The original Indictment against the Sheridans can be found Here, the first sections that have been deleted are those charging that Tommy Sheridan had committed perjury by stating at the 2006 libel trial that there was "no event" at the Moathouse hotel in June 2002, and that he had also committed perjury when he stated that Anne Colvin and Helen Allison had lied about seeing him and Andrew Mcfarlane there
The second section that has been deleted is part of the Indictment against Gail Sheridan. This charged that Mrs Sheridan had committed perjury when she told the jury in the 2006 civil case that she had been with her husband and Andrew McFarlane between 10am on the 14th June 2002 and 1am on the 15th June, the night of the alleged visit to the Moathouse.
These deletions mean these charges are, in Lord Bracadale's words to the jury, "no longer before you" and no further evidence will be presented. We will therefore not be hearing from Anne Colvin, Helen Allison, Beverley Dixon or any other witnesses the Crown planned to call in regard to the Moathouse. The Advocate Depute also indicated that this change would influence the length of the trial, presumably making it more probable that it will be concluded earlier than expected.
75 comments:
Do we know why these indictments have been deleted? The evidence from these people at the first trial seemed very compelling.
"The evidence from these people at the first trial seemed very compelling."
Clearly the Crown thought differently after the testimony of Mr McColl. If I am reading this blog right they dropped the charges even before Tommy S got to cross-examine him.
You can drag a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
There's still quite a lot left in the indictment. I imagine there's a lack of corroboration for what was taken out.
Lilybelle, I agree about the two women who gave evidence at the frist trial, their version seemed very credible. But I think they were going to contradict Mccoll re the extent of his involvement in the goings on that night so maybe that wouldn't have helped the crown case. I wonder how many marriages and relationships are going to survive the aftermath of this.
Compelling? Wake up and smell the coffee! Even the judge was laughing at the twists and turns of some of the hopeless attempts at lying by this witness. The witness tried to insist that Paul McBride told of evidence against his lies so that he could construct another implausible) lie. Even the advocate deigned to join in the jollity at some of the evasions, inventions and ignorance of any actual facts - apart from the pretence that he was an honest businessman who had never driven with more than twenty units of alcohol. What is astonishing and depressing is the insistence that blatant lies constitute credible evidence.
(last part edited out, sorry Denizen but I'm sure you can understand, JD)
well said denizen
the NOTW must be gutted, they have wined and dined these witnesses who have now been given the nod that they dont need to perform sorry i mean give evidence, this is going to collapse, I think that must be Mc FArlane out noe for giving evidence ?? is that the case ??
The whole case now appears to be turning on which are the most plausible set of lies.
I agree with Denizen on this - Mr McColl provided testimony that was about as far from compelling and believable as you could get. I've never seen a witness before react as he did - the evasions, the wilful misinterpretation of questions, the weird laughter, the contradiction and retraction of testimony he had just given a la
You went there
No I didn't
You went there
No I didn't
You're lying - you went there
When? Can you prove it?
You're lying - You went there
Maybe I did go there
So you went there
Yes, I went there
Why did you lie about not going there?
I don't know.
That's not a direct quotation of how PMcB's questioning of the witness went, but it's pretty close. It was baffling.
That was indeed a good bit, James.
I also liked his adhoc comments when he asked permission to speak near the start, McBride smiled and let him, and he came out with, totally out of context of the discussion "I'm certain I left the Moat House between 10:30 and 11pm". He did that a couple of times.
Oh, and interrupting the cross examination to point out to McBride, with a completely irrelevant observation, what the crux of the case was and why they were all there today.
Whatsy
What was said regarding the completely irrelevant observation, what the crux of the case was and why they were all there today.
Perhaps this performance and obscufication of the facts was a deliberate tactic by the witness and the defence?
I predicted last night that Sheridan would escape putting a direct accusation of lying to McColl (and other witnesses with whom he may still have friendships) by the tactic of allowing McBride to lead the cross examinations and thereby make the accusation on behalf of Gail instead.
If this was the tactic, it has been employed to brilliant effect because it has secured the amendments to the indictment and struck off a whole chapter of this trial and the witnesses related to that chapter.
This was most certainly a good day for the defence.
No offence eraserhead but that is laughable, the witness was caught out lying, he tried not to be but there was proof so he had to fess up.
The witness was not a friend of Tommy Sheridan, he said so himself.
@Legally Challenged
Sorry - can't mind, and didn't take many notes today. Maybe James has it?
Just remember scratching my head at one of his comments, that he had totally missed the point, and wondering why on earth he thought that was worth stopping McBride's cross, then thinking "McBride is about to chew you up, spit you out, and enjoy every second of it".
Actually, I thought something with a few more swear words in it than that, but you get the drift.
@Sceptic. Mr McColl did not give evidence at the first trial. The compelling, (and unshakeable) evidence came from Helen Allison and Anne Colvin, who now have no chance to speak, because of the testimony of Mr. McColl. I have no doubt in my mind that this was a deliberate tactic by the defence to keep these two women off the stand.
Thats right Lilybelle, the defence used their secret mind control ray to get a prosecution witness to get caught telling lies.
Thanks Whatsy.
This witness IMO has been the strangest so far, although only by a whisker.
From my understanding he is stated that he was not going to perjur himself at a perjury trial,whilst not being an expert I dont think he has been sucessful in that attempt.
But, Lilybelle, if Alex Prentice was doing his job properly (or appear to be) very experienced advocate that he is he and his team should have anticipated what occurred and devised a work-around. Something does not make sense.
@Hmmm Laughable? Hardly. Tactical? Maybe. Perhaps I should have stated that the witness is a 'friend of a friend' of Tommy's. Put it this way, Matt McColl is a person that TS knew and had met. I don't think that has ever been denied. Whether or not they are or have ever been friends is debatable.
Such is the nature of this trial that it's difficult to distinguish at times between the friends and ex-friends of the Sheridans.
It would make sense if they knew they REQUIRED corroboration from him and then found the guy was a fruitcake at the last minute.
@ Anonymous. I agree that something does not make sense, infact it stinks. The 2 witnesses due to follow Mr. McColl were the only ones with no agenda, and nothing to gain. I'm wondering...if TS admitted that he was in fact there that night, and the evidence against him was true, would the indicment have been deleted, because he told the truth, befor any evidence was heard to the contrary?
What you describe there Lillybelle is called "pleading guilty" if that had hapenned there would be no witnesses at all.
As for these witnesses having "no agenda" you are aware they signed contracts with the News of the World for a large sum of money, or so it has been alledged.
Lilybelle
Is only now that you think "that something does not make sense, infact it stinks. The 2 witnesses due to follow Mr. McColl were the only ones with no agenda, and nothing to gain."
As for no agenda and nothing to gain perhaps the idea that they have allegedly already gained (See NotW costs)would have made their statements more telling?
If I was a betting man Lilybelle I would put it all on your hunches.
@ Sceptic. "Alleged" is right...we' will never know if that was true or not now, will we?
Yes, it really is a bit of a mystery why the prosecution led with Mr McColl, when Helen Allison and Anne Colvin were likely to be more convincing witnesses.
The only theory I can come up with is that these two were witnesses for the NotW case in 2006. Members of the jury may be thought, by the prosecution, to be wary of evidence from anyone who has come near the NotW.
I am not suggesting that either of these witnesses may have been influenced in giving their evidence in this trial by NotW. However, some members of the jury may decide to reject all evidence tainted by that newspaper. SO the defence led with a witness who had not appeared in the civil case in 2006. And this decision backfired spectacularly.
So it's the cock-up theory! Any other suggestions?
And of course, the evidence of Sheridan's former comrades in the SSP becomes more important; the witnesses, who in the defamation trial brought by TS, prefaced their evidence by denouncing the NotW.
Well if we want to go to an alternative reality, imagine what Paul McBride would have done to Ms's Colvin and Allison in a cross-examination?
Perhaps the prosecution just decided to cut their losses.
Mr McColl denied this had occurred. Mr McColl then asked Mr McBride if the statement mentioned "drugs", prompting Lord Bracadale to intervene and remind the witness to answer questions not ask them.
Mr McBride asked why the witness had mentioned drugs, to which he replied it "just occured to me if there was any mention of Crack Cocaine" Mr McBride asked "has someone been feeding you information"? "has someone been showing you statements? Mr McColl answered "no, no."
Does anyone understand what is happening here?
The question about drugs appears to come from nowhere
I am no legal expert but would have thought that the Crown having to drop some of the charges must be seen as a reverse for the prosecution. I mean, if the Crown now discovers that it can't prove allegations it originaly thought it could, does it not cast doubt over the whole case?
I noticed that too aNiN, it was as if the witness knew what was in a police statement, McBride leaped on it but the witness seemed to realise he had made a mistake and quickly backed off. He was very specific though and it was very intriguing.
Grumpy old Man.
There has been a lot of people gambling on someones Lberty here.
Remember M M mentioned "does that statement mention anything about drugs" then denyied he had been fed information by someone? I think PM left it as he already had him on the ropes, or that was something they had agreed TS was going to explore.
Also after McB finished his cross-examination court stopped so TS could check a "production" 5 mins later thing the prosecution was throwing in the towel. I'm starting to think there is something we don't know, not just one crap witness but something so toxic for the prosecution they had to cut the moat house off before it infected their whole case.
ANiN & Watcher
If my memory is correct there were also allegations regarding drug taking with regard to the Moathouse incident.
It is the only connection I can think of, I fail to understand why the witness should interupt Mr.Mc Bride to say this.
Yes m'lud he was a Crown witness .... Embarassed m'lud... Not at all...Do we have any more Crown witnesses ?..yes m'lud ...they are very compelling, honest folk m'lud.. Where are they?....,err well mlud we have decided not to call them m'lud ... do we have any others.... Err no mlud ...but if it pleases m'lud the Crown would like to put on this little hat on and dance around the courtroom and bonk this pigs bladder on a stick on the accused heads ... Tape m'lud ? We don't recall any tape.
I would counter against premature celebration.
Aha ...... has any one else noticed the two noble witnesses who used that ringing phrase, `You`re home and dry?`
Does anyone know if TS will be taking the stand?
Sceptic said...
What you describe there Lillybelle is called "pleading guilty" if that had hapenned there would be no witnesses at all.
As for these witnesses having "no agenda" you are aware they signed contracts with the News of the World for a large sum of money, or so it has been alledged.
November 25, 2010 7:40 PM
**
With the exception of McNeilage I would be grateful if you could list exactly WHO (alledgedly) signed contracts in exchange for large sums of money. Who are they? I must have missed the evidence proffered re these contracts. Were these contracts entered into evidence? Thanks
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/11/bob-bird-cross-examination-pt-2.html
"Mr Sheridan then moved on to the details of payments of witnesses and asked Mr Bird to take into account payments made not just by NotW Scotland but by News International as a whole. He began by asking if all payments had been disclosed to the defence, to which Mr Bird replied "if you asked for them" He began by asking how much Anne Colvin had received, Mr Bird replied £1000 for loss of earnings and a contract for £7000 on publication. Ms Colvin was also paid £2000 for a "lie detector test" after the 2006 trial. Mr Sheridan then asked about another witness Helen Alison and Mr Bird told the court that her payments would be the same as Ms Colvin's. "
Well! I assume that MM was called first because he had not given evidence in 2006 and that he had changed his statement.
We also need to remember that up to now all of the witnesses have been for the prosocution, the defence have not yet started to introduce counter evidence!
Re the previous statement that the 2 women had nothing to gain: Bob Bird admitted that they had received money up front, had stayed, all expences paid during the 2006 case, in a 5 star hotel and were due to recive further payments. I think they had everything to gain!
How different to see them exit the court in a taxi with the faces covered, very different to their show in 2006.
Not politically affilliated said...
With the exception of McNeilage I would be grateful if you could list exactly WHO (alledgedly) signed contracts in exchange for large sums of money. Who are they? I must have missed the evidence proffered re these contracts. Were these contracts entered into evidence? Thanks
Further to the reply from Sceptic it should also be noted that the NotW costs were heavily redacted so no-one knows exactly who else may have recieved payments/contracts for their views.
It would appear however that number of Crown witnesses have been listed against NotW costs.
I also note your use of large sums of money that does depend on perpsective £1,000 IMO is a huge sum £200,000 is a very huge sum
What a disaster for the prosecution. An entire chapter of evidence gone, and still no technical evidence to back up the veracity of the McNeilage tape, which had seemed among the most convincing pieces of evidence they had. It seems baffling that since the veracity of the tape is contested the Crown have not yet sought to put that beyond doubt.
So, unless the Crown can come up with something else, we are effectively relying on the testimony of the SSP witnesses, plus Anvar Khan and some people connected to her - the majority of which were rejected by the jury at the first trial.
It's looking increasingly good for the Sheridans, rightly or wrongly. And I can imagine how infuriated some of the commentators on this blog will be if they are acquitted.
James, thank you for the detailed and objective accounts thus far.
If I were the prosecution, I'd have concluded the case long ago. They are labouring points and trying to saw sawdust.
If I were TS I don't think I'd call any witnesses for the defence. I'd tend to let the jury decide on whether all the various conflicting accounts of prosecution witnesses add up to proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.
A major influence on the outcome of the case will surely be how the defendants handle being cross examined.
can't understand why the crown has dropped these charges in relation to the moathouse on account of one man. There were many other witnesses still to come forward? Also the sight of GS huggging and kissing her attorney's outside court was appaling.
The most compelling evidence remains the video and the strange phone number in TS's diary.
If you remember TS declared the video as 'fatally flawed' because he claimed an actor who managed to perfectly copy his voice used swearwords which he would never do. This seems quite a weak ground for reasonable doubt.
He still hasn't explained why he has Cupid's phone number in his diary.
Unless there is dramatic improvement from where the way the prosecution case stands at the moment if I were TS too I would just move to closing speeches after the end of the Crown case, why expose your witnesses to the Crown: pointing out the inconsistencies, contradictions in the Crown case, mentioning that not one piece of forensic to back up that "concoction" of a tape plus and a few rhetorical flourishes would in my opinion very likely swing the verdict in TS's favour.
Suppose if TS quits while it looks like he is ahead and elects not to take the stand. In my opinion, just an in any trial I suppose the witnesses that we want to see on the stand most are the Accused. We want to see them how they respond to cross-examination and the allegations made against them; this can be make or break testimony. And and far as I understand, if an accused elects to remain silent then the jury are entitled to draw a "reasonable inference".
Observer, why wouldn't the defence call witnesses? If they can add contradictory testimony from witnesses to the mess we have seen so far, it would be better to go to the jury after that.
A lot of allegations have been made against the Sheridan by a lot of people. If we receive no explanation (and maybe we will - a good and perfectly expectable one at that) which can be challenged and cross-examined by the Crown then, in my opinion, we are entitled to draw our own conclusions as are the jury fully entitled to draw theirs.
Danny, what is "appalling" about a woman who has just been cleared of a number of serious criminal charges being pleased and hugging one of the lawyers who has helped her.
You really must be rather mean spirited to be "appalled" at that.
Anon 12.39
The drawing of your own conclusions in regard to this case dont mean a jot, although you may have done so already, It is up to how the Jury concludes that will reveal how this will end.
Danny G. I would echo justsaying sentiments regading you feeling appalled.Perhaps your feelings are more of disappointment than being appalled?
IMO The crown dropped these charges due to the unrelability of their witness, which was clear to see.Although they may have had other more compelling reasons for dropping these charges IMO but we will never be allowed to know if that opinion will be accurate.
Anonymous 12:22
I wouldn't call witnesses in TS's position because they would also be questioned by the prosecution.
I doubt very much if this would improve the defence's case.
Let's take a look at the revised indictment shall we, to clear up any confusion. It's going to be split into a few posts as it is very long. For clarity I'm going to paraphrase (there's lots of addresses and wordy sections) but you can read the full thing here again to check against what I write. http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/09/sheridan-indictment-in-full.html
When you read what I've written below, bear in mind each statement relates to each specific lie that is alleged to have been told while on the witness stand, it doesn't talk about the veracity or otherwise of any of the mentioned witnesses or events mentioned, these of course come up in court and have a bearing on the trial but specifically the charges only relate to whether or not when TS and GS made these statements, whether they were indeed a lie or not. Sorry to be incredibly pedantic but I find it very confusing and annoying when people attempt to refer to the indictment improperly and when people attach the wrong meaning to the charges presented.
There are 3 CHARGES. Let's consider TS's charges to be (A) and (B) while GS's is (C). On charges (B) and (C) there are multiple COUNTS on which they are alleged to have told a lie. These will be labelled (1), (2), etc on each charge for clarity. At the end I will isolate the deleted ones. I hope this helps clear a few things up in relation to where the prosecution case now stands and what the defence may have already countered/not countered strongly enough so far. Maybe in a separate post after I might add some notes to each charge if I can remember what has come up regarding that so far. I think referring to the indictment is useful as this is what the jury will be asked to pore over again and again in detail when they retire in relation to each alleged count of perjury. Ok, so here goes, read the indictments in my next post:
TOMMY SHERIDAN CHARGES:
(A) Attempting to suborn perjury for Colin Fox at Beanscene in Edinburgh, June 2006
(B) Committing perjury at the Court of Session during the defamation action of 2006 by FALSELY STATING that:
(1) he did not admit he attended Cupid's with Anvar Khan in 1996 and 2002 at the SSP EC of 9/11/04
(2) Alan McCombes and Keith Baldassara didn't say at the SSP EC of 9/11/04 that Tommy Sheridan had previously admitted to them that this Cupid's story was true
(3) at the SSP EC of 9/11/04 he actively denied going to a swingers club in Manchester
(4) A Kane, K Baldessara, A McCombes, A Green, C Fox, B Scott, C Leckie, C Grant, J Harvie and R Kane all lied during their evidence at the defamation case of 2006 when each gave evidence that a) they'd heard TS admit on 9/11/04 to visiting Cupids, b) they'd heard it being stated that A McC and KB had previously raised that issue of these visits and TS had admitted to them it was true
(5) he had not admitted in 2002 to Alan McCombes and Keith Baldessara that he had attended a sex club in Manchester
(6) he did not say at the SSP EC of 9/11/04 that he was not prepared to resign as convenor of the SSP unless there was proof he had been to Cupids AND that he did not believe that there was any evidence to prove he was lying about not attending Cupids
(7) in the Golden Pheasant pub in Kirkintilloch on or around Fri 12 May 2006 he wasn't given the minutes of 9/11/04 to read
(8) Allan Green lied during his evidence in the defamation case that in the Golden Pheasant he had shown TS the minutes of that meeting
[DELETED COUNT] (9) there was no event on 14 June 2002 at the Moat House hotel organised by Matthew McColl, where TS and Andrew McFarlane attended and at which they both went in to a bedroom with a girl and had sex with that girl
[DELETED COUNT] (10) Helen Allison and Anne Colvin lied in their evidence in the defamation action of 2002 when each gave evidence that TS was at the Moat House hotel with Andrew McFarlane
(11) a conversation between TS and Keith Baldessara where KB asked TS about "madness" in a Glasgow hotel and that TS said to KB that 'he had not participated but was present at the event where a lady from Birmingham was brought in' hadn't taken place
(12) Keith Baldessara lied in evidence during the defamation action of 2006 by claiming the things said in the above count
(13) he had not attended Cupid's with Andrew McFarlane, Gary Clark, Anvar Khan and Katrine Trolle towards the end of 2001, or had ever visited a swingers club
(14) he had an affair with Anvar Khan in late 1992 for 6 months only and that he didn't have a sexual relationship with her between 1994 and 2002
(15) he never had a sexual relationship with Katrine Trolle and had never been with her in his Cardonald House, or in her Kingennie Court, Dundee house
TOMMY SHERIDAN CHARGES:
(A) Attempting to suborn perjury for Colin Fox at Beanscene in Edinburgh, June 2006
(B) Committing perjury at the Court of Session during the defamation action of 2006 by FALSELY STATING that:
(1) he did not admit he attended Cupid's with Anvar Khan in 1996 and 2002 at the SSP EC of 9/11/04
(2) Alan McCombes and Keith Baldassara didn't say at the SSP EC of 9/11/04 that Tommy Sheridan had previously admitted to them that this Cupid's story was true
(3) at the SSP EC of 9/11/04 he actively denied going to a swingers club in Manchester
(4) A Kane, K Baldessara, A McCombes, A Green, C Fox, B Scott, C Leckie, C Grant, J Harvie and R Kane all lied during their evidence at the defamation case of 2006 when each gave evidence that a) they'd heard TS admit on 9/11/04 to visiting Cupids, b) they'd heard it being stated that A McC and KB had previously raised that issue of these visits and TS had admitted to them it was true
(5) he had not admitted in 2002 to Alan McCombes and Keith Baldessara that he had attended a sex club in Manchester
(6) he did not say at the SSP EC of 9/11/04 that he was not prepared to resign as convenor of the SSP unless there was proof he had been to Cupids AND that he did not believe that there was any evidence to prove he was lying about not attending Cupids
(7) in the Golden Pheasant pub in Kirkintilloch on or around Fri 12 May 2006 he wasn't given the minutes of 9/11/04 to read
(8) Allan Green lied during his evidence in the defamation case that in the Golden Pheasant he had shown TS the minutes of that meeting
[DELETED COUNT] (9) there was no event on 14 June 2002 at the Moat House hotel organised by Matthew McColl, where TS and Andrew McFarlane attended and at which they both went in to a bedroom with a girl and had sex with that girl
[DELETED COUNT] (10) Helen Allison and Anne Colvin lied in their evidence in the defamation action of 2002 when each gave evidence that TS was at the Moat House hotel with Andrew McFarlane
(11) a conversation between TS and Keith Baldessara where KB asked TS about "madness" in a Glasgow hotel and that TS said to KB that 'he had not participated but was present at the event where a lady from Birmingham was brought in' hadn't taken place
(12) Keith Baldessara lied in evidence during the defamation action of 2006 by claiming the things said in the above count
(13) he had not attended Cupid's with Andrew McFarlane, Gary Clark, Anvar Khan and Katrine Trolle towards the end of 2001, or had ever visited a swingers club
(14) he had an affair with Anvar Khan in late 1992 for 6 months only and that he didn't have a sexual relationship with her between 1994 and 2002
(15) he never had a sexual relationship with Katrine Trolle and had never been with her in his Cardonald House, or in her Kingennie Court, Dundee house
Sorry if this is being posted a few times, it keeps messing up. This is part one of TS's charges.
TOMMY SHERIDAN CHARGES:
(A) Attempting to suborn perjury for Colin Fox at Beanscene in Edinburgh, June 2006
(B) Committing perjury at the Court of Session during the defamation action of 2006 by FALSELY STATING that:
(1) he did not admit he attended Cupid's with Anvar Khan in 1996 and 2002 at the SSP EC of 9/11/04
(2) Alan McCombes and Keith Baldassara didn't say at the SSP EC of 9/11/04 that Tommy Sheridan had previously admitted to them that this Cupid's story was true
(3) at the SSP EC of 9/11/04 he actively denied going to a swingers club in Manchester
(4) A Kane, K Baldessara, A McCombes, A Green, C Fox, B Scott, C Leckie, C Grant, J Harvie and R Kane all lied during their evidence at the defamation case of 2006 when each gave evidence that a) they'd heard TS admit on 9/11/04 to visiting Cupids, b) they'd heard it being stated that A McC and KB had previously raised that issue of these visits and TS had admitted to them it was true
(5) he had not admitted in 2002 to Alan McCombes and Keith Baldessara that he had attended a sex club in Manchester
(6) he did not say at the SSP EC of 9/11/04 that he was not prepared to resign as convenor of the SSP unless there was proof he had been to Cupids AND that he did not believe that there was any evidence to prove he was lying about not attending Cupids
(7) in the Golden Pheasant pub in Kirkintilloch on or around Fri 12 May 2006 he wasn't given the minutes of 9/11/04 to read
Part 2 of TS's charges
(8) Allan Green lied during his evidence in the defamation case that in the Golden Pheasant he had shown TS the minutes of that meeting
[DELETED COUNT] (9) there was no event on 14 June 2002 at the Moat House hotel organised by Matthew McColl, where TS and Andrew McFarlane attended and at which they both went in to a bedroom with a girl and had sex with that girl
[DELETED COUNT] (10) Helen Allison and Anne Colvin lied in their evidence in the defamation action of 2002 when each gave evidence that TS was at the Moat House hotel with Andrew McFarlane
(11) a conversation between TS and Keith Baldessara where KB asked TS about "madness" in a Glasgow hotel and that TS said to KB that 'he had not participated but was present at the event where a lady from Birmingham was brought in' hadn't taken place
(12) Keith Baldessara lied in evidence during the defamation action of 2006 by claiming the things said in the above count
(13) he had not attended Cupid's with Andrew McFarlane, Gary Clark, Anvar Khan and Katrine Trolle towards the end of 2001, or had ever visited a swingers club
(14) he had an affair with Anvar Khan in late 1992 for 6 months only and that he didn't have a sexual relationship with her between 1994 and 2002
(15) he never had a sexual relationship with Katrine Trolle and had never been with her in his Cardonald House, or in her Kingennie Court, Dundee house
GAIL SHERIDAN CHARGE:
(C) Committing perjury at the Court of Session during the defamation action of 2006 by FALSELY STATING that:
(1) she had seen and spoken to Katrine Trolle at the SSP Conference in Perth 2005, and that there KT had told her that the NOTW had been at ther door asking if she'd had an affair with Tommy Sheridan, that they had offered KT money, and that KT had hugged and kissed GS and touched her "tummy"
(2) she had checked her diaries and Tommy Sheridan's diaries for November 2001 and November 2002 and that the entries confirmed that she had been at home overnight during every weekend in 2001 and November 2002
(3) she could recall that she had spent every weekend in November 2001 and November 2002 with Tommy Sheridan
(4) she was present and witnesses Tommy Sheridan on an occasion phoning Directory Enquiries, asking for the phone number for Cupid's Health Club, Swinton, Manchester, and then him phoning Cupid's
(5) her aunt Annie Healy had arrived into Scotland from the USA on 14 June 2002
[DELETED COUNT] (6) Tommy Sheridan was in her company during the entire evening of 14 June 2002 and returned home with her after midnight on 15 June 2002
[DELETED COUNT] (7) she and Tommy Sheridan visited Andrew McFarlane at his home in Glasgow on 14 June 2002 after 10pm, when Andrew McFarlane and James McManus were present there between that time and when she and Tommy Sheridan left together after midnight on 15 June 2002.
SO, the deleted counts, put together, are:
TS - there was no event on 14 June 2002 at the Moat House hotel organised by Matthew McColl, where TS and Andrew McFarlane attended and at which they both went in to a bedroom with a girl and had sex with that girl
TS - Helen Allison and Anne Colvin lied in their evidence in the defamation action of 2002 when each gave evidence that TS was at the Moat House hotel with Andrew McFarlane
GS - Tommy Sheridan was in her company during the entire evening of 14 June 2002 and returned home with her after midnight on 15 June 2002
GS - she and Tommy Sheridan visited Andrew McFarlane at his home in Glasgow on 14 June 2002 after 10pm, when Andrew McFarlane and James McManus were present there between that time and when she and Tommy Sheridan left together after midnight on 15 June 2002.
Everything else stands.
Of course there is also the hypothetical possibility that the "Moathouse" evidence was a red herring specifically put in place to lie in wait in order to put a spoke in the Crown's wheels, and in so doing derailing Alex Prentice's wagon.
wouldnt these ones also be deleted, being evidence in the 'moat house chapter'
(11) a conversation between TS and Keith Baldessara where KB asked TS about "madness" in a Glasgow hotel and that TS said to KB that 'he had not participated but was present at the event where a lady from Birmingham was brought in' hadn't taken place
(12) Keith Baldessara lied in evidence during the defamation action of 2006 by claiming the things said in the above count
So, if there was no event at the Moathouse, and Anne Colvin and Helen Allison lied, how could they pass a lie detector test (which I know is not admissable in court)?
I find it very unfair that these two women have not had the opportunity to speak, as after all, their characters have been brought into question. At the last trial, Mrs Colvin was even accused by TS of being imprisoned for credit card fraud, which was proved to be a complete fabrication, and even though she recieved an unreserved apology, and the judge himself investigated it, mud tends to stick. They are now being branded as liars, before their evidence has even been heard, and have been given no opportunity to answer these spurious allegations.
"FALSELY STATING that... she was present and witnessed Tommy Sheridan on an occasion phoning Directory Enquiries, asking for the phone number for Cupid's Health Club, Swinton, Manchester, and then him phoning Cupid's"
It doesn't explain what he wanted the number for, but this is the explanation for why the number is in Tommy Sheridan's diary, isn't it?
Lillybelle, you write
"no opportunity to answer these spurious allegations."
They were not on trial and no allegations, spurious or otherwise have been made against them.
From a post by revised indicment:
[DELETED COUNT] (9) there was no event on 14 June 2002 at the Moat House hotel organised by Matthew McColl, where TS and Andrew McFarlane attended and at which they both went in to a bedroom with a girl and had sex with that girl
[DELETED COUNT] (10) Helen Allison and Anne Colvin lied in their evidence in the defamation action of 2002 when each gave evidence that TS was at the Moat House hotel with Andrew McFarlane
This is print for people to see, as well as the false accusation regarding imprisonment for credit card fraud, levelled at Mrs Colvin, so I'm afraid they certainly were on trial....by the public. As for huge payments from the NOTW, yes, they were paid £1000... for expenses i.e loss of earnings, which were quite substantial in Mrs. Colvin's case, and they were never paid the £7000, as the full account of their story was never published. Bob Bird was also mistaken in his evidence that £2000 was paid for the lie detector test, it was in fact £1000...and why not? This nonsense has taken up a substantial amount of the ladies time, and they deserve to be compensated!
All of the above information in my previous comment is freely available, should anyone wish to look for it.
Stan, in my opinion it does seem to be the explanation that is being offered. Fact? Cupid's number is in TS's diary? Since this call to Directory Enquires appears to be placed from the Sheridan's residence it would be reasonable? to assume that there will be a record of it being made. Also, if you phone Directory Enquires for a number it's quite likely that you phone the number straight after. Of course someone could have easily said to TS: "Hey, Tommy when you get home, can you do us a favour and look up the number of Cupid's in Manchester", "Aye, nae problem, pal". That would be quite an innocuous scenario in my opinion and one possible reason for the number being in TS's diary.
Lilybelle: I think you'll find that it was not TS himself but Graeme Henderson, a lawyer repressenting him in the 2006 libel trial who made that particular allegation against Mrs Colvin (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5179718.stm).
Indeed most observers at the time assumed that Henderson's error played a part in TS's subsequent decision to dispense with professional legal representation in the libel trial.
As for the question of how-can- anyone-pass-a-lie-detector-test-if they-are-lying I think reading this article will suffice to answer that one: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/about/467/
As you can see there is a very good reason why lie detector evidence is not admissible.
Ｏｃｃａｓｉｏｎａｌｌｙ it happens in a trial with a large number of prosecution witnesses that someone, originally or subsequently favourable to the defence, is called. And proceeds to contradict other prosecution wittnesses. You see this particularly in GBH trials where ID is in issue： a late witness gives a statement claiming to have seen someone not resembling the defendant appearing to assault the victim just round the corner some minutes earlier - thus casting doubt on the victim's or other witnesses account of how he came by his injury/ies.
I call such people 'Trojan Horse Witnesses' because of the initial attractiveness ｏｆ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｄｉｒｅｃｔ ｅｖｉｄｅｎｃｅ to the prosecution. Only when they are inside the compound, giving evidence, does the terrible mistake dawn.
Ｆｏｒ ｗｈａｔ ｉｓ ｗｏｒｓｅ ｔｈａｎ ｈａｖａｉｎｇ ｙｏｕｒ ｏｗｎ ｗｉｔｎｅｓｓ ｄｅｓｔｒｏｙ ｔｈｅ ｔｅｓｔｉｍｏｎｙ ｏｆ ｏｔｈｅｒｓ？Ｉｆ ＭｃＣｏｌｌ ｗａｓ ｎｏｔ ｓｕｃｈ ａ ｗｉｔｎｅｓｓ ｔｈｅｎ ｍｙ ｎａｍｅ’ｓ Ｐａｕｌ Ｆｅｒｒｉｓ！
Lilybelle Re.
This is print for people to see, as well as the false accusation regarding imprisonment for credit card fraud, levelled at Mrs Colvin, so I'm afraid they certainly were on trial....by the public. As for huge payments from the NOTW, yes, they were paid £1000... for expenses i.e loss of earnings, which were quite substantial in Mrs. Colvin's case, and they were never paid the £7000, as the full account of their story was never published. Bob Bird was also mistaken in his evidence that £2000 was paid for the lie detector test, it was in fact £1000...and why not? This nonsense has taken up a substantial amount of the ladies time, and they deserve to be compensated!
Lilybelle.
It should be noted that these witnesses were dropped by the Crown and no-one else.
As for the lie detector test what would your take be, that after this test the larger sums promised were not honoured or that their account was never published?
Deserving of compensation Iam unsure if they were paid £1000 or £2000,that to some may seem adequate,the NotW may your best bet as to why the failed in getting hold of the larger sums.
Old Rivers said...
Of course there is also the hypothetical possibility that the "Moathouse" evidence was a red herring specifically put in place to lie in wait in order to put a spoke in the Crown's wheels, and in so doing derailing Alex Prentice's wagon.
Possibly correct however as for The Moathouse incident to be a red herring it would have needed the requirement for the defence and the NotW to anticipate this trial taking place and to be in agreement of red herring anything,when this story first merged mid circa 2004 in the NotW.
Any spoking of the Crowns wheels is more to do with witness selection IMO than coloured fish.
@ Poster @ 6:27 - you're post is not displaying properly - maybe you are using a non-western european character set.
@Poster anonymous...Just my Linux set up playing up!
Thanks for clearing that up, Carnybull; I was just about to re-install Windoze.
Lillybelle, during the cross examination of McColl there emerged a statement that Colvin had previously sworn the event happened on a different date, the other supposed witness to the event, Ms Dixon, had said that she hadnt ever met Tommy Sheridan. Given that the evidence of these two women was rejected by a jury four years ago and their names came up earlier being wined and dined by the NotW, the Crown were correct, in my opinion, to just let it drop than risk McBride embarrassing them in court further.
In this trial their evidence would have faced a much higher standard of proof and they were poor witnesses in 2006. The 2006 libel trial ended up being focussed on the SSP evidence from a meeting because the NotW stuff was poor evidence, there was no corroborating evidence such as receipts or hotel staff.
Post a Comment