The next witness to be presented by the Crown was Alan McCombes. Mr McCombes was Press and Policy co-ordinator of the SSP in 2004, a former editor of the party's newspaper the Scottish Socialist voice and a candidate in the election to replace Tommy Sheridan after he resigned as SSP Convener in 2004. Alex Prentice QC, the Advocate Depute, began by asking the witness how long he had known Mr Sheridan. Mr McCombes stated he had known "Tommy" for 26 years. Mr McComes added he had been so close "politically" to Mr Sheridan that he had written his column in the Daily Record as well as "Tommy's" sports articles in the Sunday Herald. At this point Mr Prentice asked the witness that when he referred in future to "Tommy" he would mean Mr Sheridan? the witness said he would.
Mr McCombes was then asked when he had first become aware of the allegations against Mr Sheridan. The witness told the court he had heard about the visit to a sex club in late 2002, around November/December, from Keith Baldessera. He had contacted "Tommy" by telephone and they had arranged to meet at Glasgow city chambers (Mr Sheridan had an office there as he was at that time a Glasgow city councillor as well as an MSP) Mr McCombes to told the court that Tommy had "accepted" he had visited the club.
Mr McCombes told the court that he had then expressed his concerns, which were not for any "moralistic reasons" but because he felt that Mr Sheridan had a public image of being "squeaky clean" and of being the "Daniel O'Donnell of Scottish politics" but had now revealed he was taking part in activities more suited to a "English premier league footballer." He added he was particularly concerned as as the SSP had an election in the next year (2003) for which it was polling well and the party's prospects could become "collateral damage." Mr McCombes told the court he had expressed these concerns to Mr Sheridan who had assured him that the people who went with him to the sex club were "100% solid" and would never reveal his name. Mr McCombes stated that he had decided to tell no-one and take no action about the allegations.
The Advocate Depute then asked the witenss bout the 31st October article in the News of the World (the original swinger MSP story) and how he had reacted when he had seen it. Mr McCombes stated he had been "extremely alarmed" The witness added that he had called Mr Sheridan and expressed incredulity that one of the people who allegedly visited the sex club with him had been a journalist at the News of the World (Anvar Khan) which he further described as "the hight of recklessness." Mr McCombes told the court he had arranged to meet Mr Sheridan at a party event the next day, but Mr Sheridan had left early. They had finally met up on Monday, again at Glasgow city chambers, in the company of Keith Baldeserra. Mr McCombes told the court he had advised Mr Sheridan to admit the allegations, and "pre-empt" the negative publicity that would ensue when he was named, by contacting the editor of the Scottish Daily Mirror, Mike Graham, and to carry out some "damage limitation." The witness told the court that Mr Sheridan refused to accept that advice and was "gung ho" to take legal action, adding that the defendant had stated he would "destroy Anvar Khan." Mr McCombes claimed that while he was thinking of the SSP Mr Sheridan was only thinking of how he would be "destroyed politically" if the allegations against him were not challenged. The meeting then ended.
Mr McCombes then told the court he had organised a meeting consisting of himself, Carolyn Leckie, Rosie Kane, Ritchie Venton and Alan Green at his Glasgow flat 'at some point in the week." The witness stated that he had hoped Mr Sheridan would attend this "informal meeting" but as he had not the group had decided to call an emergency executive meeting of the SSP. This was later arranged for the 9th November 2004 (the "9/11 meeting" as previous witness Colin Fox called it)
Mr McCombes evidence on the "9/11" meeting did not differ significantly from that of the other witnesses who have testified about it so far. He said he had "not a scintilla of doubt" Mr Sheridan had admitted attending the Cupids club. He added that he had been distressed by the "intransigence" of Mr Sheridan which he said was "guaranteed to lead him to oblivion" The witness then discussed the aftermath of Mr Sheridan's resignation and claimed that Mr Sheridan had been briefing the media and trying to "rewrite the events of the meeting." He said the party was in danger of being "strapped into the back seat of a van heading for catastrophe" and stated that is why he went to the Sunday Herald newspaper and signed a legal statement giving his account of the "9/11" meeting. With that the court rose for lunch.
25 comments:
Has Prentice said how long the case is ikely to last?
Oh sorry forgot to mention that, he said another 3-4 weeks for the Crown case.
Another 3-4 weeks of Crown evidence doesn't leave much time for the Defence if this trial is scheduled to be concluded before Christmas.
As far as I can see this week should cover the politicos as witnesses, a couple of days for the News International mob so who can we expect for the last 2 or 3 weeks.
just a small point- wasn't in the daily mirror tht Tommy 'wrote' for?
I'd hazard a guess that a "mobile phone expert" will show up at some point to lecture the Court about "cells", "cross-triangulation" and other riveting stuff.
@ former ssp you sure it wasn't the Sun that Tommy "wrote" for - Sheridan on Saturday?
Aye, "Sheridan on Saturday - only in your Scottish Sun" - until TS was told that the Scum is part of the "Murdoch Empire".
He "wrote" for the Daily Record
He wrote for the Daily Mirror at some point too though, around 2003 if memory servers
sheridan will be given the time it takes to mount his defence, he won't be 'timed out' if the prosecution takes longer than expected. the other cases that are booked in will be moved to another high court or re-scheduled.
Ah hate politicians, especially ones that have ghost writers.
McCombes comes across like the Scottish left wing Max Clifford in this..crazy stuff.
If the Crown takes another 3 or 4 weeks, TS will be trying to defend himself in the run up to Christmas. Poor jury having to continue to focus on a trial as Christmas approaches
I was interested that Alex Prentice said that the prosecution case would take a further 3-4 weeks. With 161 prosecution witnesses and 51 defence witnesses my last rough calculation was that, at the current rate we are getting through witnesses, the trial is set to finish in May. There are grounds for believing that it could speed up to some extent, but this is by no means guaranteed.
How do you know there are 51 defence witnesses, Campbell?
"If the Crown takes another 3 or 4 weeks, TS will be trying to defend himself in the run up to Christmas. Poor jury having to continue to focus on a trial as Christmas approaches" lol we will all have fallen asleep at that point, and be so pre-occupied that we won't be able to take any information in, it will be like whistling in the wind.
Tommy had better hope people keep taking in information. He'll be conducting his defence by then, Mr M.
51 defence witnesses was the figure given to me by someone who was in court when Tommy added more names to the list of witnesses he wanted to call. Around 180 witnesses was a figure widely quoted leading up to the trial. We can discuss exact figures and calculations, but with anything like this number of witnesses, getting through them at anything like the present rate, it is difficult to see how the prosecution case will end in 3 to 4 weeks.
The list of witnesses will be larger than what will actually be called, they have to lodge someone as a witness in advance of knowing exactly how they will proceed.
We have still to see witnesses or evidence about the video tape, the subornation charge, the evidence against Gail Sheridan and the evidence and witnesses about the hotel party referred to in the indictment.
So its probably coming to the end of the stuff about the ssp meetings, confessions etc.
There could be loads of SSP witnesses on the list, just because they were present at meetings, but we might not see all of them.
Spot on, Anon 10:19 Far more witnesses are cited in Trials than are actually called; the Parties have to allow for all eventualities.
it's like studying for an exam; you have to learn all the material (witnesses and statements) but the actual questions (witnesses actually called) that come up only represent a fraction of what you have learned.
Honestly, I think McCombes is just fond of a metaphor or simile; he is a writer.
I go along with that, Shug, Alan McCoombes does indeed love metaphors and similes. I would also add that in my opinion McCoombes has a more sinister intent in that he knows full well the power of such turns of speech. To be honest, I am sick of hearing their "metaphors" in lieu of giving a straight answer to a straight question. You know what: all this reminds me of a scene from the film Slumdog Millionaire; in this film there is a scene in a call centre taking calls from UK customer, the walls of the office are plastered with Eastenders posters and the staff know all the lastest gossip from the soap, you know to "relate" to the customers. How long before Eastenders of "Corrie" in mentioned in this trial?
It has been suggested to me that, as the figure for the number of defence witnesses involves some issues which were discussed in the absence of the jury, it might be better not to mention it in this blog. The figure of around 180 witnesses at the start of the trial was widely reported in the media. Some issues about the likely length of the trial remain with a figure in this region.
It doesn't take a genius to work out what is going on though Campbell McGregor; hurry things along in the interests of expediency though is just not on. Appeals have been upheld on such complaints. One particularly infamous successful Appeal involved the late Lord Dawson who hurried a Jury along to reach a verdict before they "broke for luncheon". It's a denial of justice; you just can't risk an innocent person being sent to jail for years because you are hungry or want to do your Christmas shopping. On a side note, research also suggests that hurried procedures aren't in the best interests of the accused.
Post a Comment