The next witness for the Crown was Ian Johnstone. The Advocate Depute, Alex Prentice QC , began by confirming that Mr Johnstone, a warehouse worker from the Manchester area, is a member of the trade unions USDAW and also the CWU (Communications Workers Union) The witness also stated that he does not know the defendant Mr Thomas Sheridan, and that his telephone number began with the code 0161.
Mr Prentice then produced a diary which he told the court was the 2001 diary of Mr Sheridan. He then drew attention to an entry in the I/J section of the index, where there was a note of an "Ian Johnstone, CWU Organiser," and an address in Sutherland Street, Swinton, as well as a telephone number beginning 0161 telephone number. Mr Johnstone denied this was his address or telephone number.
Mr Prentice then presented a page from a telephone directory which showed a banner advert for “Cupid's Health Club” and an address of Sutherland St, Swinton, and a telephone number starting 0161. Mr Johnstone confirmed that this was not his telephone number. With that, Mr Prentice thanked the witness and returned to his seat.
Mr Sheridan then left the dock and moved to the lectern to begin his cross examination.
He began by confirming with the witness that he lived in Manchester, to which the Mr Johnstone responded that he actually lived in Salford - “a separate city”. Mr Sheridan then asked if the witness supported City or United, to which Mr Johnstone replied “Neither. Rugby League”. Mr Sheridan then confirmed with the witness that he was a member of the CWU, then asked if he knew the membership of the CWU, Mr Johnstone said he did not . Mr Sheridan suggested the union had a membership of over 300,000, but the witness stated he did not know the figure.
Mr Sheridan then commented that the witness “may be wondering what you are doing in the High Court in Glasgow. So am I!” and suggested they "try to work that out." Mr Sheridan then suggested that the reason for Mr Johnstone being a witness was to explain what his name was doing in Mr Sheridan's diary and then asked whether the witness had ever been involved in political campaigning? Mr Johnstone responded “Not really”.
Mr Sheridan then asked if the witness knew how many other “Ian Johnstones” are in the Manchester area, and whether the witness would be surprised if there were thousands. The witness replied that he didn't know.
Mr Sheridan commented that, as a former BT employee, Mr Johnstone might have looked up his name, then asked Mr Johnstone whether there were any other Ian Johnstones in the CWU. The witness replied that he didn't know.
Mr Sheridan having no further questions returned to the dock, and as the Advocate Depute declined to re-examine Mr Johnstone was informed by Lord Bracadale he was free to go.
By Whatsy
By Whatsy
60 comments:
what an odd line of questioning...
Hey, this one's a mystery.
Were the two 0161 numbers the same or different, or wasn't the court told?
I imagine the crown's line of argument is that TS has been to Cupids, he has their phone number in his diary and to disguise it he picked an anodyne name with a reminder to him what it was so CWU instead of Cupids. Just in case his wife found out.
SO first of all try to establish if any Ian Johnston in Manchester was a member of CWU and if he ever had that number. Then establish if he knew TS.
Of course TS doesn't have to answer any question about why he has that number in his diary. So the crown has to do the running here.
How many Tommy Sheridans, Alex Prentices, James Dolemans are there in Glasgow? Anyone know?
Following Steve, was the number in the diary the same as Cupid's number? That does seem rather important!
The AdDep will have to wait until TS is on the stand if he wants to ask why TS had a Manchester number in his diary.
sorry i dont understand,are the crown trying to say that TS had cupids phone number in his diary under a different name
I wonder if the 0161 prefix. is all that is listed surely the number would be complete no matter who was listed against it? phone the number and ask is that you Ian??/cupids
yes.
Yes the crown allege that TS had cupid's phone number in his diary under the name of a CWU member in Manchester.
The crown then produced a CWU member with that name living in Manchester (can't be many of them) and asked if that was his number. The crown then presented a leaflet for Cupid's that had the number that was in TS' diary.
All the police would have to do is phone every Ian Johnston in Manchester and asked them if they were a member of the CWU: a few hours work I'd imagine.
Indeed it looks like that is what the police did anon. One little problem though what if there were three that were in the CWU, or an Ian Johnstone who was in the CWU in 2002 but not in 2006?
The defence did not sound too worried about this witness, they may well have their own explanation/witness on the Ian Johnstone entry.
Sorry Bunc had to delete that one, could you rephrase it?
Thanks
J
Sceptic, agree. Here is one of the charges in Gail's indictment:
''that you could recall that you spent every weekend in November 2001 and November 2002 with said Thomas Sheridan; that you were present and witnessed said Thomas Sheridan on an occasion telephoning Directory Enquiries and asking for the telephone number of Cupid's Health Club, 13-17 Sutherland Street, Swinton, Manchester known as Cupid's and said Thomas Sheridan telephoning the said Cupid's;''
Imagine the scene, Darling, your tea is ready. Just a minute dear, I'm just about to phone a sex club. Right you are, don't be long and i'll justrecord that in my diary incase i'm asked about it in the future. Unlikely maybe but that's for the jury to decide.
@Steve Were the two 0161 numbers the same or different, or wasn't the court told?
I confess I didn't write the phone numbers down, as I felt that
a) it was an invasion of witness privacy to do so
b) the relevance of whether telephone numbers were the same or different would be elaborated on by either the defence or Crown, obviating the need to have written those numbers down.
I think I'm right on a), but unfortunately I was wrong on b)!
If anyone wrote those numbers down, could they please clarify
a) what they all meant
b) why on earth they think it's OK to write down private telephone numbers displayed as evidence in a court of law
Thanks ;)
It's okay because it's evidence presented in public. Do you really have to ask?
I cant tell by reading the blog if the full phone number for cupids is in the diary ,but even if it is not it is quite damming that the address of cupids is in his diary all be it there is no number in sutherland street(just checked yell .com this is the address of cupids)this could be quite significant
Re: It's okay because it's evidence presented in public. Do you really have to ask?
Yup I do. I'm no trained journalist or lawyer, so I was simply relying on my own judgment, however flawed.
If I was a witness in court, I would not want people writing down, far less publishing my phone number or address.
6.18. Well, that's what happens. Like I said, it's evidence.
"Imagine the scene, Darling, your tea is ready. Just a minute dear, I'm just about to phone a sex club. Right you are, don't be long and i'll justrecord that in my diary incase i'm asked about it in the future. Unlikely maybe but that's for the jury to decide."... I agree Lynn, that sounds preposterous, well the way you put it. But, as you say, it's for the Jury to decide.
Would it be possible for someone to call T.S. and explain he was a trade union member and leave his name and number contact details and this be entered into a diary in good faith?
And it is later found out that these details to be erroneous.
i would have thought they woulnt of had to read out the number in court could they not just tell the jury that there is a number in the diary that that all parties including british telecom agree that it is the phone number of cupids in manchester, or clear the court
James, just wondered why my last comment was removed.
Just a bit too specific Lynn, sorry. It was a good point so if you want to rephrase it
Whatsy, You're right not to publish, but I think the numbers would have to have been the same or the line of questioning would make no sense. I appreciate the relative completeness and clarity of your writing btw.
Anonymous 5.45 said
Yes the crown allege that TS had cupid's phone number in his diary under the name of a CWU member in Manchester.
The crown then produced a CWU member with that name living in Manchester (can't be many of them) and asked if that was his number. The crown then presented a leaflet for Cupid's that had the number that was in TS' diary.'
If anonymous is right that should clear up any confusion as to whether diary number and cupid's number is one and the same.
OK then, Lynn maybe TS did have Cupid's number in his diary - big deal! How many times have you written a number down incorrectly? Well, I have - lots of times, wouldn't be surprised that I too have Cupid's number in my diary - written down erroneously of course, but I'll leave that to you to decide.
Was it established what year this diary entry was made was it Pre 2004?
Could it also be possible for a group or individual who have allgedly been involved in phone tapping could also not be beyond other dark arts such as calling someone using a false name or details including contact details, details that could be used at some later date to substantiate their own allegations.
Or am I being a bit paranoid by all this.
Anonymous 7.23. Written a number down erroneously, yes I've done that a few of times when I've transposed a couple of digits and it usually results in the unobtainable signal, not the number of a place a few hundred miles away that numerous people claim to have seen me in but I have no recollection of visiting. Now, that would be spooky.
Anon - your paranoia is showing. I think that's called flights of fancy. The defence would need to raise some possibility for the entry that was much much more plausible than that - (in my opinion but of course the jury will form their own view)
7.23. It would have been rotten bad luck on an extraordinary scale for that number to have been taken down incorrectly.
7.28. Paranoid? Aye, just a wee bit.
If the crown produces evidence that TS actually phoned the cuold's number, that would be impressive.
Has it done so yet?
OK, Lynn I'm sure that we all agree that it would be "spooky", but not beyond the realms of possibility?, very remote albeit, but not impossible?
I think people are slighly off track in thinking there is an exact number in the diary way back in day 4 of the trial we reported this:
"The crown proceeded to produce a number of diaries and had Ms Garvie confirm that they belonged to Mr Sheridan. Ms Garvie was asked to read out numerous entries (20 in all) Most were to do with Mr Sheridan's location on various dates. One entry included a scored out word which the crown suggested was "Cupid." Ms Garvie agreed that it could be. Following the scored out word was an incomplete Manchester area telephone number ending with the entry "(3.5)" Mr Prentice asked Ms Garvie what "two times 3.5 is" to which she replied seven."
TO which the defence responded
"Maggie Scott QC for the defence also asked Ms Garvie about certain diary entries and also asked her, in reference to the partial telephone number with "(3.5)" after it, what 3+5 was, what 3-5 was and what 3 times 5 was. "
Make of that what you will.
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/10/day-4-afternoon.html
Gotcha, according to the Gail Sheridan Indictment, GS allegedly lied when she said that she was present when TS phoned Cupids. So, it it already established that TS phoned Cupids... but for a different reason, is that fact that TS phoned Cupids even disputed, or is that for the Jury to decide?
Anonymous said...
OK then, Lynn maybe TS did have Cupid's number in his diary - big deal! How many times have you written a number down incorrectly? Well, I have - lots of times, wouldn't be surprised that I too have Cupid's number in my diary - written down erroneously of course, but I'll leave that to you to decide.
November 18, 2010 7:23 PM
***
Did you erroneously write down Cupid's address while you were at it? I think the jury might well require more explanation than TS was willing to offer today. Suggesting there might be thousands of Mancunian TU members called Ian Johnstone did not address TS's diary entry or the inference the jury might draw from it.
the jury might well require more explanation than TS was willing to offer today'
That usually happens when we get to the case for the defence, which will not be for a couple of weeks.
I wonder what Cupids number was/is... did it does it end in the 0000, I mean why would someone write only part of it down? Was it similar to another number? Kind of odd, why use a code, a mnemonic? I don't get it.
8.20. Are you seriously suggesting that Sheridan purposely did not offer an explanation or follow a line in cross today?
Do you know how any of this stuff works?
Hello Anon, sorry but I'd rather not publish that address on here.
If you were going to partially write a number, why write the STD bit? Most folk know? that 0161 is the STD for Manchester.
No worries, James.
OK, is that a FACT then that TS has Cupids number written in his diary? Or is it part of it? Or just the dialling code for Manchester? What is it?
And if anyone phones a number from a landline phone there is an indelible record of it. And, according to this blog TS volunteered his mobile phone records.
It's not been put as a fact yet anon, at least in front of the jury. All that has happened is in the post above.
Thanks James, it's crystal clear now.
Are these "diary entries" in TS's handwriting - is that disputed?
One witness (Felicity Garvie) has testified that it appears to her that that entry, and various others are in Mr Sheridan's handwriting. Thats all so far.
Thanks for that, James.
"OK then, Lynn maybe TS did have Cupid's number in his diary - big deal! "
Err? one of the deals the whole case is based on? Am I missing something?
James , Sir you're doing a magnificent job reporting the days in court and then having to moderate n**ptys like this one...
Absolutely. Much appreciated by us long-sufferng Tommy and Gail fans south of the border. Why, how can there be no avalanche of socialist solidarity for this beleaguered couple?
Hello Roli, can't post that, sorry.
Carnbull.
Why, how can there be no avalanche of socialist solidarity for this beleaguered couple?
Possibly Socialist in Scotland have lost sight on what is the main issues affecting the Scottish public,inded issues that are and will impact on the whole of the uk perhaps there may be a new movement required to deal with such issues.
No worries James - my reply to Carnybull was to try and answer his question, while wondering if it was being provocative. Will try again:
The avalanche of socialists in the trial by a margin of about 10:1 have been Crown witnesses, however reluctant. Maybe that's a hint where the feelings of the left lie on this?
The Left is dead full-stop; even if the train leaves the station it isn't long before it is infiltrated, undermined and brought to a shuddering halt.
As Lynn pointed out the indictment against Gail states that: ''you were present and witnessed said Thomas Sheridan on an occasion telephoning Directory Enquiries and asking for the telephone number of Cupid's Health Club, 13-17 Sutherland Street, Swinton, Manchester known as Cupid's and said Thomas Sheridan telephoning the said Cupid's."
Gail must have told the police that she witnessed the call. Therefore Tommy phoning Cupids is not in question. What is in question is whether Gail actually saw and heard Tommy make the call and what explanation there could be for it.
I would assume the Sheridans have one given Gail has admitted seeing Tommy make the call.
It had better be a good one.
Concerning the diary it's a straightforward explanation really (that has kind of been set out already) but people need to take off their anti-Tommy hats to see it.
Will need to see if the specific item of evidence I am thinking of is introduced before commenting further - there is no way I can think of to be hypothetical about it and anything more specific will risk getting a slap from James.
Anyone think the Crown should have strictly restricted its witness list soley to the "United Left" faction?
At least the "United Left" have the seeming virtue of not being paid by the NOTW (McNeilage excepted#).
If the Crown carries on the way it is then the number of witnesses who work for or were paid by the NOTW (or are relatives or close) friends of people who were paid will shortly outnumber the people who were not paid or offered money !!!
(# NB: Ms Trolle of course did not get paid and indeed was never offered any payment despite what Mr Bird testified about offers made to her by the NOTW).
@ tommy trial addict - given the evidence so far and the text of the indictment it is reasonable to assume in my opinion that it has been established that a call has been made from a phone (land-line) belonging to the Sheridans. And in my opinion that when confronted with this evidence that she stated what is stated in the Indictment, namely that GS was present when TS made the call. So this makes all the discussion about what is written is TS's diary a bit redundant. It's not necessarily so that the Sheridans will offer an explanation: they could refuse to do so, side-step the issue, or just make a "statement"; all which going by this trial so far would be perfectly acceptable in my opinion.
fao peter - g mcneilage wasn't a member of the UL
Post a Comment