Mr Prentice asked Mr Clark about his situation at the time. Mr Clark informed the court that his wife had "left him" on the 13th September that year, his birthday, and that he was "pretty hurt" and had "turned to alcohol." He was then asked about what type of car he owned at the time and he told the court it was a Citroen C5. He also identified a mobile phone number as belonging to him then, a fact he was sure of as he had the same number now.
Mr Prentice then asked the witness if he knew a Katrine Troll, which he responded that he did, and where he had met Ms Trolle. He said he had met her around two weeks after his birthday in his car. He stated that the car also contained Mr Sheridan, who was driving, Andy McFarlane and Anvar Khan. He stated he could not remember how the situation arose but that they travelled somewhere. The Crown then produced a series of telephone records that appeared to show that Mr Sheridan had phoned Mr Clark on 4 occasions on the 26th September 2002 and three times on the 27th of September (the day of the alleged visit) Mr Clark stated he had no memory of these calls.
Under further questioning he told the court that the car had arrived in Manchester and that they had ended up in a club. When asked how he knew it was a pub and not, say, a public house he described that there was pornography being shown on screens scattered about. When asked if there was anything unusual about the setup he said "well they were not showing Tom and Jerry on the TV's." Mr Clark was then shown a picture of the inside of the Cupids club that showed a pool table and asked if he could identify it. He responded that it was a pool table.
The witness was then asked how long the party was in the club, to which he replied he had no idea further stating that he was under the influence of anti-depressants at the time. Mr Clark said he ahd no recollection of visiting anywhere after the club and the next thing he remembered was waking up at his home in Glasgow. He stated he could not give a specific time for his return as he did not have "someone who delivered a paper at 7am or anything."
Mr Prentice then moved on to events around Tommy Sheridan's libel case against the News of the World (NotW) in 2006 and asked if Mr Clark had testified then, he said he had not and did not recall being asked to. He stated that after that case had ended he had been visited by the police "on many ocassions" and they had asked him about various nights he had spent in the company of Tommy Sheridan. He stated he had told them "virtually nothing" and had 'not disclosed much." He was than asked about a statement he made before a Sheriff (a Scottish magistrate) in Aril 2009 where he had not disclosed he had been at Cupids club with Mr Sheridan. Asked why not he said the situation was "totally embarrassing and I didn't want to bring shame on my family." He was also asked if he had even been approached by journalists from the NotW which he said he had. The witness stated that he had not given them any information and "definitely not" taken money from them. With this the prosecution ended their examination.
Mr Sheridan then rose to cross-examine the witness. Mr Sheridan opened by asking the witness if he had watched the Old Firm" (Celtic and Rangers) game yesterday, which he said he had. Mr Sheridan named various people who he said 'all used to watch the old firm together" with you and sked if they were "good honest folk" to which the witness agreed. Mr Sheridan then went over the witnesses mental state in September 02, which Mr Clark described as a "difficult time, a low point" he also agreed that he was drinking a bottle of vodka a day and put to him the Statement of a friend, a Mr Montgomery that he had needed to be taken to work every day and was drinking himself into a "coma" every day in this period. To this the witness agreed.
Mr Sheridan then turned to Mr Clark's police statements and put it to Mr Clark that some of his reponses suggested that the police were "suggesting things to him" and that these suggestions had "filled in spaces in his memory." He then asked Mr Clark if he knew that on the 27th September 02 Mr Sheridan had eyewitnesses that could show he was a political event in Glasgow and could not have been in Manchester. Mr Sheridan asked the witness if he "was in a position to contradict that" which he stated he was not. Mr Sheridan then sat down and after a brief rexamination of the witness by Mr Prentice in which the witness said he was sure he was in a car with Mr Sheridan and the others in Manchester he was allowed to stand down.
57 comments:
I am looking forward to hearing from these witnesses who will contradict Clark and confirm Sheridan's attendance at the political event.
Obviously, these people would not risk perjuring themselves in a perjury trial, so they will surely be credible.
If they exist.
That's you beat the Scotsman, BBC and Herald online again. Keep at it!
Curiouser and curiouser.
Incidentally the rank of Sheriff is closer to a Crown Court judge than to a Magistrate.
If Sheridan has lied then playing to the public perceptions of those with illnesses is not good. the fact that he has discredited a vulnerable alcaholic makes me hope he is telling the whole truth
interesting to see the first non SSP witness
Now that the BBC version has appeared, it's interesting that it omits TS's hit at the witness's reliability.
Gary Clark comes over as a decent guy
He gave his evidence in a way that any decent socialist would
Ironic that that there is much more basic solidarity among ordinary working class people than there is within the membership of most "socialist" organisations
Ouch, that was a painful session.
Clark was obviously very uncomfortable at the start when being questioned by Prentice. He actually seemed to relax more under cross-examination, and TS was noticeably less aggressive in his cross-examination than with other Crown witnesses, and indeed seemed uncomfortable going through the details of his (ex?)friend's divorce, depression and alcohol use.
The fact that this was all new evidence, as Clark had not testified in the 2006 defamation trial, must be quite damaging to the defence, and despite the admitted effect on memory of all that alcohol, I didn't think TS strained this witness's credibility as much as he his with his detailed examination of other witnesses.
I don't care whether Clarke or Sheridan is telling the truth or lying, but saying that a witness's testimony is less reliable because they have had mental health problems in the past is thoroughly revolting in any situation and I'm sure mental health charities will have a thing or two to say about it when this trial is over
Well done, James for an ultra-speedy posting.
Impartial Observer - I suspect you may be right.
Overstating the number of witnesses, exaggerating the propensity of evidence to hand is a common ploy used in courtrooms as well as Police interrogations. But for all we know, Tommy may have a truckload of witnesses to testify for his attendance at this event. We will just have to wait and see.
So, a man who admits to drinking a bottle of Vodka per day at the time, and who has no recollection of anything else about the alleged trip to Cupid's, "was sure he was in a car with Mr Sheridan and the others in Manchester".
I assume the Procurator has stronger witnesses to call....
It's funny how all these witnesses are giving Prosecution evidence, but at the same time suffering from foggy memories, alcohol problems with damage the credibility of their testimony. Kind of like trying to be all things all men... something for the Crown, something for TS.
'astounded!', imagine that was your brother or mother or friend, being told that they are unreliable and are inventing things just because they have suffered with mental illness in the past. It's disgusting, and so are you for saying that. People with mental health issues are not just another group to pillory in this sick sideshow. Pick apart the evidence all you want, but discriminating against witnesses because they've suffered with depression is horrifying.
anon 6. 31 said
but at the same time suffering from foggy memories, alcohol problems with damage the credibility of their testimony.
Memory, drink and mental health problems aside this guy has been the prosecutions best witness so far, a friend of Tommy's without an axe to grind. The 1st genuine guy to make an appearance going by what I have read.
Yeah, some of these witnesses do appear kind of reluctant: Sorry mate, I had no choice, but look how bad my memory was, we can still be best friends, can't we?
The guy was drinking alcohol though, not tripping on magic mushrooms. Big difference.
The guy did look credible... I could tell he didn't want to be there though. Looked like he'd just been tracked down and dragged into court, you had to feel sorry for that guy.
What about the mobile phone records? Have they been forgotten?
"The Crown then produced a series of telephone records that appeared to show that Mr Sheridan had phoned Mr Clark on 4 occasions on the 26th September 2002 and three times on the 27th of September (the day of the alleged visit) Mr Clark stated he had no memory of these calls."
?
Sorry James, didn't notice that, oops, I need new glasses..
No worries anon it was a brief reference to be fair.
"The witness was then asked how long the party was in the club, to which he replied he had no idea further stating that he was under the influence of anti-depressants at the time. Mr Clark said he ahd no recollection of visiting anywhere after the club and the next thing he remembered was waking up at his home in Glasgow. He stated he could not give a specific time for his return as he did not have "someone who delivered a paper at 7am or anything."
This is a witness!!!!!!.
"Anonymous said...
'astounded!', imagine that was your brother or mother or friend, being told that they are unreliable and are inventing things just because they have suffered with mental illness in the past. It's disgusting, and so are you for saying that. People with mental health issues are not just another group to pillory in this sick sideshow. Pick apart the evidence all you want, but discriminating against witnesses because they've suffered with depression is horrifying."
All that is being claimed here is that someone who drinks a bottle of vodka per day is likely to be a less reliable witness than someone who doesn't.
What next...if an eyewitness has defective eyesight, are we unable to mention that as it may offend disabled people? Get real!
"under the influence of anti-depressants at the time" - what does that mean? Lots of people lead a perfectly normal life "under the influence of anti-depressants". Anti-depressants are designed to elevate the patient's mood, so if this guy had been on an appropriate course of treatment he should have been functioning perfectly normally. "under the influence" makes it sound like alcohol, drugs, anti-depressants have no corresponding side-effects.
It would have been more appropriate for the witness to say "under a course of treatment", but "under the influence" is just sheer nonsense.
The truely worrying trend is that the NotW seem to have approached nearly all the witnesses.
Surely there should be a £3 million police investigation into that.
`The truely worrying trend is that the NotW seem to have approached nearly all the witnesses.`
The `truely worrying` thing is that after that has been proved to be the case, that this trial is still going ahead?.
you can't mix antidepressants with alcohol, let alone a bottle of vodka.
i'm a shrink, and have a fairly good knowledge of this! it would affect his memory, judgement, health, everything.
in addition, being in the middle of a moderate episode of mental ill-health would again affect one's judgement and recall.
it's not being discriminatory, and is in fact a legitimate explanation for dangerous/ofensive behaviour for those who are unfortuante to suffer with such illnesses.
Alcohol and prescribed drugs do affect our memory and our ability to think coherantly, that's why we are not allowed to drink and drive or drive under the influence of drugs!
This witness appears to have a different memory of events before, during and after the alledged visit to cupids!
"i'm a shrink and have a fairly good knowledge of this."
well, since you're a "shrink" you should offer ts your expert assistance.
>>"well, since you're a "shrink" you should offer ts your expert assistance"
the idea that any Doctor DOESN'T know that, is laughable!
I don't think I sound anything like an expert....except on here!
I've lived in Manchester for all my life.
I know of at least two clubs that showed porn on the TV screens - Jilly's Rockworld being one of them.
A bunch of rock clubs across the UK do the same. It's not an indication of it being a sex club at all.
In fact, isn't it a bit odd that the chap didn't mention any actual sexual activity, nudity, anything like that!?
He remembered the TV but not the naked people!? This seems strange to me.
The only possible way I would remember porn being on a TV is if I WASN'T in a sex club! If I was in a sex club it'd be last thing I remembered!
The shrink x
I must admit in the 70 & 80's I had one or two weekends like Gary's myself, abundant alcohol on top of prescribed drugs, that little warning label is like a red rag to a bull, went out for a pint in Helensburgh on a Friday and woke up in London on a Sunday. (I had a railway pass) He sounds genuine to me.
'the shrink'
Good point. Mind you if you watch a Lady Gaga or beyonce video clip you could argue it was 'porn'.
"Mr Sheridan then turned to Mr Clark's police statements and put it to Mr Clark that some of his reponses suggested that the police were "suggesting things to him" and that these suggestions had "filled in spaces in his memory."
I was thinking that before coming to the above.
Gary Clark seems to remember getting into a car driven by TS, remembers going for a long journey, remembers watching porn on tv, then remembers waking up in Glasgow...
..sounds as though he may have attended the SSP cultural festival then!
# In fact, isn't it a bit odd that the chap didn't mention any actual sexual activity, nudity, anything like that!? #
No, he is describing a classic alcohol drug based blackout. Alcohold and other drugs effects (AODE) have been well researched. From the moment he started knocking back the voddies to when he came too, nothing. This is due to the intoxicants stopping the transformation of short term memories to long term ones due to the a failure in the brains decoding abilities. The best way to access someone's lost memories would to be get them drunk again when they trickle back but disappear on regaining sobriety.
You need to remember that Gary Clarke is a supporter of Sheridan, to the point of clearly refusing to say anything to police/lawyers until it was clear this was going to come to court. Whether you all like it or not, this is incredibly significant. It may not be in the grand scheme of however many million witnesses are going to be called for both sides, but it's significant to Sheridan
The issue of his alcoholism and mental ilness was mentioned by Clarke in his statement and by the porsecution. As he himself makes a point of it, Sheridan is right to highlight this, it is the witnesses axcuse for not having any details.
But, in general, I agree with the points about mental health issues. Witnesses like Carolyn Leckie and others have been doing this since the start of the case, trying to paint Sheridan as mentally ill. I am sure, like an earlier poster said that people are not comfortable with this but mental health charities see this in court all of the time, so they won't be surprised and wont have anything to say after this.
Confused# "sounds as though he may have attended the SSP cultural festival then!"
LMAO
"He was also asked if he had even been approached by journalists from the NotW which he said he had."
What can you say!.
After listening to Gary Clark testified, this case against ts has gone, each day, more and more along the road of farcical. Today it cross the line into the ludacris.
'Anonymous said...
The truely worrying trend is that the NotW seem to have approached nearly all the witnesses.
Surely there should be a £3 million police investigation into that.
October 25, 2010 8:12 PM'
The NOTW are appealing the decision in the original court case. That would give them a legitimate reason to approach witnesses.
"The NOTW are appealing the decision in the original court case. That would give them a legitimate reason to approach witnesses."
NO!. It does NOT. It became a police matter, NOTHING to do with NotW.
How can the news of the world's appeal be nothing to do with the news of the world?
That's just silly.
"That's just silly."
You don`t understand!. It became an investigation by the police. NotW just made an appeal, but the investigation as to perjury was NOT made by NotW, but the first judge. NotW are a newspaper NOT the police.
I remember going to a mainstream busy club in Glasgow about ten years ago that showed porn on large screens in the bar before you got into the dancing. This was in Glasgow city centre, was "trendy" and not a sex club! Not that I condone porn in any way,but thats what I saw.
Yes, the PERJURY case is a police and PF matter, but the News of the World's lawyers wanted to talk to people about the appeal, which is allowed. AFAIK SSP witnesses have refused to offer precognition to them or indeed to Sheridan's solicitors.
Are NotW allowed to approach witnesses while an investigation by the police is going on?. I would be amazed if they are?.
The point is not whether they are allowed or not, the pattern seen in court is people changing their original evidence after talking to NotW lawyers.
"News of the World's lawyers wanted to talk to people about the appeal, which is allowed."
I don`t think so. As there was a police investigation going on it could be alleged witness tampering by NotW was taken place. Even more sinister was the case involved NotW. If this were another case and the potentially accused person went around to see witnesses that person would get arrested for perverting the course of justice, it has happened before.
"The point is not whether they are allowed or not, the pattern seen in court is people changing their original evidence after talking to NotW lawyers."
But the SSP witnesses didn't talk to the NOTW lawyers...
Well Katrine Trolle did, we have to assume McNeilage did if he got £200,000, I cant see a paper paying out that much without it going through their lawyers, and we dont yet know whether others did or not.
And I didnt restrict my comment to SSP witnesses only, I was referring to the general theme here about NotW lawyers talking to witnesses.
I agree that there might not be anything wrong with this practice, where it becomes a problem is when Trolle and others speak to the lawyers and then come to court identifying pictures that the lawyers showed her, and changing her evidence to an entirely new date.
Post a Comment