The final witness the court heard from was Ritchie Venton, a "founding organiser" of the SSP and a member of it's executive committee in 2004. The Advocate deputy began by asking Mr Venton about his relationship with Mr Sheridan, he stated he had worked closely with Tommy Sheridan since 1999. He regarded him as a a great "populariser of socialist ideas" and the SSP's "best known figure.
Mr Prentice then moved onto the article about the unnamed MSP that appeared in the News of the World and asked when Mr Venton had discovered the MSP referred to was Mr Sheridan. He replied that he had received a call from Alan McCombes saying that Tommy Sheridan had admitted to him that he was. The witness was then questioned about the "9/11" meeting and if it was a "kangaroo court" Mr Venton replied "absolutely not there was not hint of kangaroo or any other marsupials" which led to laughter in the public gallery.
The witness then went on to give his account of the meeting. Mr Venton stated that Tommy Sheridan had admitted to being the unnamed MSP in the News of the World story and that he had visited the Cupids club on two occasions. He then said that Tommy Sheridan had been confident there was no evidence he had been there and he was confident he could challenge the story and "destroy Anvar Khan as a witness." Mr Venton then described his reaction as "heartbroken" "gobsmacked" and "close to tears."
Finally the Advocate Depute asked Mr Venton if he was telling the truth, as he had at the 2006 libel case when he had felt "more like a hostage than a witness." With that the Crown examination ended and Mr Sheridan began his cross-examination.
Mr Sheridan opened by asking Mr Venton if his memory had improved since 2006 as he now recalled him saying he visited the Cupids club in Manchester twice, something he had not said in his testimony at the libel trial, Mr Venton responded that he had said "at least one" and that he had remembered it was twice "as I stepped down from the witness box." When asked why this was the witness replied "maybe I should get a date on Big Bother to pay for a psychology degree" and added that he had hesitated to give "damming evidence." The witness then stated that there was a suggestion in the meeting that there had been three visits by Mr Sheridan to Cupids. Mr Sheridan expressed "surprise that none of the other 11 witnesses remember that." Mr Venton claimed this was a comment made by Keith Baldessera that had not been taken up, but added to Mr Sheridan, "you didn't deny it."
Mr Sheridan then asked the witness about his statement that he had said at the same meeting he could "destroy Anvar Khan as a witness which he described as "unique" as no other witness had mentioned it. Mr Venton replied that it was his recollection and different people remember different details. He added that this showed there was not a conspiracy against Mr Sheridan as people were proving different details and not using a "script."
Part 2 to follow.
26 comments:
Do these SSP witnesses think that there is some merit in wise-cracks and avoiding questions? I mean, the Big Brother reference and his marsupial comment do him no good, the jury might laugh but it does nothing to confirm the evidence at hand.
The behaviour of Leckie yesterday was embarrassing, its hard to imagine that this woman was an elected representative, I mean saying c--t in court is awful.
Venton seems to be free from the association with those who have manipulated events like the affidavit etc and could have been a good witness for the prosecution. But his jokes interefered with his evidence.
In all honesty, I have never seen behaviour like this in a High Court. I am sure Alex Prentice will be despairing that he could not get them just to stick to the questions.
Steven Nimmo earlier seems to be the most mature of the SSP witnesses.
It's great publicity for a party that only received 12,000 votes at the last Scottish elections - name recognition wise at least, but that's always a start.
It's tommy who's asking the leading and ludicrous questions not prentice, so he can expect comical answers
Yes RV had to be stopped by the Judge from giving yet another account of the '9/11' meeting, telling him to just answer the question: 'Do you know Pat Smith'.
Yesterdays afternoon session ran over time. TS said he expected he would need an additional 20 mins, it actually lasted another 60, much of which was taken up with RV not answering the questions.
"The behaviour of Leckie yesterday was embarrassing, its hard to imagine that this woman was an elected representative, I mean saying c--t in court is awful."
Uh, she was quoting the video. If you'd been there the first time she was cross examined by Maggie Scott, you could have heard two top QCs saying that in court as well!
Just reacting to the questions that have nothing to do with the case, although a political point that Venton may have scored, is Tommy paying for his degree, surely that is on the same level as Abbot paying for a private education for her kid. Now if I am right Big Brother is parially owned by Berlusconi, a private education payed by Sylvio, Goldman Sachs and John De Mol, that is the dodgiest thing I have heard so far in this trial. These guys make Murdoch look like a pussycat.
No shug she was avoiding an answer and acting like a kid, using something that was from the video to justify something else. She didnt need to quote the video. Thats what I am talking about, she was asked if she had seen the video and replied by quoting from it. Its not for witnesses to decide to do this, the answer to the question was yes or no.
Sheridan asked if the video was longer bthan what she had seen, she replied by saying that she had to endure him calling her a c--t!
Seriously, I have seen witnesses led away for less than Leckie's behaviour yesterday. It was childish.
God this is depressing. Whatever the outcome of this trial it will kill off the left in Scotland for a generation. The public knows fine well that one side or the other must be lying through their teeth so why should they trust any of them with power?
@ Robert, who is to say that one or other is lying?, maybe they are all telling the truth, just their own version of the truth. each to his/her their own truth.
I feel your pain Robert. It's obvious that no-one is going to own up until they are backed into a corner. Anyway, I hope the trial demonstrates conclusively who is telling porkies. Conclusive, incontrovertible evidence are you out there?
@Jim Mclean, tell me where can you get a free University education these days in the UK?
I think if it hadn`t been for all this, we could have been looking at having 20+ MSPs at the next election?.
"God this is depressing".
"I think if it hadn`t been for all this, we could have been looking at having 20+ MSPs at the next election?.,", funny that, it's almost as if this whole saga has been orchestrated to bring down the Left in Scotland, just as we were turning into a force to be reckoned with, funny that...
Qui Bono - who benefits from this? who stands to gain? these are the questions we should be asking ourselves.
good on you for minding your language, James... I wish I could say the same thing about Bernard Ponsonby... handsome man that he is...
Teacher: I quite agree. Lenin once said that a capitalist court is no better than a brothel. Yet the "Marxist" leadership of the SSP appear to have had no qualms about turning up to this showtrial of their erstwhile comrade and leader. Worse still they seem to be awfully keen to feed the media frenzy with ill advised wisecracks (e.g. Rosie Kane's theatrics with her spectacles) and grandiose, overly dramatic responses (Colin Fox's daft and insulting comparison with 9/11 and his labelling of Tommy as "Svengali"). It's not so much (as Alan Partridge put it) "let me on the telly" as "let me into court so I can denounce Comrade Sheridan".
However what is especially interesting is their expressions of horror at the confession they claim Tommy made. Even according to their own version of events, and according to the NoTW, Tommy is not alleged to have committed any crime or harmed anyone(except perhaps his wife - which is surely a matter for the Sheridans and exactly nobody else). Yet Venton and Leckie both claim to have been "heartbroken" and "horrified" by the allegations and TS's alleged "confession" of visiting a swingers' club.
Even if the allegations against Tommy were to be true, would anybody care? Is it anyone's business?
Who are the SSP, and for that matter who are Andy Coulson and Rupert Murdoch, to impose this puritanical morality on Tommy?
These political pygmies from what's left of the Scottish Left remind me of me of the famous quotation from American journalist Henry Mencken: "Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
No wonder they can't even get anyone elected to the Scottish Parliament anymore.
Oh come on, 20-30 seats? That the sort of delusional nonsense that led to their self-destruction. The SSP thought that they had arrived in 2003 when their result was just a blip. They stopped doing the very work that got them to parliament and insteda tried to build around a group of persobalities. We can see this week that there isnt a personality there that you can build a movement around.
Leckie, Curran and Kane were a joke in that parliament and would never have been re-elected in a million years. Byrne sneaked in with a low vote due to the circumstances of other votes in her region, The iraq war had just started and the SNP were at their weakest point for 20 years. If this hadnt happened Sheridan would have been re-elected, possibly Fox, but no more than that.
Oh come on, your not taking into account the mess the whole nation is in!!!. People would have turned out to vote for the old ssp.
"although a political point that Venton may have scored, is Tommy paying for his degree, surely that is on the same level as Abbot paying for a private education for her kid."
I think you'll find that the state pays for a first degree only - Tommy has already been to University once before, so now has to pay second time round. Dianne Abbot could have sent her kids to a state school but attempted to buy advantage by paying for a private education. Completely different.
"Tommy paying for his degree"
What has that got to do with this case!. I HAVE to pay to go to the dentists.
#Justaglagowguy
I was gonna say that about college, then the middle class guilt kicked in and I decided not to.
#Anonymous
I think you mean 'cui bono'...
The point is principal, does a paying student shut out a working class kid. Diane Abbot got pure stick for using the private sector to educate her child but the leader of the Marxist Party is allowed to ignore that party's correct stance in opposing rich fee paying students taking up spaces at our uni's. Or are we back to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat not necessarily led by the Proletariat.
'The point is principal, does a paying student shut out a working class kid.'
I do wish people would get their facts right before posting! All Universities have the number of funded places set by the Scottish Funding Council, they are at liberty to then offer a number of additional places to fee paying students.
It is also the case that we are all entitled to 5 years funded education at a higher level so any additional time at university needs to be paid for by the student.
"Teacher: I quite agree. Lenin once said that a capitalist court is no better than a brothel. Yet the "Marxist" leadership of the SSP appear to have had no qualms about turning up to this showtrial of their erstwhile comrade and leader."
Er, are you forgetting that it was tommy the glorious leader who started using the courts for his own gain? If there is nothing wrong with going to swingers clubs etc why didn't he just say so rather than using the rich man's playground to sue the newspaper to get loads of money for himself? People seem to conveniently forget that FACT. Oh, but is it ok for him then, is he more equal than others? Two legs better than four legs etc!
Re: NobodyCares "Tommy is not alleged to have committed any crime or harmed anyone(except perhaps his wife - which is surely a matter for the Sheridans and exactly nobody else). Yet Venton and Leckie both claim to have been "heartbroken" and "horrified" by the allegations and TS's alleged "confession" of visiting a swingers' club.
Even if the allegations against Tommy were to be true, would anybody care? Is it anyone's business?
Who are the SSP, and for that matter who are Andy Coulson and Rupert Murdoch, to impose this puritanical morality on Tommy?
I'm afraid you may have missed the entire point of this case. TS is accused of perjury in his defamation case, which he chose to pursue due to (I presume) feeling that the Swinger Club story harmed his reputation. Whether the original MotW story was a lie or not is almost immaterial to his reasons for pursuing the defamation case if the allegations were not perceived as damaging by Sheridan.
I could falsely accuse you of liking olives and I doubt you would take me to court (I've just had some lovely black olives).
"I've just had some lovely black olives"
I prefer the the green ones.
Stuffed with garlic if possible.
Post a Comment