The Video.

One major piece of evidence that I have only briefly touched on, is a video tape, 40 minutes of which was shown to the court on Friday morning. Prosecution witnesses Carolyn Leckie and Colin Fox have both testified that they recognised the two people on the tape as the defendant Tommy Sheridan and a Mr George McNeilage. The tape was first released by the News of The World newspaper on the 1st of October 2006 while a time stamp on one version of it gives the date of recording as 18/11/04.

The tape opens with this exchange (with "T" being the alleged voice of Mr Sheridan and "G allegedly being Mr McNeilage")

T: There is no problem as long as there’s nae f***ing cameras ... as long as there is no tape equipment.
G: D’you wanna check me for wires?
T: No George I don’t, because I still trust you mate.


It is well worth reading  Chris Musson's comprehensive article on the tape's audio contents  Which can be found here  However it should be made clear that visually the tape shows  one of the men very briefly and  the other only makes fleeting appearances. As mentioned above, the excerpt  played in court lasts for around 40 mins  and consists almost entirely of  one person talking while the other occasionally interjects or asks a question. The tape breaks off in the middle of a sentence

Maggie Scott QC, acting for Mr Sheridan touched on the question of the video during her Friday afternoon cross examination of Carolyn Leckie (see below) Ms Scott showed the end of a version of the tape which has an on screen timer and asked Ms Leckie what 62.24 minus 38.38 was (I assume to point out that the prosecution had not shown the whole recording)  She also asked Ms Leckie about a long period of the tape which  only  shows  a section of skirting board and some indistinct background noises.

Ms Leckie also told the court that she had seen some of the footage before as she had been shown it at Alan McCombes's flat by Mr McNeilage , shortly after it was released by the News of the World. She also testified that the version of the tape she saw was shorter and that she had not heard many of the statements on it before. With that she was allowed to stand down and the tape was not mentioned upon for the rest of the day.

The case continues on Monday and I'm sure it will be another fascinating week. Just before I sign off though I'd just like to thank the many of you (both at the court and otherwise) who have told me they are finding the blog useful.