Mr Sheridan continued his cross examination after the intervention of the judge, Lord Bracadale (see Part 1 below) and began to question Ms Kane on her testimony regarding the key 9th November meeting of the Scottish Socialist party executive. Mr Sheridan reminded Ms Kane that she described him, to the Advocate Deputy, as holding a notepad in his lap, which she confirmed. Mr Sheridan asked why no other witness had described this, and when pressed Ms Kane said "I can only tell what is my truth." Mr Sheridan then asked how long he had spoken for, which she was again unsure of, and who spoke after him. He questioned her statement that she was shocked at the meeting as a bit "overdone" considering she had stated she had known about the allegations for a week or so.
Mr Sheridan continued to concentrate on Ms Kane's recall of the details of the 9/11 meeting asking if Keith Baldessara had mentioned the Moathouse hotel by name? if the word "orgy" had been used,? if she had heard any other serious allegations? and of the details of Carolyn Leckie's account of the Cupid clubs website. He accused her if having "holes in her account" To which Ms Kane drew the analogy of a "horrible accident where different things jump out to different people." Ms Kane was also asked about Duncan Rowan the former SSP regional organiser who also attended the meeting. She described his as hysterical and said he entered the room like a "Tasmanian Devil" She also revealed that she met Mr Rowan after the meeting, in, the Stanley Bar, where she was "trying to calm him down."
Questioning then moved on to the SSP executive meeting of the 24th November, a key meeting as it was here that the disputed 9/11 minute was supposedly approved. Ms Kane was shown a police statement from her in which she stated (Unlike all the previous Crown witnesses who have told the court that only one person objected) that there had been "vociferous" opposition to the minute and asked if it was accurate. Ms Kane questioned if she had actually used that particular word she agreed however there was disagreement from "several" people at the meeting.
Mr Sheridan then moved on to the political aspects of the case and asked about the United Left group of the SSP of which Ms Kane was a founding member. She said the reason for it's formation was "you were in a huff and taking everyone out" and that Mr Sheridan was "on the rampage through the party." The situation she said was "nasty and dirty" and said that we needed a safety net. Mr Sheridan asked if this group constituted a "party within a party" to which she replied that Mr Sheridan also had a party within the party and it was not unusual to have lots of groups in the SSP. Mr Sheridan remarked that there was always "infighting" in the left, to which Ms Kane agreed.
Mr Sheridan returned to the question of minutes. He asked Ms Kane if it was possible that the disputed minute had never been approved at the 24 Nov meeting. Ms Kane agreed that it was possible. When asked if she was sure it had been ratified she responded "Maybes aye-maybes no."
Finally she was then asked to read out the other purported minute of the meeting, which does not contain any reference to any admissions by Tommy Sheridan. she denied this was accurate. Mr Sheridan then put it to Ms Kane that she was "making it up" to which she replied "You're saying we made it up? we waited for a random story to say it was Tommy? jeezo I'd be like Derren Brown." she added that she thought Mr Sheridan was "starting to believe his own lies. Mr Sheridan responded to this by saying, "you love to throw dust in people's eyes."
Since it was 4pm and with the defence about to move on to a new line of questioning the court rose for the day. It will resume on Monday with Ms Kane facing further cross-examination from the defence.
65 comments:
It appears that Tommy has got Rosie Kane on the ropes - it will be interesting to see how she stands up to further cross-examination next week.
Why can't the witnesses stick to the facts rather than resorting to the ploy of "painting a picture". I thought the 9/11 was a mistake i.e connotations of "conspiracy", here we go again with Rosie Kane "slipping in" Derren Brown, a well-known TV presenter which has connotations of mind-games, smoke and mirrors. This is the oldest courtroom trick in the book, it verges on neuro linguistic programming. It's very, very dangerous. The witnesses state that they haven't been coached or compared notes by I detect an air of deliberation to this. I half expect the X-Factor to be slipped in.
Hardly. I don't think any unbiased view of Kane's questioning could come to that conclusion.
"Hardly. I don't think any unbiased view of Kane's questioning could come to that conclusion." - and is that supposed to mean, Anonymous? Are you suggesting that the commenter is biased? Or is a casual reader no entitled to express an opinion?
I agree, Rosie Kane is mudding the waters. Straight questions, so why can`t she give straight answers?. Can`t understand why the judge has not taken action on those who have gone down this path?.
"it verges on neuro linguistic programming" seriously, get a clue. This is absolute nonsense.
God forbid people answer like real people; the judge hasn't upbraided them because they're doing nothing wrong, and when things are wrong he's mentioned it. I'm thinking Bracadale knows more about court procedure than you guys.
Indeed, what has Rosie Kane losing her jobs, parents or Derren Brown got to do with the matters under consideration?
"what has Rosie Kane losing her jobs, parents or Derren Brown got to do with the matters under consideration?"
Could be used to gain sympathy.
There was a court case in London where prosecution witnesses shamelessly used the sympathy card to get the judge on their side. Illnesses are also an ace card to use.
Yeah, it's the old X-Factor card, are we about to be told that Rosie in dying of cancer and that if Tommy & Gail are acquitted that Rosie Kane will be sent to Zimbabwe to face the firing squad?
it's very easy for anonymous commentators, relying on second hand reporting, to pick up on tiny details and attack a witness because of it.
too many agendas behind most of these comments, which is a shame, because the blog is very good.
"I'm thinking Bracadale knows more about court procedure than you guys."
That must be why appeal courts often criticise judges. It happened not long ago to judge Lord Carloway and strangely it involved Mr Anwar, Sheridans present solicitor.
"relying on second hand reporting,"
Accurate reporting, if you don`t mind. So, it not "to pick up on tiny details and attack a witness because of it."
You are trying to do what so many of the prosecution witnesses are doing, in trying to muddy the waters of this thread.
Lord Bracadale actually DID intervene and remind Kane that ger role was to listen to and answer the questions.
"Lord Bracadale actually DID intervene and remind Kane that ger role was to listen to and answer the questions."
Hasn't done much good, has it. So, what is he going to do about it?, seems he let her go on as before, doesn`t it.
Thanks for reminding us, Anonymous. I get the impression that Rosie Kane is using her time in the witness to make statements, and even Lord Bracadale was so cheesed of with her behaviour that he felt obliged to intervene. That is saying something as I have always found judges to have the patience of a saint and to display the utmost tolerance. To have pushed his Lordship to the point that he felt obliged to intervene, the significance of which actually appears to have been lost on this blog.
With respect anon I did mention it twice.
JD
"With respect anon I did mention it twice.
JD"
Oops, sorry James. My apologies.
No worries, I am limited in what I can say sometimes.
Anon 1 # It appears that Tommy has got Rosie Kane on the ropes.
Is that actually to his benefit in relation to a trial, by pressurising her he is creating a situation where she can retaliate in anger and come out with the statements reported above. Kane is not on trial, Sheridan is, he allowed her the opportunity to call him a liar who believes his own lies in court, if we take this as some form of gladiatorial contest they both drew blood.
I find it quite funny that this blog...written by an swp-er, a group that thought it better to back tommy in order to break a socialist party they couldnt control- has comments so outside those the general public are making. In real life I have yet to meet one person in Glasgow who thinks that Tommy is being 100% truthful or one person who thinks after reading Ms Kanes testiment that she is lying. Her testiment so far is one of the most convincing yet.
Publish and be damned, James.
Listen up peeps - you are with WITH Tommy & Gail or you are FOR the murdoch empire!
Ilikecheeseme - your comment only backing up what many of the commenters on this blog are saying - that the general public are being fed lies through the murdoch empire - they form their opinions based on murdoch's interpretation of events in court - or are they all sat in court, like the writer of this excellent blog. your comment only highlight the epic and titanic david & goliath struggle that tommy and gail face against the murdoch empire and the state, it is indeed like Gretna taking on AC Milan. And I am not a "Sheridanista", merely a member of the public.
Reading this blog and all it`s threads, I have to say this, is it possible for T.Sheridan to get a fair trial?. I don`t think it is.
As for the socialists? on this site, please, give it up, the right don`t have to defeat or destroy you, you all do the job for them...Little wonder people don`t vote for any of you. It doesn`t matter the what, where, therefore of it all, you had six MSPs and a BIG future, now you have NOTHING...You blew it, BIG TIME!!!.
How many times do people need told, it's the Crown he's up against not News International.
Yes, Anonymous but who does the Crown represent? The murdoch empire and the forces of the state.
Murdoch Empire, wah wah wah, grow up. If indeed Tommy is lying (I make no comment on whether he is or he isn't) then it's his fault for messing with the state and trying to fundamentally undermine the legal system through using the court of session as a platform for falsities that he is now up in court against the state, it's got absolutely nothing to do with the "murdoch empire".
And her name is CAROLYN. CAROLYN CAROLYN CAROLYN. NOT CAROLINE.
You people should be out looking for wee green men in the middle of corn circles.
You can shout about Murdock all you want, but it's still the Crown that is prosecuting Sheridan.
"Anonymous said...
"relying on second hand reporting,"
Accurate reporting, if you don`t mind. So, it not "to pick up on tiny details and attack a witness because of it."
You are trying to do what so many of the prosecution witnesses are doing, in trying to muddy the waters of this thread"
_________________________________
hi anonymous.
i'm not sure what point you are making; an accurate secondary source is still a secondary source.
as for muddying the waters, i think the waters are already very muddy. it's a shame that many people don't seem to want to believe that.
And what are you lot trying to say - that the Murdock Empire doesn't exist?
That should read, the criminal Murdock Empire. Don`t forget they have a criminal record, for doing criminal acts...It`s official, check the criminal record`s office to find out about their criminal acts. What other criminal acts have they been getting upto. (Note: No question there).
Yes Murdoch is evil and his papers vile, but it still doesn't change the fact that it is the Crown that is prosecuting the Sheridans.
"change the fact that it is the Crown that is prosecuting the Sheridans." - you still don't get it. It's the Crown that is prosecuting the Sheridans at the behest of the criminal Murdock Empire and the State. Just think of rupert hiding up the deputy advocate's skirt - there, you get it now?
This idea that you are with sheridan or with news international is so utterly incredibly stupid.
Although we can't comment on what is or isn't true, I would hope I am not alone in saying that if I was a witness and genuinely belived sheridan to be lying then there is no way I would lie in court to help him cover up an affair. For balance, I would say that none of us know the truth and if people are lying to do him in then that would be every bit as bad
"Yes Murdoch is evil and his papers vile, but it still doesn't change the fact that it is the Crown that is prosecuting the Sheridans."
A rose by any other name.
The truth will out - hopefully!
Yes, we would all like to know the truth of this matter. So, let's all sit back, take a deep breath, maintain an open perspective and keep an open mind.
It's amusing how many people who were able to see through "you either support the war or Saddam" and argue against it keep insisting "you either support Sheridan or Murdoch"
"support Sheridan or Murdoch"
Translation...
support Good or Evil.
Murdoch's Empire is just not news papers.
Maybe those on this site can tell us how many of them have Sky?
I used to watch sky news. Only because I was getting something for free off Murdoch. Even that became so far right in it`s reporting I stopped. Hmmm, Come to think about it, I had to stop watching the BBC for the same reason. My tv is on for about six hours a week and that is due to my wife watching soaps. I boycott anything to do with Murdoch, have done for a long time. Got myself a S/W radio and the internet for my news now.
I have never had Sky - my Grandfather was a printer. But it is interesting that some of those who go on about the "Murdoch Empire" just keep refering to his newpapers!
Same here buddy,,, S/W radio and the internet. TV in the trash,,, wife watches her daft soaps eound at her mams...
lol did tommy not rip down his sky dish when it was pointed out to him that it was part of the "murdock empire".
You lot all tuning into Radio Moscow or the Voice of Russia as it's called now?
S/W radio stations are going down like ninepins around the world!, soon there won`t be many broadcasting (in any). There are plans afoot to curb access to the internet!.
Freedom of speech/choice are being closed down.
There is nothing wrong with your television. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. Murdoch Empire are now controlling the transmission. Murdoch Empire control the horizontal and the vertical. Murdoch Empire can deluge you with a thousand channels or expand one single image to crystal clarity and beyond. Murdoch Empire can shape your vision to anything our imagination can conceive. For the next hour Murdoch Empire will control all that you see and hear. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the deepest inner mind to the outer limits.
Too true, "they" are trying to force us to abandon "old" technology and force/encourage everyone onto the most controllable technology of them all - the internet. Murdoch all has his sights set on the BBC. Soon all of out news and information will come via the "murdoch empire".
Anon
"support Sheridan or Murdoch"
Translation...
support Good or Evil.
No,
and what of the papers of the Left which are totally split many lambaste both sides of the political battle. The Socialist Party and SWP ones are just putting out the Party lines without allowing any comment in opposition. The Socialist Party in particular have abandoned any pretence of a free and open debate of the Scottish scene. The SWP are a bit cannier in their statements. And as many have said before, it’s the Crown V the Sheridans. No matter what the outcome of the trial is none in Solidarity or the SSP will accept the outcome if their side doesn’t win.
As for the use of Anon, it would be better if the commentator clicked on name and enterer a pseudonym so that it is easy to say who a reply is intended for.
And on Evil Island Doctor Evil is preparing his list of questions that Advocate Depute Prentice will ask the next witness, who of course has already had their orders from Evil Inc.
"it’s the Crown V the Sheridans."
it`s the Crown,Murdoch,SSP V Sheridans.
Or to put it another way,
The Unholy Trinity V Sheridans.
Must we have this argument? it's irrelevant.
This a Crown prosecution which has come about firstly because of a story in the News of the World and secondly because of evidence provided by members of the SSP.
There is no clear distinction to make.
At the moment all we have seen is evidence for the prosecution relating to an SSP meeting. The accusation is that Sheridan lied about confessing at an SSP meeting, the evidence for this is a group of SSP members who say it is the case, and a video published in the News of the World.
It's simply ludicrous to suggest the fact it a crown prosecution, means that it is not connected to the SSP or News of the World.
It's a false dichotomy!
We have seen already the extent to which the prosecution relies on the SSP, we will be able to judge the involvement of Murdoch's paper(s) when witnesses appear later.
victor#
While the evidence so far is from the SSP clearly other witnesses have been called. Witnesses who were involved in alleged incidents before the SSP were even aware of what was supposed to have happened. The SSP stance is I believe that they were asked to lie and refused to do so. The charge sheet has been published and it appears to some the most worrying aspects for the Sheridans have little to do with the SSP. When it comes to the crunch this is not a political battle as many portray but a personal matter which has got out of hand and nothing of a serious criminal nature took place until the trial. If the Blog owner allows I have provided a link to the very public sociologist site where the charges are published. On a personal note I believe this should never have happened, I am an opponent of an Indepenent Scotland so do not support either part politically but it is sad to see the the Scottish Left rip itself apart and a whole political movement misled to such an extent the Condems come across as more genuine and trustworthy.
http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2010/10/tommy-sheridan-on-trial.html
Victor English
You are wrong. The problem being we can`t say certain things at the moment.
Your problem, like others that come on here is you don`t want to see certain things that are in front of your eyes, why Victor do you think that is?. Senior members of Scotland`s legal fraternity, very highly experienced people, (with many years in the legal profession), one being one of the most respected judges Scotland has ever produced, all saying...This case should not have been brought, they are ashamed and shocked?. You see Victor English, they like some of us on here can see another agenda at work.
The Crown is the "public prosecutor"; they launch prosecutions ostensibly is the "public interest". Since, the SSP or they News of the World are not "reporting authorities", think RSPCA, Health & Safety Executive etc, they are not allowed to file a report to the procurator fiscal for consideration or launch a prosecution. So, of course News International and the SSP are represented by the Crown - in the "public interest".
jim m and anon, i suggest that you read my post again. I didnt say that there were ONLY witnesses from the SSP, i said 'so far' and i made no judgement on the involvement of Murdoch as we havent seen that aspect of the case as yet.
My point was that the debate about whether this is a crown prosecution vs a murdoch inspired vendetta is moot. It could easily be both as they are not mutually exclusive.
Jim M, all charge sheets are worrying, but they are just the start of the case, the evidence in front of the jury is what matters. Essentially, a "charge sheet" is just an accusation.
anon, its not that I "dont want to see", all I am saying is that we havent seen that yet. I will not form an opinion on it until I see the evidence. Although, I am aware that most in legal and justice systems have been uncomfortable about this for some time.
The "reporting authority" in this instance is Lothian & Borders Police
In effect all the SSP witnesses are doing is corroborating each other. Even if they are all to be believed they cannot all be considered as "independent" pieces of evidence and as such there would no corroborating evidence. If they are to be successful in the Prosecution the Crown needs to produce another independent piece of evidence that corroborates the SSP witnesses testimonies.
Agree Victor English, we have to wait until we see ALL the evidence. Too many of us are pre-judging things, in fact in shouldn't be making any judgements or forming opinions until we have seen ALL the evidence. Who knows what "rabbit in a hat", "ace up a sleeve" are in store.
a helluva lot of witnesses on that indictment... if it is indeed a conspiracy, it has to be the "mother of all conspiracies".
agree anonymous, if this wishy-washy, contradictory, all over the place mish-mash of testimony that we have heard so far is the best that the Crown can come up with, we can only guess at the verdict, if, however, the crown comes up with something "concrete" that back these witnesses up, then again, we can only guess at the verdict.
too right, say you and your mates fell out with someone, then you and these mates were walking down the street and this person that you had fallen out with came across and struck one of you. going on witness testimony alone this would be a shaky prosecution, unless the mate that you had fallen out with admitted it, as you would all be expected to say the same thing. if an onlooker, who had no connection whatsoever, witnessed the assault and made a statement then the mate then there would be sufficient evidence the convict the attacker. this, in my opinion, is the point at where this case is at the moment.
Post a Comment