones of many contentions. Does TS know everything that in AP's bundle of papers?
Hello all, could we be a bit careful around speculation of possible future evidence?
Thanks
JD
It's like the Crown as a matter of course refuse to give the Defence access to the Prosecution statements. This leaves the Defence in the position of asking his Lordship for the said statements, the Defence are always free to try and obtain their own pre-cognitions but witnesses are less likely to co-operate. It's not as if the Crown "hand everything over on a plate" - this is not the way it works, I'm afraid.
I a "real-life" situation it is nigh-on impossible to obtain anything from the Crown. TS will have had to have fought tooth and nail for any scraps that he has.
Regardless of the ins and outs of this case like ALL accused persons TS (and GS) are in a VERY disadvantage position re trying to mount a Defence. The Crown and Police hold all the cards.
"No-one else to back-up this "sun-bed" story?"
Yes, I can. TS stated (awhile) BEFORE his arrest that he liked going to the tanning shop as he enjoyed the banter with staff and clients, they used to have a good laugh and he didn`t mind paying.
I am sure the staff and clients of the tanning shop (shop`s) TS went to over the years will testify. Why would TS lie when all this can be checked.
As for KT, she is tripping herself up to many times to make/be a credible witness.
James Doleman said...
Thanks Whatsy, I didn't cover the sunbed stuff for reasons of space.
James, I do not think there is a space limit on the blog. Give as much details as you can. Personally, I am prepared to read as much as you can find the energy to record and type.
There is something very odd about this sunbed business in both side's evidence, as reported by Whatsy.
I think that the words "tanning" and "Sunbed" will come up again and again in this trial.
"Why would TS lie when all this can be checked."
Why would KT lie when all this can be checked?
Am I missing something? So far, this trial seems to be a replay of the first...? Is the prosecution just hoping that this jury will come up with a different verdict? Has there been any actual new evidence so far?
"Why would KT lie when all this can be checked?"
KT has been caught out, that is why!. KT must be very worried tonight, methinks!.
I remember clearly TS saying it at the time, TS didn`t know all this would come up at that time.
Game, set and match to TS.
kudos to TS for nailing KT to the deck, the poor guy must feel like he is fighting with one hand up against his back in there, titanic struggle doesn't even begin to describe it.
Seems to me that one of the main differences emerging between this trial and the libel trial is the number of Crown witnesses who appear to have changed details of their evidence!
maybe best just for your information, James - but KT made a remark at the libel trial about the Sheridan's home "smelling of bleach" - has it "slipped her memory" this time round?
Seems to me that SWP member Doleman is only interested in publishing comments - which are clearly in contempt of court - in which people attack the integrity of witnesses. This is a form of intimidation, of course.
I am really enjoying and appreciate the blog James - plus the comments and discussions. I hope that some of the commentators could learn to be a bit more respectful in their contributions; it detracts from what people are discussing and is boring.
Also all you anon’s could you please adopt a synonym or a symbol or something to make it easier for us to catch up on the thread. With limited time to catch up it would make a difference. I’m sure you could find something more original than anonymous or anon!
Anonymous, yes there has been new evidence compared to the defamation case. The trial started with notes from the meeting where Sheridan was alleged to have confessed, these were not involved in the priginal as we heard from the witness that she had them in her bag.
Thene there was the tape. And I am no doubt that will come back up again in more detail.
Even today, we have new evidence from the witness who now has a new date and a new set of items to prove that date, as well as specific new allegations.
I know that the newspaper headlines have mainly been about the accusations by witnesses so therefore may seem to be just a repeat of the last time, but, in court, in reports in this blog and in some newspaper coverage, the new evidence is there to be seen.
Once again we have a witness who has changed their 'version' of events. I cannot believe that 4 years further away from their first witness testimony they can go from a position of NOT remembering a month or Year, to evidence a position where they can now remember a day!
Has there been a firesale of vitimins?
Don't want to come across as a Concern Troll(e)but aggressive language from some commentators does nothing to help on the day that the Condem alliance have launched a massive attack upon the working class of Britain. When posting on Blogs like this we must look to the future and remember many of you will have to put aside your differences and work to defeat these NeoCons who today condemned half a million public service employees and their families to a life on the dole.
@Victor English
OK, but all of this was actually potentially available at the time of the original trial (?), it just wasn't called.
So much of this looks like an attempt to retry the case, asking the questions that were missed before and introducing evidence that wasn't introduced at the time. Maybe that's the point of a perjury trial, but I was expecting some more clear cut "look, this is why they were lying" material.
`put aside your differences and work to defeat these NeoCons`
Get real, that ain`t going to happen. They have had over 100yrs to do it, come back in another 100yrs and you will find they are still at it.
"So much of this looks like an attempt to retry the case, asking the questions that were missed before and introducing evidence that wasn't introduced at the time. Maybe that's the point of a perjury trial, but I was expecting some more clear cut "look, this is why they were lying" material."
There's what, 160 witnesses? There's plenty of time, patience!
Anon said
Get real, that ain`t going to happen
FFS yer right ahm away tae bed.
There has been new evidence: as reported a few days ago, we now know that Alan McCombes was the source of information that was given to the newspapers in May 2006 - we didn't know that at the time of the libel case!
"introducing evidence that wasn't introduced at the time."
Indeed, makes you think, have the police got an all powerful Genie, that has the power to make/arrange things to appear out of thin air?.
what will be interesting is when the SSP witnesses have all been up. the rial will still have about 40 days and 60 or 70 witnesses to go, i would suspect that some of them must be new faces.
they're all word perfect these witnesses aren't they?
It's quite interesting if you link this back to a transcript of the tape played to the Jury. Allegedly involving Tommy(T) and George McNeilage(G)
________________________________
(T)“We now know Duncan didnae know he was being sh****d for information and that she was in the f***ing pay of the News of the World already. We now know that Duncan thinks he’s doing the honourable thing to save this lassie’s life.
G: And go to the f***ing News of the World.”
T: Goes to the News of the World and fires in Katrine (Trolle's) name.”
G: That’s the lassie who, in f***ing...”
T: That’s the lassie from Dundee.”
G: Her that was in Cupid’s with f***ing you and f***ing Anvar Khan.”
T: Well Katrine, Katrine is solid. Katrine is f***ing...”
G: She’ll never admit it.”
T: She will never admit it.”
G: Nae money, nae nothing.”
T: Never. George, she’s not impressed with money. She’s a f***ing diamond. She will never admit anything like that, not a f***ing problem.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/10/09/tommy-sheridan-trial-hears-sex-tape-sensation-as-court-case-finishes-first-week-86908-22620657/
It's also worth noting Gail's reaction to Katrine's "lies". I'd have expected anger from someone who was listening to someone who they believed was lying about this.
If TS has driven to Manchester to this sex club on several occassions, surely given the number of cameras we have on the M ways and in the cities the prosecution would be able to find one image of him in his car on a date they say he has.
Quite apart from speed cameras there are many cameras on the system purely for "home office" purposes, the dark blue ones we see. The whole thing smacks of a huge stitch up. With the hand of the state not very far away. What a book this is going to be by the Sheridans, big pay day coming one way or another.
11.24. Can you provide any evidence for "what is going on"?
Anon, if the News of the World were succesful in their appeal, what that would mean is that the defamation proof would be started again from scratch, the appeal cannot overturn the result, only order a re-trial. It wouldn't mean an automatic financial loss to the Sheridan's. And, of course it was only Tommy Sheridan that sued the NotW so Gail would not be liable for costs.
remember how Tommy welcomed the investigation?
This from the bbc website in October, 2006:
Mr Sheridan said the Crown Office was "only doing its job".
"There's nothing extraordinary in what the Crown Office has done, they are only doing their job," he said.
"It is a rehashed announcement from six weeks ago, there's nothing new."
Mr Sheridan added that he would be happy to take part in any aspect of the police investigation.
moderator- surely that 'what's going on comment' is casting a judegement on the integrity of witnesses?
anyway, if i remember correctly the news reports from last year suggested phone records etc would play a large part of the prosecussion case, it's early days yet and i would imagine that they should be put to the defendant rather than the witnesses
12.05.
Well, it's nice that you think that, but since Gail was a witness in the defamation case, she would be responsible if the ruling is overturned. Sheridan famously transferred ownership of his home to Gail after a week of evidence in the defamation case. Fortunately, the law is such that his house can still be seized.
And I'd be interested to see how Sheridan would fund a second defamation action.
`moderator- surely that 'what's going on comment' is casting a judegement on the integrity of witnesses?`
Not at all. The two cases mentioned are already in the public domain. The post referred to what does happen in cases and what the police NOT witnesses get upto. It in no way is `casting a judegement on the integrity of witnesses`. I see you take the `what's going on` out of out of context, it should read `to what is going on`. After the two cases mentioned it was trying to point out that police/state evidence cannot be taking as true, even if it appears to be overwhelming evidence. A fair point was moderator!!!.
"forensic evidence relating to TS's activities might just be put to him rather than KT?" - in my opinion this is what this case hinges on... does Alex Prentice have anything up his sleeve, TS is like a blind man in a maze.
This blog has gone from "comment of the days events" to speculating on the verdict, how did that happen and it is legal to do so?.
This is not an appeal case this is a perjury case against Tommy Sheridan for (allegedly) lying in court during his defamation case. This whole business destroyed the left up here when we had a ship that was sailing in the sea of excrement that passes for mainstream politics. If anything people should ignore this case and concentrate on things like this: http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/204087-demonstrators-occupy-glasgow-bank/
anon, you seem to know lots about the sheridans personal assets and finances, I wont challenge you on that as you seem to have knowledge on it.
BUT the fact that Gail was a witness in the defamation case does not make her liable for costs if that decision was changed in a re-trial. That is juts wrong, switnesses are not liable for court costs. Only the person who raised the action is liable for this.
But it is pointless to speculate whats going to happen in this case never mind speculating on an appeal then the libel trail being re-run and the decision of yet another jury and then the ins and outs of a potential bankruptcy of Tommy Sheridan and where his wife might live after that.
You are talking about three 'ifs' premature.
You seem to be delighting in the prospect of misery for the accused even though this would be years from now.
It's seems as if you have got Tommy nailed good and proper there Jessica Fletcher: P.I. ... not like you've already made your mind up... perish the thought.
Well as long as the jury haven't made their mind up yet that's the main thing Magnum. 100+ witnesses still to go.
I had a feeling that you and your moustache wouldn't like the link I pointed out. Here, maybe this will cheer you up a little.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CquMO3vJvo
Some on here should have lived in Roman times. They would have been season ticket holders to the Roman coliseum!.
lol Jessica Fletcher: P.I. it's always good to hear your ruminations, but even Angela Lansbury didn't make her mind up until the last 5 minutes - open mind, don't jump to conclusions and all that jazz.
Magnum P.I. has to be one of the best opening titles ever, thanks for that.
This may calm you down a bit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWz9lpxv3NM
Some on here should have lived in Roman times. They would have been season ticket holders to the Roman coliseum!. lol after this trial is over it'll be back to watching folk being thrown to the lions, or maybe watching public executions on glasgow green. How boring is that, drat.
Why thank you for that Mr Magnum. I am quite tense at the moment actually. I'm away from the Cove just now visiting Kim, my niece, in New York. I've only been here a few days and already the hotel receptionist has been poisoned, a local businessman was shot twice in the heart, and a young man, known to the police for dealing illegal narcotics, was found asphyxiated in the parking lot.
I really need to go actually. The NYP have named my niece's fiancée as their prime suspect. They're about to charge him any moment. I should probably get my finger out and try and find out who really did it. It's just the the Sheridan trial is really gripping my attention. I just can't pull myself away from it.
Poor Kim.
Jeez, sorry to here that Jessica. Murder, disaster and intrigue seems to follow you where ever you go. Are you sure that the local sheriff hasn't got something to do with it? - there is a rumour floating around town that he was involved in taking bribes, something to do with land deals.
You should drag your butt down here to Hawaii, nothing more than a few heavy-handed, screeching car tyres narcotics busts going on down here. I spend most of my time chilling and posing on the beach, Piña colada in hand.
Post a Comment