Mr Sheridan opened by asking Mr McNeilage if he had "concocted the tape' (the disputed video Mr McNeilage sold to the News of the World) with Keith Baldessera and Alan McCombes. The witness denied this. Mr Sheridan then asked Mr McNeilage about a cash payment he had received from the paper of 1,500 pounds. The witness told the court that this money was so he could take his family away when the initial story was released and added he had spent a week at "Flamingoland" in a caravan.
Mr Sheridan then showed the court a number of emails between the News of the World's (NotW) legal team and Bob Bird the paper's Scottish editor. One states "G very unhappy" and Mr Sheridan asked the witness why there initially appeared to be an agreement that Mr McNeilage would get £250,000 but ended up with only £200,000. The witness said he did not remember Mr Sheridan then put it to the witness that the £50,000 was used to "pay others off" which the witness denied. Another email was then shown to the court, again from Bob Bird to one of his legal team which said in part "He's not budging, I'll chat with Andy, it's either on or off." Mr Sheridan asked Mr McNeilage if "Andy" was Andrew Coulson, national editor of the NotW. The witness said "I've never heard of him." Mr Sheridan then produced another email sent on the 17th August 2006,from Kenneth Lang (a lawyer acting for the News of the World) to Bob Bird which read in part, "Andy Coulson to sign cheque" and discussed arrangements for Mr Coulson to watch the recording. The witness again said he had never met Mr Coulson although he did state that there was a meeting in an office were there were a number of people he did not know and he was "not introduced to."
Mr Sheridan then produced a heavily redacted document that had been obtained from the NotW titiled "Sheridan costs." Shown on the court video screens, this document mentions two cash payments labelled "George McNeilage" (handwritten beside the typed cash accounts) one for £1,500 and one for £1000 . Mr McNeilage denied having received any other cash payments other than the £1,500, which he said he had received, by hand, from a journalist at the newspaper.
Mr Sheridan then produced a heavily redacted document that had been obtained from the NotW titiled "Sheridan costs." Shown on the court video screens, this document mentions two cash payments labelled "George McNeilage" (handwritten beside the typed cash accounts) one for £1,500 and one for £1000 . Mr McNeilage denied having received any other cash payments other than the £1,500, which he said he had received, by hand, from a journalist at the newspaper.
When court resumed, after a short break, Mr Sheridan brought into evidence an "undated" police statement in which a police officer asked Mr McNeilage if he had considered the fact that if he had produced the tape before the 2006 libel case he could have protected the SSP from the financial difficulties they were in now and the bad publicity the case had generated for them. In the statement Mr McNeilage answers "I've never shopped anyone in my life." Mr Sheridan then put to the witness he was now a "grass" for money, to which the witness replied he was "clearing the SSP's name." Mr Sheridan then stated, "you are not here to tell the truth but to honour your contract." Mr McNeilage responded ""Yes I knew that was coming"
Mr Sheridan then produced a contract between Mr McNeilage and the NotW which gave the newspaper copyright of the video and a 900 word accompanier article to be written by the witness, in return for a payment of £200,000. The contract also stipulated that in the event of legal action arising from the video's publication Mr McNeilage would co-operate with the newspaper's lawyers and with the police.
Mr Sheridan then moved back to the issue of the video tape itself and in particular the what he called the "missing section." Mr Sheridan produced a police statement made by Mr McNeilage where he had told the police the conversation had continued for 10 minutes after the tape the court had seen. The witness denied it was that long, a couple of minutes at most. Mr McNeilage told the court he had some that as what was on the tape was "personal stuff" about Mr Sheridan's wife and mother and he had not wanted then being "dragged into it." Mr Sheridan told the court he would be producing an expert witness who would testify that the tape had been "selectively edited" Discussion then moved on to what Mr Sheridan called a "mystery man" from the "underworld" whom the witness had previously stated came to his door and told him Mr Sheridan had been to the Cupids club.Mr Sheridan accused Mr McNeilage of "making this up" which the witness denied.
Mr Sheridan then produced a contract between Mr McNeilage and the NotW which gave the newspaper copyright of the video and a 900 word accompanier article to be written by the witness, in return for a payment of £200,000. The contract also stipulated that in the event of legal action arising from the video's publication Mr McNeilage would co-operate with the newspaper's lawyers and with the police.
Mr Sheridan then moved back to the issue of the video tape itself and in particular the what he called the "missing section." Mr Sheridan produced a police statement made by Mr McNeilage where he had told the police the conversation had continued for 10 minutes after the tape the court had seen. The witness denied it was that long, a couple of minutes at most. Mr McNeilage told the court he had some that as what was on the tape was "personal stuff" about Mr Sheridan's wife and mother and he had not wanted then being "dragged into it." Mr Sheridan told the court he would be producing an expert witness who would testify that the tape had been "selectively edited" Discussion then moved on to what Mr Sheridan called a "mystery man" from the "underworld" whom the witness had previously stated came to his door and told him Mr Sheridan had been to the Cupids club.Mr Sheridan accused Mr McNeilage of "making this up" which the witness denied.
Mr Sheridan then put it to Mr McNeilage that if he had really given him "dogs abuse" in the deleted section of the video why would he have later asked Mr McNeilage to be a parliamentary candidate for the SSP in Pollok. Mr McNeilage said he did not know but added that Mr Sheridan had supported Keth Baldessera to be the candidate. Returning to the issue of the tape Mr Sheridan highlighted the transcript where there are three points labelled "break in recording." These are at 19.24, 38.36, 46.50 and 56.30. Mr Sheridan asked the witness why there were "four breaks" in the recording. Mr McNeilage insisted the tape was "bone fide" and that Mr Sheridan "knew it." Mr Sheridan then pointed to the fact that while the tape in which the conversation happens has a time and date stamp, the taped over sections do not. Mr McNeilage said he assumed someone else had reset the camera between the date of the initial recording and his subsequent taping over of sections of it.
Finally Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that "deceit was part of his nature" and that "when you were 20 years old you broke into houses and 22 years later to take money to try and send a former friend to jail." He added that Mr McNeilage was "dishonest and disloyal" Mr McNeilage answered "my loyalty was never to you pal." and with that Mr Sheridan ended his cross-examination and returned to the dock.
The Advocate Depute. Alec Prentice QC than briefly re-examined the witness who again denied he had lied or fabricated the tape. Mr Prentice then returned to his seat.
The presiding judge, Lord Bracadale, then told the jury that he had a number of legal matters to deal with in the afternoon and therefore they were excused until Tuesday morning. The court then adjourned.
131 comments:
is there any hint as to if the witness who says it's 'selectively edited' is arguing that it's Tommy's voice spliced across multiple conversations, or is the argument that it didn't actually happen at all?
the 'deceit is part of his nature' part is a bit odd, from your transcript it looks like Sheridan also asked him to be a cadidate in Pollock, so persumably he must have been demmed fairly trustworthy.
regardless of the authenticity, i think taking 200k from the NOTW for the video is immoral, even if it is legit i think taping it was wrong to begin with, but that is not what this trial about.
i'm not sure i understand the bit about the video sections having dates, i've never recorded over a tape, would that erase the time and date from the camera? if the tape's faked then i can't see the NOTW making that level of mistake
also, i'm not sure why it helps the defence to say that the NOTW debated whether or not to buy the tape- that suggests they didn't want to part with the 200k.
for clarification, if they did pay 200k then what was the 1500 payment supposedly for? i'm not sure i understood that bit of your post
Interesting morning & testimony from McNeilage. GMcN was noticeably more subdued than on Friday and kept his answers very short and to the point.
One section worth mentioning I think was TS bringing up other past convictions.
A)the taking of the open car to visit his dad in hospital and the resultant fine that was repaid after a year for good behaviour.
B) TS alleging GMcN stole the PayGo mobile phone that he had used for years, and the comments from GMcN that he had no idea about the named person the phone was registered to and that TS might even have given that phone to him in the first place!
The one area GMcN seemed a little unsure of was when TS questioned him on whether he had received any cash payments other than the £1,500 for the dreary week in a flamingo-land caravan. GMcN really didn't seem too sure, which was surprising as he had otherwise been very clear in his evidence.
Other than that area, I thought GMcN a very credible witness despite his chequered past.
It will be interesting to see what other information comes out, particularly regarding payments, once the NotW witnesses are called.
Maybe worth mentioning at the end of Tommys examination him asking about McNeilages Criminal convictions.
My recollection may be wrong, but I'm sure Mcneilage said he had two, one when he was 16, then one when he was 20 in 1986.
Tommy then asked if he had any others convictions, to which McNeilage said no.
Tommy then revealed another two convictions, one for reset (199?), and a pretty serious sounding offence (to any non car owners in the Jury) in 2002.
This came at the end of the examination and looked really bad for McNeilage.
Both these people know who the Liar is. And both know that the other knows who the Liar is. The total and utter contempt the innocent party must feel towards the guilty party must be overwhelming.
What kind of "break", was the recording stopped or "paused". Surely the "date and time stamp" would identify this. Or is the "break" a result of an "artefact"? Wow and flutter? Scratches?
I haven't heard the full tape so my comments are in that context.
It seems to me that the "doctoring" of a tape is a fairly straightforward matter to establish.
I have done lots of audio processing so I know what I am talking about.
If audio from elsewhere has been spliced or mixed in then there will be tell tale signs in the audio stream waveform. My guess is that it is unlikely that this kind of audio doctoring will be established - but we will see.
The other kind of "doctoring" would be deleting sections of the audio. But if this is the only type of "doctoring" that has occurred then it may not automatically provide any comfort for the defence.
If any sections which are supposed to have been deleted are short in comparison to the overall audio AND if the remaining audio has enough on it to clearly provide evidence consistent with the charges then the existence of any deleted sections may (it seems to me) be a trivial matter and would not take away from the evidential value of what is left.
Even if there are missing sections the question remains - is it TS on the audio that is present and does what he says provide evidence tending to support the charges?
Evidence that the audio has been mixed or spliced would be problematic for the prosecution of course - as that would tend to throw doubt on the audio that is present on the tape. But as I said it would be hard to do that kind of doctoring without leaving tell tale traces in the waveform.
The key questions remain therefore;
a) is the audio that is present un-tampered.
b) Is the audio that is present TS?
c) Does the audio that is present provide evidence tending to support the charge or not?
the missing part of the tape is problematic for the prosecution, we have to take McNeilage's word on what was on the tape for those minutes, that means there is a doubt.
the breaks in the audio are also a problem. No-one on the tape gets up to press pause or stop so if there are breaks it is very difficult to explain how they occurred.
My initial thoughts would be that the audio is a separate tape from the video, but given that we have background noise which is consistent with the setting, that seems unlikely. If the tape hasnt been tampered with there really shouldnt be 'breaks' in the audio at all, it should be one continual recording.
Whatever the authenticity of this tape or the decision of the jury McNeilage really looks like a devious man who has sold himself to the NotW.
Of course we will have two sides of the tape analysis from experts to consider, so it will be better to deal with that when we see what they have to say.
I'd agree on that anon, the defence does not need to show where the tape came from, or provide proof on how it was made, they just need to establish a reasonable doubt. That will be easier to judge when we hear from expert witnesses.
The significance of any breaks in the tape will of course depend on how long they are and whether the remaining audio is enough to establish clearly what was being said.
Even if the audio had been a "separate tape from the video" it would stil have involved mixing different audio streams together.
In particular if TS didn't say what the tape purports him to say and different recordings of him were spliced from different pieces of audio - this would be next to impossible to do without leaving tell tale types of glitches in the audio waveform and noticeably different audio spectrums in the different parts. It would be almost impossible to source enough different recordings so that a completely new and fabricated audio could be created and have it sound ( or look, on a visual analysis ) convincing.
The expert testimony about the tape will be a compelling and critical part of this trial I think.
Oh, by the way - I see the Scottish parliament is finally taking steps to clean up the sex industry in rural areas of Scotland.
I don't know Anon and James, it seems to me Bunc has a point - what exactly is TS arguing? That the tape is fake? That it has been edited a little bit but is otherwise real? It is quite likely a jury will see through such inconsistent lines of attack and therefore not have reason to doubt the tape's authenticity.
Where exactly is Flamingo-land? I think I want to go!!!
I have done this for a living for 20+ years, so I know what I am talking about. As Bunc says, and in my opinion too, it would be impossible to tamper with the audio stream without leaving tell traces on the waveform, they are never going to quite match.
bunc, i dont agree, even if the audio breaks or for split seconds, they still, would not have happened with one continual recording. I may be wrong but I think what is being suggested by Sheridan is that the audio on this tape stops and starts. that cant really happen without the visuals also stopping.
I just looked at its website. It seems to be in Yorkshire. anyway it closed in October for the winter.
"bunc, i dont agree, even if the audio breaks or for split seconds, they still, would not have happened with one continual recording. I may be wrong but I think what is being suggested by Sheridan is that the audio on this tape stops and starts. that cant really happen without the visuals also stopping."
First - consider if I overhear you admitting a murder. You clearly admit it and give details. You then walk away and I dont hear what you are saying for 2 mins. then you return and I hear further admissions from you about the murder. Are you seriously suggesting that because I didn't hear what you said for 2 mins that this invalidates what I did hear??
Second - there may be various reasons for audio breaks including of course if there was silence. Some recording equipment has an automatic feature which turns of audio recording unless it reaches a set level.
Has any evidence been led yet as to what kind of equipment this tape was recorded on?
Again though - what matters is what was said and whether what was said is a genuine recording and whether was said provides enough evidence to be supportive of the charges.
In the face of that, any short breaks don't seem, to me, likely to provide any reasonable doubt - but we'll see.
the missing minutes would be anough for reasoinable doubt as we obviouslt have a doubt as to what happened during those missing minutes.
I dont think video equipment does switch of the audio recoridng during silenece while continuing the visual recording.
We need to see the expert reports on what these breaks actually entail before reaching a conclusion.
But the tape is already tranished enough for doubt IMO, ny Mcneialge taping over some of it.
If he had given it to police, intact, it would be great evidence, but he admits deleting parts of it, holding on to it for 2 years and then selling it to the NotW who had just lost 200k in court to Sheridan.
The doubt has been created by McNeilage's actions, it will be difficult for the prosecution to argue that the missing minutes are meaningless when judging the authenticity.
As James says, Sheridan doesnt have to prove anything, it doesnt matter whether his theory about who made the tape or how it was made is correct, it is down to the prosecution to show that it is genuine beyond doubt.
As they accept that the tape has been altered from the priginal recording (ie taping over some minutes) then that makes their task quite difficult, IMO.
It is not an audio tape - it a video tape with an audio track - to tamper with the audio you'd have to tamper with the video.
£1,500 for a week in a caravan?
Blimey.
anon 5.43 - exactly, so the breaks have far more significance, if the video is intact and the audio isnt, the prosecution will have to show why
Was there someone else present to start and stop the tape? One possible reason for the tape starting and stopping (and the most likely one) would be a "shaky" connection. And if the recorder was concealed maybe the power cable wasn't routed properly. Has the recorder being left lying around in dusty, damp conditions. Even a temporary "dip" in the mains supply would cause a "drop-out" on the tape.
What is the point of a bunch of people on the internet discussing how it can be proven or disproven whether the audio on a tape is admissible in court or not? Hows about everyone just calms down, stops pretending like they know how video analysis works, stops pretending like their opinion on the tape has an effect on the outcome of what the jury might or might not think about it, and waits for the video experts to come in and say what they think of it. I imagine now that McNeilage has been in you won't have too long to wait for that.
£1,500 for a week in a caravan? - was it not for a family of 4. Maybe catering was included, there would also be the entrance fee to the attractions.
Anon - I understand your points but you don't really address my analogy of overhearing two parts of a confession. If what remains is substantial enough and it is untampered then there may be no room for reasonable doubt.
Such audio evidence is of course always partial - what did TS say the day before, or the day after , or two days after - none of that is on the tape either - so does that cast reasonable doubt - of course not.
Breaks in the tape would cast reasonable doubt perhaps if the existing audio was fragmentary , unclear and amounted to only snippets of conversation such that missing portions might be possibly have given a different meaning to the parts that do exist.
BUT if there are long substantial periods of conversation and the conversation which can be heard substantially evidences the charges then reasonable doubt will only come from
a) TS raising reasonable doubt that it is not his voice
and
b) evidence that the audio that exists has been tampered with
or
c) TS showing that the existing audio bears some other reasonable interpretation of the words said.
If the recorder was using internal batteries low battery power would also cause the tape to start and stop.
How would it be possible to edit the tape "live" i.e. when the alleged "conversation" was taking place, how would someone be able to anticipate what was about to be said to pause/stop the recording. Any proper "editing" could really only be done "after-the-fact".
Yes@anon 5.50pm Any professional photographer will tell you that it now possible to recover images from a memory card that have been deleted. This didn't used to be the case, once deleted they were gone for ever, but with improved technology it is now possible to bring them back. So I would think that if there are deleted sections of the video/audio tape then it would be possible to recover them.
But we shall see.
"How would it be possible to edit the tape "live" i.e. when the alleged "conversation" was taking place,"
I assume by someone calling out "cut?"
Justaglasgowguy, sorry if I was not clearer, the missing part has been taped over, it was not stored digitally but on a tape.
too right autonomous, anyone on here old enough to remember taping the radio one top 40 on a sunday evening, hearing the dreaded raaaaaaaadio one jingle half wat through and having to re-wind your cassette player to edit it out.
Even if something is "taped over" can you not recover the underlying audio like date on a hard-drive? unless the tape has been "erased" one for the "forensic experts" on here.
"I assume by someone calling out "cut?"" yeah, "fake tape... take two... action.... cut...",,, "can you give it a bit more oomph "Tommy"... "will do, Ken"... "OK, let's roll... take three"... lol
The reason things on hard drives and similar digital mediums can be recovered is that erasing them only deletes the reference to the file - ie it makes the system unable to "see" the file and its contents. the file stil exists until other data is written over the sectors where the original file data was held. This is why security deleting software wrotes zeros across the whole file - often more than once.
For tape mediums once they are written over the deletion is more permanent as its not a case of only deleting the reference to the material but actually writing over the original recording.
for me the "clapper board" thing at the beginning of the tape is a dead give-away.
@ Bunc you not use electron microscopes or something to probe under overwritten data on a hard drive? I believe that a cassette recorder "re-aligns" all the magnetic particle, I'm not sure if that is on an "erase" signal or on "record". Someone should know for sure.
too right Bunc, a "deleted" file that hasn't been written over can be recovered at the click of a mouse.
"...Electron microscope or something to probe under overwriten data on a hard drive"
Let me be clear - ordinary deleting of a file on a computer hard drive does NOT delete it. Special software is used to overwrite the data. To be securely overwritten it is overwritten - usually more than once - with random data. There are security standards for overwriting and deleting data in this way to make it unrecoverable.
A tape medium is quite different. Also there are two forms of tape medium. Signals on a tape medium can be stored in either analogue or digital format. Even in digital format they are not analagous to a hard disc because a hard disc is random access whereas a tape is written sequentially. Erasing on a random access disc merely erases the index to the file. Erasing on a tape erases the actual data. In the latter case recovery would be of a different nature than recovering a normally deleted hard disc file.
I think my last comment on this particular issue was emoved so I'll try again and chose my language carefully.
In cross examination TS suggested witness was a "grass". ( reported by the BBC - not sure if there is a reference here to this).
The choice of the word "grass" here is interesting and to my mind revealing - but I will make no further comment on why and leave people to work this out for themselves. Hopefully this comment will get through now.
Message received loud and clear, Bunc. Over and out.
sheridan made it clear he was using the word in relation to Mcneilages underworld background and how he would be seen by others
Thanks anon, as they might come up I've removed the link.
i don't really trust these so-called experts - look at those "climate change" scientists that told us the Himalayas were going to melt.
Yeah, who do they think they are, just because they've got years of study behind them suddenly they know about the things they studied!
I've worked in scientific research, Ferdinand. You have to look at who is "sponsoring" the research. Data is often worked backwards to fit result. Not unlike the "experiments" we used to perform in school laboratories.
Re: 7:11 pm (?? - end of BST?) comment about not trusting experts -
Are you on the wind up?
I have to back up The Bunc on his description of tape vs computer recordings & deletions. If the tape was recorded over as McN states, that part of the recording is gone for ever.
From what I've heard of the tape, which is most of it, there are long sections of seemingly unedited audio & video where the "T" voice confirms his big mistake in confessing to various SSP members. If there is no expert testimony that these sections have been doctored in some way, and the voice is confirmed as Sheridan's, I'd find it hard for there to be reasonable doubt on this part of evidence.
McNeilage has stated that he recorded over a section at the end of the conversation. TS was trying to establish this as "tampering" or "editing" of the tape with GMcN, but I don't see how this has any impact on the veracity of the recording up to that point. Is TS going to argue that at the end of that conversation he said "George, see all that stuff I said over the last 40 minutes? I was just joking. Winding you up, mate." Unlikely.
Expert evidence on this evidence will be crucial to its strength.
No, you really have to look at their academic and professional reputation and how unlikely it is that they would throw this away to frame up some wee tanned ex politician in another country. Let's just wait and see what they have to say about the video eh
It still potentially raises doubts Whatsy, if I gave you a document that had a third of the pages missing would that not make you question if I was telling the whole truth?
Sceptic,
If the remaining parts of the document clearly establish what is alleged and can bear no other meaning then redacted parts may not be a problem.
How can what is actually heard be explained away if the audio in those sections is genuine? It can't. Hence we are fed some "grand conspiracy" - again - this time involving who knows - actors, audio engineers oh and Ken Loach ?
I can feel my credulity being stretched to breaking point.
Bunc says 'For tape mediums once they are written over the deletion is more permanent as its not a case of only deleting the reference to the material but actually writing over the original recording.'
This 'tape' has breaks in the recording? At least 13 minutes missing from the end of it and by James' account the 'maker' of the tape is unable to provide a consistent reason as to why.
We can all have our own ideas as to the explaination of this but we are not the ones who are required to do so, the Jury do! Remember too that the tape was aledgedly stored for 2 years but only sold after the previous case where all that is discussed in the tape was disclosed during the 2006 case. Do I need to ask the question?
The tape still has nearly 1/3 missing. Once could argue that might raise a doubt in any fair minded person and lets not forget a 1% doubt is enough for the defence.
1% doubt would not be a reasonable doubt in my book.
See for example Quantifying reasonable doubt It has been suggested that IF a figure for reasonable doubt can be given then it is more in the region of 70% - not 99% as you are suggesting.
And don't forget that this tape evidence hardly stands on its own. On the face of it it is entirely consistent with and appears to be corroborated in its overall impact by all the other testimony given by the witnesses for the prosecution.
@Sceptic
If I were a juror, 1% doubt would not be reasonable doubt. I have 1% doubt that I am human and not a computer simulation, but I am able to fairly well get on with my life on the assumption that I am indeed human. Although I wouldn't mind a USB port and some extra memory.
Regarding the tape edits, it depends entirely on the context whether the omissions & edits are material enough to affect the reliability of the evidence. It's an allegedly genuine conversation with the end missing. Doesn't male the bit that isn't missing any less relevant.
We're not talking the epilogue of "Atonement" here.
you don't know, maybe folk were talking about something embarrassing at the end of the tape like their piles or something.
aye Whatsy - even the NotW had a long section on their website in which someone ts? and actor? apparently confessed. I supposed if pushed and that this is a genuine recording without a shadow of a doubt, yeah, my credulity would be stretched.
70% sorry have to disagree on that. That means you can ditch nearly a third of the evidence and still convict?
"We're not talking the epilogue of "Atonement" here."... or Franz Schubert's Unfinished Symphony.
One point people are overlooking is the emails from the Notw that directly tie Andy Coulson into the events. He planned to view the tape before "signing the cheque" I assume in Glasgow, yet he never met Mr McNeilage? Also Kenneth Lang pops up again, thats about the 10th time.
Interesting witnesses ahead.
Sceptic I- I suggest that you read the paper and also look up an article in wikipedia titled "legal burden of proof." ( from memory).
If you look at the end of the paper I referenced you will see a very good definition of reasonable doubt. It's nothing like 99% certainty. The 70% ( plus) figure comes from a study but generally actual figures aren't used in legal settings. Nevertheless its clear ( to me at least ) that you are way way off the mark suggesting that it leaves room only for 1% doubt.
For Bunc
http://www.blogdenovo.org/archives/000712.html
"Is TS going to argue that at the end of that conversation he said "George, see all that stuff I said over the last 40 minutes? I was just joking. Winding you up, mate." Unlikely." - but even if that wasn't on the tape, it could have been said down the pub later on, at any time: "See that you made, aye I saw the mic, I was pulling your leg mate."
@ sceptic what the prosecution do though is twist things by saying "the doubt must be reasonable", this is what you hear in closing speeches.
reasonable doubt is quantitative, a doubt that is reasonable is qualitative.
I have already seen that post - written by a student. It doesn't go anyway to establishing 1 % as reasonable doubt - and the 70 % was quashed because courts see reasonable doubt as a qualitative measure not a quantitative one. Those studies that have attempted to quantify it end up nearer the 70% mark rather than 99%. Keep searching. You are still very wide of mark with 1%.
"Down at the pub .... I saw the mic"
And of course if we allowed such speculations s to raise "reasonable doubt" then no audio or video tape would ever at any time provide any evidential value in any court case. Clearly its nonsense to apply such a test. It amounts to fanciful considerations and isn't reasonable doubt.
the last two posts have nailed this reasonable doubt business - great minds post at the same time lol
too right Bunc, there is no end fanciful suggestion, you might as well say: "then what happened at the end of the tape, they woke up" lol
The edits could be argued to have weakened the claim that the tape is a contemporanous record. It has by the prosecutions own admission been edited. That dies not mean it can be dismissed but to argue that the missing section does not matter is a highly suspect argument
"the missing section" is at the end though. like when we find out who the real killer is. it's like ripping pages out of a book.
Its the degree to which it matters. As I pointed out before the missing bits need to be seen in context. If what does exist is substantial and leaves little doubt that it supports the charges then the missing bits may not matter substantially.
If the existing record was "bitty" and fragmentary and left doubt what was being said then missing bits might then raise very substantial doubt. Its the context that matters - and the context here includes testimony from many other witnesses consistent with what is being said on the tape.
@ bunc i've got the notw tape on my hard drive and the way it is presented it does sound convincing, but who is to say that it isn't a "concoction"
Re: Anon ""the missing section" is at the end though. like when we find out who the real killer is. it's like ripping pages out of a book."
It's not at all like that. Unless the VT shows a carefully scripted play which reaches a cleverly constructed and satisfying conclusion, which GMcN then deleted.
Maybe you have conversations that could be dropped verbatim straight into the West Wing unnoticed, but most conversations/arguments I have ever had tend to peter out. The most important bits happen somewhere well before the end, and people tend to get up and leave long before I've finished. That doesn't make what I had to say any less credible, wise and amusing. Oh, wait, hang on a minute.
in most conversations people are just talking !"£$%. but the participants don't think that, so if you were ever to listen to a recording of your conversations you'd probably think "what a load of !"£$%"
how can someone sell something for £250000 yet only recieve £200000 and not remember what happened to the missing £50000
: Whatsy - you are going to have to wait until the Yanks put their clocks back too.
Re: "how can someone sell something for £250000 yet only recieve £200000 and not remember what happened to the missing £50000"
That just isn't what happened, from what I've seen in court so far. GMcN asked for £250k, negotiated for this as shown in evidence, but eventually got £200k. I've seen no evidence that he sold it for £250k. Has anyone else seen anything to the contrary?
TS said to GMcN that initially there apeared to be an agreement for £250000 , but you only ended up with £200000 ,if this was not the case why did GMcN not simply say there was never any agreement for £250000
The AdDep objected at that point and said the documents that TS was going on were "Draft" agreements - TS was directed by Bracadale that he should not continue the discussion asserting that the sale price of the tape was £250k.
So there was a draft agreement for 250k then suddenly that is down to 200k and GM can not recall why?
Must have been a reason.
Have you ever negotiated for anything?
He must be a great negotiator, there is a draft agreement for 250k and he talks them into taking 50k away. He then forgets that it even happened?
May be nothing to it of course.
So GMcN gets £200K and says that he spent it?
This reminds me of the Watergate scandal - "follow the money" was always the clue. I wonder if some of that £200K was passed on to anyone else, and if so, why?
I'd like to see evidence for how the money wasd spent.
It was £200,000 for himself, £50,000 was for a "community project", maybe he just let that part of the deal drop.
He got asked about that. He said no, except I believe he actually gave a substantial sum to a Pollok community centre.
If he'd given the money to the SSP, which I think is what you're getting at, it'd have appeared in their public accounts.
There was nothing said in court about any donations Ferdinand.
whatsy seems to be changing his tune ,first of all there is no evidence that it was sold for £250000 "has anyone seen evidence to the contrary" then all of a sudden there are "Draft" agreements flying about? makes you wonder
I'd assume that Bill Bird will be asked about the status of the draft agreement, so we may find out then.
"If he'd given the money to the SSP, which I think is what you're getting at, it'd have appeared in their public accounts."
No, if others were involved in staging the video, I'm sure they would expect a share of the cash. Therefore, where they money went could help clear up whether the tape is genuine.
Re "whatsy seems to be changing his tune ,first of all there is no evidence that it was sold for £250000 "has anyone seen evidence to the contrary" then all of a sudden there are "Draft" agreements flying about? makes you wonder"
Are you able to hold more than three words in your head at the same time? Makes you wonder what? Spit it out, please, rather than some enigmatic accusation. I'm not on trial, and this is not a courtroom, so you can say whatever you want about me. Anonymous.
So, what is your point - that the evidence presented in court is irrelevant and I should, like you, just speculate wildly to suit my prejudice of whether I like the defendant or the prosecution "Team" the best?
McNeilage aimed for £250k. No evidence he got that. Admits he got £200k. Plus the £1,500 for Flamingoland, and a question mark around that other £1,000 with his name scribbled next to it on the NotW "Sheridan Case" costs evidence, which he claims to not know anything about.
If you think he got £250k, you should either tell us how you think that, or if you know it, get in touch with Aamer Anwar.
Otherwise, we await the Bird testimony.
All this stuff about the money is flim flam. I understand that people in the various patries might be concerned about it but it doesn't affect the veracity of the tape. The issue is whether the tape is genuine - full stop. If there is no evidence that it has been doctored ( and the breaks and missing end bit don't seem to amount to much) then the money only provides a context but doesn't change the content and impact of the tape.
Re; definition of "reasonable doubt"
A couple of recent examples approved are (from a charge in a criminal trial) -
"The standard of proof of guilt which is required of the Crown is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Now, these words mean very much what they say. Note, it is a reasonable doubt. Not a fanciful, speculative or academic doubt. Not a mathematical certainty either. It is if you like a doubt for which you can give a good reason or a doubt which is based upon a good reason. So if having considered the evidence you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty it is your duty to convict him but if you are left with a reasonable doubt as to his guilt it is your duty to acquit him. So you ask yourselves the broad question are we satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the crime in question was committed and if so that it was committed by the accused, that he was responsible for it."
and in an appeal
"In our experience, under present-day practice it is common for judges to direct juries that a reasonable doubt is a doubt which would cause them in the conduct of their own affairs to hesitate or pause before taking a decision. Such a direction is a sound direction, but it obviously need not be given in every case because each judge has a discretion as to how he is to direct the jury on the matter of reasonable doubt".
All the defence have to do is create a reasonable doubt and the accused must be acquitted.
surely the missing 17 minutes are only relevant if you accept the authenticity of the tape.
if Sheridan is arguing that the entire tape is a hoax then i dont see the relevance of the missing 17 minutes. if on the other hand the argument is that the conversation did happen but the missing 17 minutes would have given it a different meaning then Sheridan would have to explain why he has always denied that the conversation took place
if anybody accepts the authentcity of the tape then the 17 minutes don't matter. if you believe the tape to be a hoax then you have to winder why the NOTW would be stupid enough to miss out 17 minutes, and if it was acted then you would imagine that they would have had the miney to re-shoot it
" if on the other hand the argument is that the conversation did happen but the missing 17 minutes would have given it a different meaning then Sheridan would have to explain why he has always denied that the conversation took place"
The defendant does not have to explain anything, the prosecution have to prove it is accurate the defence does not have to come up with a whole scenario to explain it's existance. If they can show that their was a motive to make a fake, means to do so and suggestions that this might be so they have done their job.
Can I make the following points.
1) This is not a video. The pictures though not totally irrelevant are a distraction from the sound.
2) I could achieve this sound quality with that camera and an old fashioned tape-recorder. Record the voices close. Play tape at a distance. You get ambient sound and echo which helps cover the quality of the speaking voice.
3) Why would an imitator of Tommy have to be an actor? There were hundreds of people who had heard him dozens of times and had access to video recordings. In any half talented company someone could make a fair go of his voice. With practice amazing results can be achieved. With the following provizos. a) There is a tendency to slip into caricature and parody. b) also to slip into the imitator's speech patterns. c) for false tones to be tried in an effort to put over the perfidy of the speaker (all of these are emphasised in comic performance.)
d)a tendency to overact a discursive style of speaking which is not natural but enables the impersonator to invent more easily.
4)There is enough echo, coughing, shuffling etc to cover up some of the mistakes that might be made.
Deciding factors in the admissability of this tape will be i) its source - is it tainted by dishonesty and bribery? ii) Is it credible? (the SSP keep emphasising the fact that Tommy was a 'straw dog'. If so why are they terrified of him? I think he is a hard-headed, highly intelligent and somewhat ruthless politician. Is it likely that he would sit down quietly to confess one after the other to all the perjury he was going to commit? (some of which he was unlikely to know till shortly before the 2006 case)iii) Are there mistakes in this account such as Tommy was unlikely to make?
Unfortunately those of us who have watched it in court can only guess at some of the details. Didn't Tommy/impersonator say that he had travelled from London to Manchester? Not sure. Let me know.
The DTS pages haven't been updated for a wee while now.
http://www.defendtommysheridan.org/
Anyone starting to feel a little fatigued yet?
Was it a week ago that Prentice said the prosecution might run for another 3 to 4 weeks?
I hope you're not starting to regret your commitment to the daily reporting yet Mr Doleman.
Excellent stuff, Voice of Reason. I would add that all the defence has to to do is create a reasonable doubt [in the minds of 8 of the Jurors]. That is the intent of the Defence in any Trial.
@ really wondering... why would GMcN pay for the cost of producing the video? Some people are suggesting that GMcN sold the video for financial gain - you can't have it both ways! Anyone familiar with the costs of TV will know that if this video is fake it would indeed cost around £200,000 to fake. It would have to be a professional production, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about it's authentic - or not.
@ really wondering - if this video is fake it's a professional production. If you wanted such a video made why would you give GMcN to produce his own video, i.e hand out money to his mates to "help out". Do you not think that you would spend the money on a professional job? I don't think that GMcN is a film producer.
Thank you again for all your work James and I do hope you can continue. We really do appreciate your commitment and the opportunity to read your excellent non bias reporting of the trial.
While I think its pretty despicable to do what the witness claims to have done this looks bad for TS - it could even be the 'smoking gun'. Clearly the NoTW thought so - otherwise they wouldn't have paid 200k for it.
"The defendant does not have to explain anything, the prosecution have to prove it is accurate the defence does not have to come up with a whole scenario to explain it's existance. If they can show that their was a motive to make a fake, means to do so and suggestions that this might be so they have done their job."
@sceptic - I wouldn't like you defending me sceptic! Of course the Defence has to provide an alternative explanation and scenario for the evidence presented - its not enough to just say "oh well he was paid money for the video, it COULD have been tampered with" they would have to show it HAD been tampered with OR thevoice on the tape was not TS. So I guess we'll see from the experts in that regard.
@Denizen the argument theat Tommy is too intelligent to confess to several people is pretty weak. Highly intelligent people do stupid things all the time - even if that doesn't become clear until ltaer. Perhaps TS wanted to secure the loyalty of the witness and thought a confession was the best course of action, perhaps he just wanted to get it off his chest. or indeed perhaps it was an actor.
Thank's Anne, much appreciated.
Get your Gunboat off my lawn!
Of course clever people do stupid things. But they say stupid things less often than their enemies claim.
No.Lots of this apparent stupidity is malice, quoting out of context and bare-faced lies.
The SSP during the whole of this trial have claimed that Tommy was 'getting above himself, arrogant, stupid, suicidal (etc. etc.) Leaving aside the fact that these are not arguments for them to make - that is the prosecution's business - they were not new at the time that the confession was made. Now a 'clever' person may confess to his enemies once but will you have me believe that he serially confessed to his enemies - giving in detail the ways in which he was going to lie in a court case two years ahead? Come off it.
This whole tape smacks of the old 'confession' gambit that has put so many innocent people in jail: 'The accused told me that he spat on the bodies of his victim. Can I have my remission now?'
Of course if the SSP do not make a case for Tommy lying then their sentences would be increased.
In addition - the details in that confession? Look at them!
Will people stop claiming that this recording was sophisticated. Have they never recorded their own voices on old casette recorder?
Denizen, you make the mistake of thinking that these people were at that time his 'enemies' as you put it. He thought they were his friends, why wouldn't he be open with them, if he was trying to get them onside? And their explanation would be that they ceased to be his friend once they saw a different side of him and what he was prepared to do (this is what McNeilage said)
That does not hold water for the 2005 "confessions" to various people. Indeed TS asked William Young something along the lines of "Why would I confess to you it has no logic to it?" to which Mr Young said something like "a lot of things you do have no logic" (which in my opinion is not really an answer)
By 2005 it was clear which side everyone was on, yet we are asked to accepts TS was still wandering about confessing to everyone he met?
Still, lots more evidence to come I suppose.
@Denizen Have any of the remainder of the SSP been threatened with perjury or charges in relation to these matters? I could be wrong but I don't recall seeing any evidence regarding that. In any case its the video of TS apparently confessing himself we're discussing at the moment.
And whats all this talk of 'enemies?' At the time of the alleged confessions these were apparently his long-time political comrades and some were his friends! It seems plausible to me he could have been trying to shore up support in advance of his libel trial. Either TS's judgement is stupendously bad in his choice of comrades with neither principle nor backbone or they're telling the truth. Neither option paints TS in a favaourable light to other socialists or the proletariat he wants to lead.
As far as I can see the split in the SSP occurred not over any point of political principle - nobody has crossed any picket lines here - but over the swingers club accusations and the subsequent libel trial. The historic WWI betrayal and breakup of the Second International this was most definitely not.
This really is a squalid affair. I don't mean the sex club accusations - I don't give a crap if he went or not. I mean socialists dragging each others names through the mud, going to the police, the bourgeois press, using the bourgeois courts and the reactionary libel laws for their own petty purposes.
@ Sceptic. Well he was hardly wanderiong around confessing to everyone. But IF he made an initial confession to 15 people at the EC meeting telling another couple of people in order to get them onside isn't going to make too much of a difference one way or another.
@Sceptic "TS asked William Young something along the lines of "Why would I confess to you it has no logic to it?" to which Mr Young said something like "a lot of things you do have no logic" (which in my opinion is not really an answer)"
Is that really a proper question to a witness? Isn't that for the prosecution to establish if they wish and then for the jury to decide?
I don't see y not whatsy, ad didn't object to it and I would guess it's fair to point it out
Isn't that asking a witness to speculate on what another witness was thinking? There have been other instances of such questions being objected to.
One of the problems I've had following this trial, particularly as a courtroom newbie, is that so much seemingly irrelevant stuff is allowed to go, especially during TS's cross-exams (TS & witness). Most times something is objected to, I wonder why that especially when so much other stuff has been allowed to ride.
I think that it is fair enough to put it to a witness "your testimony makes no logical sense" but that's just my opinion.
But isn't TS asking the witness to comment on the logic of someone else's testimony? I admit, it isn't official testimony TS has given yet, but when he's doing his own representation, it's hard to know where this begins and ends, practically.
Dear Gunboat?
I mean to say. They were friends? Have you ever been a member of a political party? Everybody betrays everybody eventually. People aren't charged when they still hold the reins of power. Otherwise it's slaughter the poor infantry.
The SSP want to pretend that there was a pre-lapsarian Eden in which Tommy was loved by all - but with extreme reservations of course. This - and the horror of one of their own going to a sex club - justifies some of the grossest betrayals perpetrated since Stalin's purges?
But this is all beside the point. It may even be that the charges set out to perpetrate a deliberate confusion. If you are charged with fifty odd lies then surely you must be guilty of one? Think of that! How would you prove you weren't lying, by accident, failure of memory, misunderstanding, or sheer annoyance?
The only thing that is worth determining in this trial so far is if Tommy went to Cupid's in 2002. If he didn't that makes everything else so ludicrous as to need the X-files to explain.
Or put it another way. Did Anvar Khan tell the truth? If she didn't Trolle's testimony falls, the Confessions of St Tommy become a peculiar psychological artefact and I wonder why I'm bothering writing this.
The 'Moat House' might become pertinent but we have heard nothing about this.
If Tommy can prove that Khan lied then this trial becomes not the trial of Tommy but the trial of the News of the World, of the police and of CPS. Watch this space! The judge is uneasy and the prosecution is playing silly buggers.
That the SSP decided to shaft Tommy? Words fail me.
"This - and the horror of one of their own going to a sex club - justifies some of the grossest betrayals perpetrated since Stalin's purges?"
jfc.
Also, the CPS have nothing to do with the case, since they live in England.
lol You can't compare Tommy Sheridan to Stalin - Stalin was a mass murderer who sent millions of people to their death. It's still up in the air this sex club nonsense but one thing TS is not guilty of is starving the Ukraine.
"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic" - Tommy Sheridan... or was it Joseph Stalin? lol
Bit late in the day perhaps but does anyone know if the date of the G. Mcneilage tape is known.
Also, is there any information as to how the supposed meeting in his house came about. i.e. Did he call for it or was it TS, calling in for a cup of tea perhaps?
time stamp on one version of it gives the date of recording as 18/11/04.
Supposedly arranged by telephone.
Cheers.
Was the supposed arrangement by telephone a claim made by GM in his evidence? and did he say if it was at his request or if it arose during a chat?
There has been much discussion about the technical aspects of the tape but I Haven't noticed much on the plausibilty of the dialogue.e.g 1
Does no one find odd the question by Mcneilage, 'would you like to check me for wires'
Why would he ask such a question when TS has supposedly entered his house and is off guard. He would have to be off guard to enter the house in the first place. If he were concerned at all he wouldnt be there as the house could be hoachin with cameras, tapes, whatever, The personage of McNeilage in this context is irrelevant. Had he been visiting TS at his house it might have made more sense but in this case its almost a rhetorical question as the implication is why bother when you'd need to search the whole room. Is any question more designed to raise eyebrows and suspiscion that all might not be as it seems?.
Of course if you were scripting a dialogue you might want to take cognisance of the fact that following the 9/11 meeting it is likely that others could accept that TS would be wondering who his friends were and be doubtful and suspicious of everyone. To address this potential conundrum you approach it head on with the question and of course there has to be the response, 'I trust you mate'. Ham stuff?
Re: Anonymous - "want to check me for wires" etc...
Well, McNeilage doesn't claim to be a good actor, so hammy acting is only to be expected. Nervous ad-libbing, too. The kind where you find yourself saying the stuff you are actually thinking about even though you really want to keep it secret.
Whether the tape is real or not, McNeilage was certainly doing a bit of acting in the tape.
Gunboat, it might be the case that Sheridan didnt see them as enemies, but we have now heard SSP winesses claim that this all started at an earlier debate about womens representation in the party (the 50/50 debate) and that there were clear division lines before that meeting in 2004
Didn't realise he was an actor of any description although heard some reference to ken Loach.
Interesting you say he was 'doing a bit of acting in the tape' and wonder what you think distinguishes his acting from non acting.? Have only seen a brief clip of tape on telly and a transcript at some point.
Anonymous said...
Didn't realise he was an actor of any description although heard some reference to ken Loach.
GMn has appeared in a few shows I believe he has had small parts in TAGGART.
He also filmed and edited SSP events so is no stranger to the camera or how to use one.
@ anon hasn't everyone in glasgow been in Taggart. One of my mates played a dead child and I've played cop a few times as well as a couple of other bit parts. now, chewin the fat is something else...
"This - and the horror of one of their own going to a sex club - justifies some of the grossest betrayals perpetrated since Stalin's purges?"
Has anyone noticed that there wasn't a purge. By anyone on either side! TS stood down but was still on the Executive of the SSP and was an MSP and was still in the Socialist Group in the Scottish Parliament. He stood again for the SSP Executive in 2005 and 2006 and was successful at becoming the Chair of the SSP in 2006.
Seems amazing now, that the SSP continued to function like that in 2006, almost undoes the argument there was a plot though.
I don't think Sheridan has a bad ability to pick his friends, the problem appears to me, though I might be wrong is that he thought his pals would back him no matter what rather than to put him right. Many turned against him because he wouldn't listen to them, it looks like he was desperate to find allies, which in fairness he found or there would not be the party he set up.
Shame he didn't take the advice he was given, you wonder if it would have been sorted out just now. I think that the SSP members who he is alleging are lying about him actually were trying to prevent him doing what he did but failed.
But maybe I am wrong, that's how it looks to me.
But this advice we keep hearing about wasnt the party's advice. He was elected to the EC by the members not the leadership clique!
Let's not forget that the disputed minute says that the proposal for Sheridan NOT to sue the NoW was defeated in a vote at the EC.
The fact that there seems to be a group of people who continue to state that they asked Sheridan to drop the case surprises me. That was specifically rejected by the party.
The policy was that the party would stay out of the case and he was free to sue, as long as he stood down from the role of Convenor. It seems he kept his side of that bargain......
"we have now heard SSP winesses claim that this all started at an earlier debate about womens representation in the party (the 50/50 debate) and that there were clear division lines before that meeting in 2004"
Is that right? Could we have more detail about what these witnesses said?
As far as I can recall, Catriona Grant's second testimony covered that 50/50 debate, Iago. Unfortunately, that session was the one when everyone in the public gallery was told to drop their notepads, so we don't have the usual detail on the blog.
Freeze buddy, put down that notebook and step away from the pen....
There was a debate about 50:50 representation and remains part of the SSP constitution today. But Tommy supported the side that was for 50:50 at the Dundee Conference he even chaired the debate. It wasn't clear cut that the divisions were one way or another and I think by 2004 most people had got over it by then. I think the 50:50 is clutching at straws really but then again so was asking about the Militant Tendency in the 80s it just adds to the intrigue.
I don't think it was true though that as long as he stepped down from the convenor he was able to pursue his legal action, this issue was that he allegedly knew that it was true and he shouldn't sue for libel because he would get himself into BIG trouble and it would look like that is the case.
Even if he is acquitted NO ONE in the world can say that the whole thing has been a success or a victory, it would just mean he was acquitted of perjury and he and his wife won't go to jail so that would be a good thing and he would have gained £200,000 but really it would be hard earned and there would still be no resolution to the issue that really will go on for years.
And would we really be discussing anything about Tommy's private life in 2010 if there had not be a libel trial or would the energy going into the Age of Austerity, one wonders?
If the issue was about whether he was telling the truth or not, the membership were not informed of this. We were told that he had stepped down to pursue the libel trial. Although this trial has given us much more information about what some people or groups were involved in, threatening to release private details to the public if they didnt get their way, wthholding evidence from court, pretending that confidentiality was impostant while breacging comfodentiality.
Perhaps if the leadership clique had been upfront and honest at the start rather than playing games and misinforming the membership we wouldnt be where we are now.
It seems that those who lost the vote on tommy dropping the case back in 2004 ignored the party's will and just continued with that strategy anyway. WE have seen Alan Green and Colin Fox state that they met Sheridan to ask him to drop the case. In fact, one thing that is clear from this trial is that the membership and party democracy was secondary to the 'get sheridan' agenda.
Freeze buddy, put down that notebook and step away from the pen.... rflmao
Post a Comment