 |
| Lord Bracadale |
When court reconvened this morning the presiding judge, Lord Bracadale, addressed the jury. He informed them that one of their colleagues had been taken ill and that he was adjourning the case for the rest of today and tomorrow to allow the juror to recover. Lord Bracadale went on to say "as it happens we are close to the end of the prosecution case which should be finished in about a day" and went on to tell the jury that if all went to schedule the defence would begin it's case on Friday. The court then rose and is scheduled to resume at 10am on Thursday.
129 comments:
It was snowed out on Monday 29th then?
Monday was a holiday for Scottish government departments Steve.
That's interesting! So "Scottish government departments" get more holidays than the rest of us poor plebs.
So, if the defence gets to start on Friday, it may well be completing it's witnesses as we all break for Christmas.
Will the jury feel under pressure to reach a verdict quickly so they can get away to enjoy the season like everyone else?
The trial is still on schedule with a verdict expected on Friday 10th December, but will probably be delivered on Monday 13th December to give the jury more time to deliberate and not to appear to be seen as rushing into a Verdict. If the Sheridans are Acquitted they will be free to leave the Court. If they are Convicted the Diet will be Adjourned with the Sheridans being remanded in Custody/freed on Bail. No telling what the betting is on though.
If the Defence starts on Friday that only leaves a week to present their case, closing speeches, jury deliberations and a deliver a verdict. It will be interesting to see what happens if TS appears to be taking longer than his "allotted" time.
looks bad for TS if he's only getting 1 or 2 days to defend himself!?
I'm not sure where this idea that the defence has an "alloted time" comes from. My understanding is they have as long as they want, subject to the judge's rulings of course.
Personally I very much doubt we will be finished as soon as the 10th December.
Aye, James, that would be like two days defence, half day speech for prentice, one and a half days speech for ts, then two days (and over the weekend) for jury deliberations, verdict on the monday. But how many trial over run, I think it's like 100% of trials finish on time. And this would have if TS was represented, cos all the *officers of the court* work to make sure it works out that way. A couple of days/week have been already been lost due to TS's illness, now we have an unwell juror, and in my opinion Prentice has tailored his sloth/witness list to suit the time slot. I'd expect that all the advocates and judge will already have a pretty full diary. Is this trial really going to resume on 10 January?, it looks like it should, but at the same time looks like it won't. We will find out soon enough.
Can't wait to hear TS explain why he had Cupid's telephone number.
If the crown case is to finish this thursday then i think they are in trouble, there are parts of the indictment that they have not proved or led any evidence on.
I think the towel will be thrown in regards Gail by the weekend to get Paul Mc Bride out the picture, the last thing prentice want is him there 'guiding' Tommy.
It all looks a mess now i think in regards to the prosecution, ant 'smoking gun' they had were proved liars or had taken money from the NOTW.
I still dont know why McKerrell was called ?, he offered hearsay evidence not specific to any charge libelled
"My understanding is they have as long as they want", only theoretically but not in practice - courts run a tight ship trying to fit all this business in - and their is a LOT of business, TS is just another trial to fit in, it is someone's JOB to make sure that things run smoothly. Say Lord Bracadale has a trial to preside over in the New Year (and he will) and the Sheridan trial is still running (with TS being "given as much time as he needs"?
Think a dental practice, doctor's surgery, do you get all the time you want? Of course not, there are time constraints and a "practice manager" to oversee it all? Why should a court be any different. It is an extremely difficult job managing court business, keeping the "roles of justice" running, inquiries are held, and people (no courts mentioned) have lost their jobs.
McKerrell's evidence was specific to Sheridan's denial under affirmation that he had not attended Cupids.
@ the truth is out there, but that may be in part due to them not having enough time to present their case properly, and they are now at the point where they definitely have to "give way" to TS.
TS did say: "We might hear from Fiona McGuire". I wonder if Lord Bracadale would allow her to appear at this stage of game and particularity since she bears in my opinion no relevance to any of the charges on the Indictment.
@ Bunc We might never hear TS explain why he has Cupid's phone number. He doesn't actually have to offer an explanation - you are of course entitled to "draw an inference", as is the Jury.
In my opinion it would be quite easy to dismiss the fact that Cupid's telephone number is in his diary as a "grain of sand in the Sahara desert". So what, compare and contrast it against the endangerment of an unborn child, the endangerment of GS and the endangerment of Fiona McGuire and you are fixating on a number in a dairy - seriously?!
It should also be noted that according to this blog
". One entry included a scored out word which the crown suggested was "Cupid." Ms Garvie agreed that it could be. Following the scored out word was an incomplete Manchester area telephone number ending with the entry "(3.5)" Mr Prentice asked Ms Garvie what "two times 3.5 is" to which she replied seven."
So there is no telephone number, just a partial number.
Fiona McGuire is very relevant to this case. Crown witnesses, like the NOTW editor Wight, have suggested that she had an affair with TS. TS has denied this. If the jury were to conclude that TS was lying about this 'affair', they could easily conclude also that TS was lying about the Cupid's affair which is the basis of the perjury charge.
TS needs to call Fiona McGuire to let the jury see that her claims are baseless and merely motivated by making money from the NOTW.
It will be sad if this trial does end "prematurely", it will be good to hear from the likes of Fiona McGuire and how many other witnesses TS has in the offing. It will feel like a big anti-climax once the verdict is in, long may the trial continue.
Thing about TS bring FMcG to the stand - why would you want to drag someone reluctantly? who has reportedly been in a "fragile" state of mind and attempted suicide to give evidence? Is that not "endangering" FMcG?
lol that would be like being stuck in a kafka-esque nightmare for TS - a never-ending trial with a never-ending stream of prosecution witnesses. lol
If the prosecution case is going to finish by Friday, does that mean we can expect the Sheridans to take the dock on Thursday? Or is that done at a later stage?
The Truth is out there said;
"I think the towel will be thrown in regards Gail by the weekend ...."
This would not surprise me either. Could someone, with more legal knowledge than me, explain how this may happen.
Would the prosecution go to the judge in private and then the judge would announce that all charges against Mrs Sheridan were dropped?
? the Sheridans are already in the dock. TS does not need to give evidence, but as he is un-represented TS not giving evidence is not so apparent. An unrepresented person might think that by doing so they are only giving the Crown a chance to "have a go at them" as well as it highlight the fact that they are on trial. Kind of like being sat in the dock between Police Officers does, compare with the American system where the Ac cussed sits at a table with their Representatives. Being represented GS is in an entirely different position though.
Prentice doesn't have to consult with the judge to drop anything, he can drop anything and everything he pleases, but will probably wait until the last minute. He will want to keep the jury as focussed as possible on TS and the the counts/charges most likely to stick. Unless AP can present a slam-dunk case against GS which would require little consideration by the jury proceeding against GS may just be an unwanted distraction. In my opinion the jury will be more likely to convict TS in isolation. Dropping the charges against GS will also mean that PMcB will out out the courtroom like a shot.
Regarding potential dropping of charges - the Crown could withdraw charges at the end of their case (or at any time I think, as per last week), or the defence could lodge a "no case to answer" motion, which is much more likely in GS than TS's case.
Unless I could come up with a water-tight case against GS I wouldn't proceed... but I would subtly extricate GS from the Indictment.
If there is SUFFICIENT evidence against GS it SHOULD go to the Jury, having multiple Accused in a Trial for the Jury to consider the Case against is no unusual circumstance.
Bear in mind that the charges libelled against TS and GS are equally as serious - GS in not charged with trivial matters, if she was she would be appearing in the District Court.
From reading this blog the only evidence presented against Gail Sheridan has been that of Katrine Trolle, who said she was not at the a conference in Perth when Mrs Sheridan said she was.
We have also had a crown witness who said that Katrine Trolle told him she was at the Perth Conference.
Of course it is up to the jury but I cannot see, unless there is more evidence in the last day, how Mrs Sheridan can be convicted of anything.
AP wasn't happy, in fact most displeased, with a couple of the witnesses - let's put it that way.
Regarding, Katrine Trolle being present or not at the Perth Conference.
Why has the sedurant/attendance list of SSP members who attended the Perth Conference not been used to verify or otherwise this issue.
Members sign in to collect polling/voting cards so should be available in the same manner that other SSP documents have been made available.
Bunc said...
Can't wait to hear TS explain why he had Cupid's telephone number.
November 30, 2010 2:37 PM
Bunc on the diary I actually have Cupids number in my notepad; I did a search for it on Google; I have driven past it.
I would, however, affirm or even swear on Emeritus Professor Nicky McKerrel's atheist version of the bible that this is circumstantial and I have not actually been to Cupids.
Is it possible that I am lying and I actually got out of my car and went in for (cough) research purposes? Certainly.
Can you prove I did so beyond a reasonable doubt?
I am sure you can pay all sorts of dodgy characters from the extra list of Corrie lots of money to roll up and say I was there and then add in the evidence above to try and make a case - but it does not make it true.
According to the Crown's own evidence Sheridan does not even have Cupid's number in his diary!
They appear to have decided not even to pursue the alleged Direct Enquiries issue.
The Cupid's number thing is like the video a lot of smoke and mirrors and little substance.
Talking of magical Salford I saw Derren Brown show at the Lowry in Salford earlier this year - the things he can do will blow your mind.
The Crown is a bit more Tommy Cooper - but only during the early part of his act when the tricks are all crap and fall apart not the later part when they all come together!
Be more credulous.
Happy St Andrews day to you lot up there - atheists, Catholics, referees or otherwise.
Peter,
Do you ever read what you type before submitting? You seem to choose the path of least logic, as long as it suits your agenda.
Peter, how do you know what the Crown is pursuing or not - the Crown case isn't even over yet.
Clive is correct, in my opinion, Peter. Your writings to lack any rhyme or reason, well to me anyway.
Peter - Emeritus?! an Emeritus Professor is a RETIRED Professor. "Nicky" McKerrell is far to young to be an Emeritus Professor.
Hello all, could we try and avoid personal attacks, it's fine to disagree but let's try to stick to the issues
thanks
JD
The issue here is the illogical stream of consciousness being typed by Peter.
Sorry Peter had to block that comment because of the "likely to be a concoction" line could you rephrase that?
@ Legaly Challenged - there is still time for documents to be recovered, the prosecution isn't over yet. What you suggest may or no transpire - just wait and see.
That is why the Jury, in my opinion are looking strained. If TS is indeed guilty he should do the decent thing and 'fess up. On the other hand, why should an innocent person plead guilty to a charge that they are innocent of.
The Judicial system prefers "confessions", persons admitting their guilt, the whole system is rigged to that end. In general, no-one (Juries included) like making a finding on guilt against anyone, all rather distasteful.
In my opinion Alex Prentice believes that he has almost done all that is necessary to secure a conviction. Rather than waste everyone's time, best to conclude, give TS his shot then wait for a verdict.
Anonymous said...
@ Legaly Challenged - there is still time for documents to be recovered, the prosecution isn't over yet. What you suggest may or no transpire - just wait and see.
Iam sure that the truth party will be falling over themselves to supply this documentation.
It's worth remembering that the Crown has brought forward a number of new witnesses, such as Gary Clark, Elizabeth Quinn, the Cumberbirches, Paul Sinclair, Dr Nicholas McKerrell, and sundry others as reported on in this blog.
if thats the best AP can do the crown should be closed,this trial is a joke,if there were to be perjury trials in every case the courts would just be dealing in perjury trials
Whats all this nonsense about Sheridan having days to present his defence? I would imagine that we are now cutting it very tight for this trial to be over before Christmas. Sheridan will be given the time that he needs,
Also, what is this idea about some controversy over Sheridan having the phone number for cupids? We have heard evidence that people informed him of rumours about Cupids as early as 2001 or even earlier. Sheridan doesnt dispute having the number. In fact, we can see an easy explanation in the charge against Gail Sheridan. She has said she was present when he called to find the number.
I can't see that being much of an issue at all.
Anon 6.01 seems to be suggesting that he or she would have access to an attendance record of the Perth conference and that they would be willing to get this to the prosecution without consulting with the SSP who have testified to their objection to handing over party documents.
However, this would be a waste of time as the prosecution have had years to prepare and the chapter on that charge is closed.
Also, it would mean a delay as Sheridan would then be able to ask for time to prepare and investigate evidence in defence of this new production. We would have to establish in court whether or not these records were accurate, whether they recorded people who might have nipped in for a short time but not delegates, and other issues like that. I think it is pretty certain that Lord Bracadale would reject a new production from the prosecutuion that they could have easily asked for at any time in the last two years.
If this had become important because of evidence that had emerged during testimony and that had previously been unknown, then they might have a case for adding it. But this charge has been known for long enough for the prosecution to do their research and prepare.
What if the prosecution's last witness was one of the investigating police officers? A number of bits of evidence could be presented in the one session.
Blogger James Doleman said...
Sorry Peter had to block that comment because of the "likely to be a concoction" line could you rephrase that?
November 30, 2010 5:59 PM
Think I will leave it as is James if that's OK just dont post it. I don't want to delete it, edit it or say I mispoke as there has been enough of that in this trial already.
Cheers, Peter
I am of the opinion that TS will try to drag this out trial out longer than is intended. Who knows, maybe Lord Bracadale has some procedures up his legal sleeves a la guillotine - not literally, but legally.
Anonymous said
"We have heard evidence that people informed him of rumours about Cupids as early as 2001 or even earlier. Sheridan doesnt dispute having the number. In fact, we can see an easy explanation in the charge against Gail Sheridan. She has said she was present when he called to find the number."
think about this for a minute. You are involved in legal action which hinges on your alleged connection to a club. So you look up the phone number of that club and write the number down against an incriminating date in your diary?
Sorry but I personally can't credit that as a serious believable explanation. The jury will of course make up their own mind.
As for GS being there? - the totel of a famous Tammy Wynette song keep springing into my mind.
Peter, Do you ever read what you type before submitting? You seem to choose the path of least logic, as long as it suits your agenda. November 30, 2010 5:33 PM Not sure what you mean Clive. be more specific. If you track back on my posts you will note that I have made the following main logical submissions. a) that if there is a Guilty verdict there are grounds for a mistrial / appeal as most of the Crown witnesses work for NOTW, have been paid by the NOTW or are associates of people who have been paid and the full extent of that contamination of the jury pool has not been presented to the jury. See Rose West and the Lockerbie appeals that I quoted for guidance. b) that the video ****** ***** and that i was sure the Crown would therefore could not present any forensics to show it was genuine(I was right on that one) c)that ALL the charges on Gail Sheridan will likely be dropped as the Crown only used her to get at Sheridan - think I will be right on that one shortly. d) that the Crown overcharged the Sheridans and leaked that it had strong forensics to appear it had a strong case. This was to pressurise the accused and their witnesses. I predicted that many of the charges would be pulled before even being put to the jury. As has been and will I am sure continue to be the case. e) that the NOTW pay convicted criminals posing as "investigators" to set people up. I quoted the House of Commons reports that show that and the NOTW confirmed it in their evidence in this trial. Not quite Mystic Meg I agree but not bad - surely not illogical. So tell me Clive - to mangle the Georgie Best line - "where did I go so wrong?"
Edited by JD)
Police Officers are usually the first witnesses, but not necessarily so, maybe we will see some Police evidence.
Anon, a Verdict is really expected on Friday 10th December (or thereabouts), that's if the Trial goes to plan.
The crown do not produce evidence to help the defense ie that Trolle was there,like AP made a fool of him self asking McColl about his police statement in chief when he should have been producing all the evidence not the parts that suit,this is the reason there are so many miscarriages of justice the whole of the the evidence should be laid bare
It could be quite crucial the Police evidence so maybe AP is saving it for last.
Peter,
you went wrong by dimissing the video, suggesting grounds for a retrial, suggesting most of the witnesses had been paid by the NotW (although, of course, the Sheridans were paid by the Daily Record)...
Peter, you have gone wrong again and again - and are arguing that people should be more credulous, which is odd.
Why no police evidence? Must be the only trial without police evidence.
Tue 30 Nov 2010
Andy Coulson to be called as witness at Sheridan trial next week
Media / UK
The Drum has learned that Andy Coulson, director of communications for the Conservative Party and former editor of The News of the World, will be called as a witness to Tommy Sheridan’s perjury trial next week.
It is understood that Coulson, who was editor of the News of the World when Sheridan won £200,000 in damages during defamation action against the paper in 2006, will now be called to give evidence at the High Court in Glasgow next week.
The paper published allegations against Sheridan of conducting adulterous affairs and attending a sex club in Manchester in 2004, allegations which were found by a jury to be untrue.
Meanwhile, it is also understood that further charges against Sheridan will be dropped after four perjury charges were dropped against him and his wife last week.
Got this from "The Drum" - the Guardian has also printed part of it - not the last paragraph
In my opinion there certainly will be an Appeal in the event of a Guilty verdict, that is why in my opinion the Crown is thinking ahead and acting to block off as many possible Appeal avenues as possible.
Anonymous said:
Peter - Emeritus?! an Emeritus Professor is a RETIRED Professor. "Nicky" McKerrell is far to young to be an Emeritus Professor.
November 30, 2010 5:52 PM
Irony failure Anon?
(I know old Nicky is not an Emertus Prof.)
As an aside I was in court the other day. Our brief, the other sides brief and the judge kept on referring to my guy as Mr. rather than Professor.
I pulled our brief up about it after the hearing. He said he thought it sounded very pretentious to use Professor title when academic matters were not being discussed - so did the Prof!
Lefty anecdote alert: Met Chomsky twice (not a barrel of laughs) and seen him speak a few times. He was happy to be introduced and addressed by his audiences as plain old Noam.
Anyway I am aware that etticut guidance says you should always call them Dr. or Professor etc. I worked as an adviser in a Uni. for a few years. The pretension ratings index operated by the staff had this matter as one of the criteria - we had some fun with the main culprits.
But its not a hanging offence - just a bit of fun as Rob Brydon would say.
Another leftie anecdote Peter. I've met Lord Anthony Wedgewood-Benn - her prefers to be called plain old Tony.
I believe it was Gail who the record paid not TOMMY and i dont get the point of the NOTW trying to score on that point they paid half the crown
Sorry all, had to delete that bit as it referred to evidence not heard in front of the jury at this trial.
Peter - my pompopusness meter is reading of the scale can you move nback from the screen a little please?
Heres a secretly recorded conversation from another trial between Frank and his wife. frank was accused of bank robbery and had the phone number and address of the bank in his diary for the date of the robbery.
FRANK: Honey they are saying I robbed that bank!
WIFE: Oh dear what can you do - can they connect you to the bank?
FRANK: No dear but I am worried for that poor bank. Their reputation as a safe place to keep money will be in jeapardy. Maybe I should warn them the the press will be interested. I could also check and remind them that I wasnt there.
WIFE: If you think thats a good idea honey.
FRANK: yes I think it's for the best. Hang on I need to write the phone number down. Can you get my diary please.
WIFE: Ok here it is.
FRANK: Ok now open it to the day of the supposed bank robbery - that way we'll be sure to remember were we wrote it wont we.
WIFE: if you say so dear ...
Tha case against Frank continues ....
Peter,
credulous? emeritus? etticut?
And you are both a legal adviser AND a former university adviser?
Honestly?
Just in case anyone doesnt know what a pompopusness meter is it's a delicate intrument that measures the flux of pomposity and pompousness. Just thought I should clear that up. Its similar to a Hubris-scope.
Yulefae A bit of an irrelevance who's actual bank account the dosh was paid into; the Sheridans are husband and wife if you don't already know. Spouses have all sort of joint/separate finances. Of course if GS did receive payment then TS can say with a straight face that HE did not receive payment. This brings up an important point: It is not what people are saying, it's what they are NOT saying!
@ Bunc it seems perfectly reasonable to me that Frank would write the number down in his diary, what a farce bringing that to trial, I expect it to be thrown out.
In my opinion maybe GS did receive the money from the Daily Record, but as a way of TS covering his butt in more ways than one, in my opinion.
Clive said...
The issue here is the illogical stream of consciousness being typed by Peter.
Hi Clive,
"Stream of conciousness" & "Illogical":
Fair comment. I disagree of course.
You do not indicate in any event if you consider a discourse, partly utilising a stream of conciousness, to be inherently good or bad thing. S of C has it's uses - No?.
Also in some ways a blog comment stream should be more a conversation rather than considered legal submissions. Also some people also think more quickly than others. Perhaps you are mistaking rapidity of thought and response and carelessness in spelling etc for a failure of logic.
But times presses. I need to get the tea on - we are having mince tonight. I then need to get the kids up the stairs (again, again, and again)to their bed, wash my boxers and put on a good video - sorry DVD, showing my age there. Was thinking of Inception (wink).
Or I may try, in honour of your S of C comment, to yet again attempt to finish my copy of "À la recherche du temps perdu" that I have had on the go since 87.
Prententious - Moi?
its a brilliant blog you got here mr doleman. you should seriously consider putting it behind a notw style firewall. if we have to pay to read the notw why should we get superior stuff for free. maybe split the cash with the commentators.
Thanks anon, but information should be free IMHO.
Clive said...
Peter,
you went wrong by dimissing the video, suggesting grounds for a retrial, suggesting most of the witnesses had been paid by the NotW (although, of course, the Sheridans were paid by the Daily Record)...
Peter, you have gone wrong again and again - and are arguing that people should be more credulous, which is odd
-------------
Clive
a) the issue of the number of Crown witnesses who were employed by the NOTW, paid large payments, offered large payments or were close associates of those who were is a matter of simple maths not opinion. From the testimony of both trials my maths is correct on this - it's better than my spelling anyway!
b) The Retrial grounds I referred to were canvassed by fine legal minds in the Lockerbie appeal(now vacated)and the Rose West, Soham and Ripper cases. Fact not opinion.
c) The video is not supported by independennt forensics. Fact not opinion.
d) I never made any comment on whether or not the Sheridans were paid for their story. So I think you may have confused me with someone else there.
If you could let me know where else I went wrong I can put you right again.
Cheers
Peter
Yulefae A bit of an irrelevance who's actual bank account the dosh was paid into; the Sheridans are husband and wife if you don't already know. Spouses have all sort of joint/separate finances. Of course if GS did receive payment then TS can say with a straight face that HE did not receive payment. This brings up an important point: It is not what people are saying, it's what they are NOT saying! What is fact is ts was not paid more than can be said for the others who got paid by the SERIOUS FRAUD RAG
(edited by JD)
Ibelieve ther will be expert evidence led on the video
No, Peter, you've certainly corrected me.
Thanks.
"The video is not supported by independennt forensics." how do you know, the Crown case is still in motion.
You have to be careful jumping to conclusions. I well remember the Jodie Jones trial. There was Alan now Lord Turnbull plodding along looking increasingly wretched and forlorn with apparently not a shred of evidence in sight, (in spite of that model of the wall taking up the courtroom). To my mind at least the verdict was a forgone conclusion (aquittal) and there just at the very last minute out of thin air AT pulls a master-stroke. Verdict: Guilty!
If we could not speculate about the jury and possible deliberations thereof?
Anonymous said...
"The video is not supported by independennt forensics." how do you know, the Crown case is still in motion.
November 30, 2010 8:36 PM
You are right of course Anon and as I have said previously the Crown may do so.
We are with baited breath on its appearance.
May have got held up in its journey from Wapping due to all that snow yo have up there.
Strangely many of the commentators who insisted that the Crown would possibly be presenting forensic evidence about the video and about location tracking devices that would supposedly blow Sheridan out of the water also appear to have had an extended St Andrews day holiday or gone on the sick.
You must admit they are a bit of a tease these prosecutors though leaving the forensics until the last 2 days.
I agree let's see what is presented or if it was all just the usual Crown spin.
How much did the wall in the Jodie Jones trial cost? I think it was ?million, more than the Sheridan trial has cost.
I don't think it was a risky speculation, compared with some of what i've read. The jury will take a view on the veracity of the video - i think that's obvious.
No worries, James.
How many defence witneses?Coulson and the Met Inspector should be as good as mr Bird
This trial has became quite addictive but the amount of stop starts seem odd. Almost "tobinesc" .
Why would ap want drop charges against gs not because of Paul mcbride. They might be on opposite sides but they don't share any grievances against eachother its a misconception that lawyers on opposite sides don't talk or socialise. They do.FACT. they are doing a job and will face each other many times. Think of it as games of chess. All be it very expensive games of chess that you and I are paying for. Sometimes the prosecution wins sometimes the defence.
Re police witnesses and evidence questioning. Ap is not wanting to weaken anything he leads and that's the same for the police. They both want to tick the box and get a conviction why collect any evidence that weakens your case.
2 examples of easy tickbox detection, prosecution and conviction are speeding (camera) and domestics. Both instantly provide accused and evidence. The later almost certainly will plead guilty to save the spouse giving evidence.
Now let's say your types get slashed how many of those type of crimes get detected, prosecuted and convicted. A very very low percentage.
It would make for a truer picture if crime detection figures omitted these 2 categories.
Anyway back to the trial of the century.
Ts guilty on several counts. 6 years for abusing his position questioning witnesses. He will appeal. That will take 18 months, a long time to do for nothing. Even if he wins appeal crown will be glad to have tucked him away for 18 months.
Gs guilty on 1 charge probation or some other non custodial sentence. No appeal.
If that's the outcome it makes you wonder why if there was an offer to cop a plea Ts didn't take it. Was the strategy all or nothing? Bad one if it was.
It won't be much longer to wait and see if my prediction is close or wide of the mark.
And Peter can speculate that the Crown is accepting independent evidence straight from News Int? Come on, James, play fair.
@ peter what ever comes last is going to have most impact - that is the last impression that the jury will have of the Crown case. If I were AP I would make it a good one - a giant-sizes torpedo aimed straight at HMS Sheridan
The crown wont lead evidence on the tape as they dont have an expert to say it,s not been tampered with
Sorry anon, I'm just not happy with speculating about what may happen in the jury room.
Anon, 8:53, it is a common misconception that defence/prosecution lawyers are sworn enemies. We all went to the same varsities, attend the same social functions, even take turns at playing different roles, good grief!
Talk about "tick-box" detection. I witnessed a "mobile police office" parked outside a student union a few nights ago with a couple of eager coppers eyeing up the students as they departed. Suddenly, quick as a flash out jump the police officers, grab a student at random and bundle him into the back of the "mobile police office". A spider couldn't have made quicker work of their prey.
Clive said...
Peter,
you went wrong by dimissing the video, suggesting grounds for a retrial, suggesting most of the witnesses had been paid by the NotW (although, of course, the Sheridans were paid by the Daily Record)...
Peter, you have gone wrong again and again - and are arguing that people should be more credulous, which is odd.
November 30, 2010 6:58 PM
Hello Clive can you explain any similarity between a number of witnesses having denied payments and indeed a number of paymasters and a unknowing lawyer similarly denying regarding articles in the NotW.
To a story sold? to a seperate media group, by a couple who recently came through a harrowing situation they found themselves in?
However I will leave the
debate on credulous to you and whoever.
Anon 8:53, I think you are correct in a "technical sense", in my opinion the verdict really hinges on whether or not "natural justice" wins through. More technical verdict versus natural justice verdict. It could easily go either way.
Anon 0903
Yes trained at uni together.
Now for the ones present the day Ts sacked his qc did anyone notice if ap passed a note to pmcb? Now what could that say? "fancy a drink later" or "this is war". Either way they'll send eachother Xmas cards but not to Ts.
James i have a couple of queries
Is it not the case that TS and GS legal teams will have a list of witnesses submitted to the court for the defence,and when this list is exausted the summing up will begin.
do we have any idea how many defence witnesses will be called?
Anon 9:26 Answer: "fancy a drink later". The minute the trial is over, the Advocates won't even acknowledge the Sheridans if the fall over them in the middle of the High Street. But AP and PMcB will be chortling over whatever at the Advocates Ball and Christmas Lunch.
I think that somewhere TS realises that Advocates are not their clients best buddies. Not so sure about GS though.
Without his own expert evidence, TS can only speculate on video tampering other than on any admitted cuts.
If he gives vent to one of his soliloquies about tape tampering in the same way as he's previously adopted a 'foetal position' as regards the dangers of publishing a newspaper article whilst Gail is pregnant, one would imagine there may be judicial intervention.
Legally Challenged,
I don't really understand your point. If the Sheridans were, for the sake of argument, guilty, then selling their story - attacking others for money - would be particularly despicable.
It would have no bearing on the evidence heard, though, and nor should payments to others who have sold their stories.
Prentice would need to have studied for a Law Degree (LlB) at Uni, then a Diploma in Legal Practice while working at a Solicitor's Office for a year (training at work), a Solicitor will then remain in Private Practice or joined the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service,
then on being "called to the Bar" (become Member of Faculty of Advocates), then "take silk" become QC, then Sheriff, then Judge. Prentice has remained in Private Practice becoming a Solicitor-Advocate (rights of Audience in the High Court), he has never been "called to the Bar", but is a QC and works for the Crown Office as an Advocate Depute.
Exactly Clive, that is why if the Sheridans are guilty as libelled they should be convicted. And similarly, it they are innocent they should be acquitted.
Anonymous said...
And Peter can speculate that the Crown is accepting independent evidence straight from News Int? Come on, James, play fair.
November 30, 2010 8:54 PM
Hi Anon,
To be fair it's not speculation.
All the media carry reports of the trial. None of the media have reported that the Crown has presented any independent forensics. No indepedent forensics. None at all presented to the court.
The Crown have therefore in the absence of any independent forensics just based their evidence regarding the tape on the News International witnesses ie. Bob Bird who say it is genuine.
The Crown also rely on McNeilage who says it was genuine tape. He is not independent either. Indeed he admits to a contract with NOTW requiring him to say it was genuine in court if necessary.
The Crown simply have not presented independent forensics yet.
Unfortunately for the Crown this means there is no forensics evidence for the date the tape was recorded; why there are numerous deletions on it and when those deletions were variously made.
The defence is on record as saying it is a concoction. Precisely because of the lack of forensics they are able to pick large holes in it. They point out that it could be a creation done over a period of time rather than a one take video.
The Crown also have at their disposal voice experts but curiously they have relied instead on Mr Fox - who does not, amongst the many accomplishment that I note from his CV, a voice analysis expert.
Admittedly the forensics does not prove one way or the other if it was a lookalike actor as suggested by the defence in cross examination.
The unexplained deletions; the extensive ambient noise; the poor lighting; and the distant positioning of the person alleged to be Sheridan would tally with the hinted at defence theory that it may be a scripted actor (with ad libs) a script prompter and deliberately poorly filmed so that it is difficult to tell who it is.
Or are you seriously saying that is Sheridan in the video?
It was just great fortune for the Crown that he happened to be so explicit in his alleged confession but that it was just unlucky he cannot be identified.
Bit convenient? No?
No independent forensics - Not a genuine tape IMHO. Simple. Let's see if the forensics are produced.
Could anyone answer the queries for anon 0940
@anonymous
"Exactly Clive, that is why if the Sheridans are guilty as libelled they should be convicted. And similarly, it they are innocent they should be acquitted."
Stunning observation - really stunning. the notion that the purpose of a court is to convict the guilty and release the innocent - we should really try to incorporate that notion into our legal system.
Peter,
yes, i am seriously saying I believe it is Sheridan on the video. Are you seriously saying it isn't?
Anyone explain the logic of thinking that the NOTW or anyone might go to the trouble of faking a tape ( not a simple matter) but then - having made "mistakes" - decide to cut those bits out rather than just simply remake the tape?
Doesnt make sense to me at all as a theory. What about "ok Lads take 1 wasnt much good - lets try take 2" ?
Anyone clever enough to fake a tape surely wouldnt be stupid enough just to try deleting bits? You cant have it both ways.
Clive said...
Peter,
yes, i am seriously saying I believe it is Sheridan on the video. Are you seriously saying it isn't?
November 30, 2010 10:19 PM
---------
Thanks Clive.
I give you big points for honesty.
It is very difficult to winkle others out but you have come right out with it so let me now ask you a simple questions.
What evidence led in court leads you to believe that it is Sheridan PICTURED in the video other than the word of George McNeilage.
There are other questions of course but that is a starting point.
I am not trying to trap you and will give you time to answer.
I have got Leo Di Capprio on pause and will check on the blog tommorow for your answer.
To answer your question I am saying in my opinion it very probably isn't.
I have MORE than a reasoNable doubt it is. Bet you thought I was going to give some sort of clever evasive answer on that!
My view of course could not send the father of a young child to prison.
Your view could.
So if you hold that view I hope you can convince there is evidence for that view as McNeilage, Bird and Dr Fox have not convinced me.
If only we had some independent forensics to consider and debate - ah well.
Anyway give the question a go Clive.
Your home work for the night or the week - however long you want in fact, but watch that spelling. Cheers, Peter.
Oh the tape the tape the bloody tape.
The tape has only been presented to bolster accusations of an alleged confession, it is on record that these allegations have been previously challenged in court and deliberated on.
The tape IMO is just another piece of unsubstaniated evidence that if made in 2004? could have been avaiable in 2006? Perhaps the cry come on down the price is right was still to be made?
"My view of course could not send the father of a young child to prison. Your view could."
What does being the "father of a young child" have to do with whether someone has perjured themselves or not? THis is completely irrelevant and simply emotive.
Anonymous Bunc said...
"My view of course could not send the father of a young child to prison. Your view could."
What does being the "father of a young child" have to do with whether someone has perjured themselves or not? THis is completely irrelevant and simply emotive.
November 30, 2010 11:15 PM
So Bunc presumably the judge in the libel trial was wrong to allow Sheridan to say it to the jury then. Irrelevant?
Not on Planet Earth. Jurors are not Vulcans - they have emotions.
Was it not McNeilage himself who said socialists have real feelings Bunc.
Without predicting a result or referring to this jury atg all I reckon any random selection of people would have genuine feelings for the Sheridan’s plight, distaste for some of the Crown witnesses as well as a bit of horse sense on the bill of goods the Crown are selling.
Anyway this Inception video is not going to watch itself.
Or can I just miss off the last 10 minutes won’t make any difference will it.
@ Peter It's a Court of Law - not a Social Work case conference for crying out loud. The duty of the jury is to decide the verdict on the FACTS - not emotion! EMPTION MUST PLAY NO PART IN THE JURY'S VERDICT, I can't emphasise that enough because by going down THAT road we open the door to a gross miscarriage of justice. In the event of a Guilty verdict the Judge is entitled to request Social Work and Psychiatric Reports prior to sentencing - that is where the social work department can have their say. I don't know how au fait you are with court procedure but the Jury are entitled to make recommendations out with the presence of the Convicted - admittedly the Judge i unlikely to take a blind bit of notice. But please don't turn this into an emotion-ridden Meryl Streep movie - we are not being placed on a guilt trip and besides it is really grating.
"My view of course could not send the father of a young child to prison. Your view could."
What about tainting the reputations for honesty of numerous Scottish people, including many "socialists" by their own description, some of whom probably have families?
Talk about emotive
Peter,
You wrote,
''So Bunc presumably the judge in the libel trial was wrong to allow Sheridan to say it to the jury then. Irrelevant? ''
I think we'd be very naive to claim that everything that has been discussed in this trial has been relevant. I think use of a wife and child (the latter of whom has absolutely no involvement in the charges in this case) to make unsupported claims designed to appeal to the emotions of the jury is just awful.
call me sentimental,
But i think that the closer to christmas time the jury retires to decide a verdict ie; the week before, the better the chance TS+GS have of being aquitted.
Xmas spirit and all that
Any one agree
The consequences of a jury's decision on the future of a defendant are normally irrelevant and not usually mitigating circumstances at sentencing.
I hazard a guess that the Judge will make this crystal-clear to the jury in his summing-up.
In the meantime, I am not holding my breath against that most contagious infection; 'Unborn (or Unadorned) Child Syndrome', myriad forms of emotional advocacy and possibly the exposure of an odd personality disorder or two in this trial.
It is a veritable feast for psychologists and criminologists alike.
I am sure that Mr Doleman's eventual book will be a best-seller. Put me down for half a dozen copies and a complimentary for Mr Paul Ferris.
Yeah, a verdict just before Christmas should definitely play in as Accused's favour. But how does this play out for TS with only a week left to wrap things up. A lot of people appear to of the opinion that this trial will still be running in the New Year (to give TS as much times as a needs). It should be all over bt the end of next week (10th December) will continue on next year.
With respect Steve, Lynn and Bunc you are you are much too fixed and formulaic in your views.
I don't think that the defence should bring Morris Albert in to Court No2 to sing "Feelings" but emotion is present and will come into the jury deliberations.
Emotion of course may or may not help the Sheridans.
For example due to the emotions of some people on this forum against Sheridan they are not subjecting the Crown case to proper scrutiny.
There are some (perhpas they lurk on this forum) who were willing to believe everything the NOTW witnesses said about Sheridan in the libel trial. The fact that a jury found he had been libelled after a lengthy trial did not sway them.
Those same people now believe the Crown case - despite the Crown witnesses delivering even worse testimony than in the original libel trial and despite no forensics being entered by the Crown (yet)as evidence !
Bunc, Lynn (maybe Steve)- if the cap fits wear it.
TBC:
Peter said: I don't think that the defence should bring Morris Albert in to Court No2 to sing "Feelings" but emotion is present and will come into the jury deliberations.
------------
I just had a thought though that maybe his mum could sing it at the celebration party - fingers crossed.
Oh dear commenting on my own posts now - this way lies madness and possibly divorce for me.
Hello everyone, I've opened up a new thread above as this one is getting to difficult to manage, if people could post there I'd be grateful.
I,m telling you all there is independant experts being called in the defence if need be about this tape that means f all without verification,it may be that this evidence will be tossed before the defence starts depends on the submmisions TS makes at the end of the crown case.
It could be .AP tosses alot of the other drivel and concentrates on his best aurguments
Ihope that in the interests of justice the verdict is NOT PROVEN AS THE CROWN CASE IS A COMPLETE FARCE,i have never seen a case where the crown has to rely on so many myths,plots and down right lies to make a case for a newspaper that lost fair and square.
MR WIGHT admitted misleading the jury in the first trial why no perjury charges for him,the same can be said for BOB THE KNOB BIRD.
This paper will have to watch it,s self in the future
Just remembered a touching cameo from, I think, either Tommy or Gail's mother during Tommy's closing speech to the jury. She reportedly sat there during Tommy's speech (danger to the unborn et al) clutching:
1. Rosary beads
2. A crucifix
3. A picture of the Virgin Mary.
Was this display of honest piety done for the sake of divine intervention - or just a few sympathy votes from Catholics?
Peter 1231
Maybe his mum could sing.........
Well maybe des unclean could come along and do a few impersonations. Lol
Any word is des has been cited as a witness and if ts got round the technical issues of downloading and burning his cd?.
Post a Comment