Court began this morning with Tommy Sheridan's cross examination of Kenneth Lang (for a report on Mr Lang's evidence in chief see Here ) Mr Lang confirmed he was a partner at Mellick's solicitors and had been for 13 years. He also agreed that the News of The World (NotW) did not use any other firm of solicitors in Scotland and that he worked with it's editor, Bob Bird, and other editorial staff on regular basis. Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Lang about his work in the July/August 2006 defamation case between Tommy Sheridan and the News of the World, Mr Lang told the court that from May 2006 to the end of that case it was his "full time occupation."
Mr Sheridan then turned to Mr Lang's role in this case, specifically over the discovery of documents by the defence. Mr Lang agreed that "90%" of the material given to the defence had came from "our office." and 10% from the "havers" (Havers is the legal term for the person or institution that has the documents) Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that this represented a conflict of interest as Mr Lang was both a Crown witness in the trial and in charge of producing documents required by the defence. Mr Lang denied this. Mr Sheridan then questioned Mr Lang about the steps he had taken to find documents required for the case, Mr Lang admitted that he had relied on Mr Bird to ask his staff about offers of payment to Crown witnesses and had not questioned any of the journalists himself.
Mr Lang was then asked if he knew a Stephen Whitimore or Glen Mulcaire whom Mr Sheridan accused of being involved with "hacking his phone" Mr Lang denied ever hearing their names while working with the NotW or seeing any invoices made out to them. Mr Sheridan the put to the witness that he either "knew what the NotW was up to" or was not told. Mr Lang told the court he "resented that suggestion" as he was a solicitor and an "officer of the court."
Mr Sheridan then returned to the issue of the discovery of documents for the case. Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that he had never done a "proper search" for documents and had just "took Bob Bird's word for it" He also queried the disapearence of a number of emails that the defence had wished to examine, Mr Lang explained that there had "been a problem with emails as they had been lost in India" but insisted he had taken his duties seriously. Mr Sheridan also asked that as a lawyer Mr Lang should have had notes of various meetings, including one attended by Andy Coulson in 2006 to watch the "McNeilage tape" Mr Lang said that he did not always take notes and had not done on that occasion. Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that no record had been kept so that Andy Coulson's role could be "kept secret" Mr Lang replied "I don't agree."
Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Lang about telephone records, that Mr Sheridan had handed over voluntarily to the NotW's legal team in 2006. Mr Sheridan asked "what happened to them" to which Mr Lang replied "I never had them they were with our Edinburgh partners" Mr Sheridan then asked "how did they end up with Bob Bird" and asked if it was appropriate that his records had ended up being "handed to a tabloid." Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Bird, "you were in charge" to which the witness replied "subject to instructions from Wapping" (Wapping is the HQ of News International in the UK)
Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Lang about an invoice, which showed a bill for £2,594.66 for food and accomodation for two witnesses, Helen Allison and Anne Colvin. The invoice included an entry for £92 for Champagne, and £111 for one nights dinner. Mr Sheridan also told the court that the Newspaper had provided an "A Type Jag" to transport the witnesses to court, at a cost of £1950, despite, as the witness agreed, the court only being "5 minutes away." Mr Sheridan also asked Mr Lang about a witness Fiona McGuire and produced a letter from a Psyciatrist asking for payment for an exam conducted on Ms McGuire during the 2006 trial. Mr Lang told the court that Ms McGuire had been in a "fragile state" and it seemed like an appropriate course of action. The court then took a short break.
When court resumed Mr Sheridan asked about an analysis Mr Lang had carried out on the mobile telephones of Katrine Trolle and Fiona McGuire. Mr Lang agreed that these had not found any records of telephone calls or texts from Mr Sheridan to either of the phones, adding that Ms Trolle's phone had a "technical issue" that made that analysis difficult. Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Lang about his contacts with Ms Trolle after the 2006 trial, he said he had some contact bit this "trailed off" in early 2007. Mr Sheridan then produced an email from Ms Trolle to one of the police officers investigating the case from the 16th November 2007 which read in part, "I told Ken the Lawyer that I would be gone for a year, he said it would not be good if I was not there for the trial, but he would think of something." Mr Lang said he did recall receiving a phone call to tell him Ms Trolle was going to Australia. Mr Sheridan then accused Mr Lang of "trying to correct himself in the witness box" which Mr Lang denied.
Mr Sheridan then asked the witness how he could have spoken to Ms Trolle about a "trial" before November 2007 when no-one had even been charged in the case until December 2007. Mr Lang said he did not recall. Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that he had "inside information" via the News of the World and that Mr Lang's "loyalty was to the NotW not to the court." Mr Lang said that "my loyalty is to the court." With that Mr Sheridan ended his cross-examination and returned to the dock. The Advocate Depute having no further questions Mr lang was allowed to step down from the witness box.
93 comments:
A little bit of extra trivia - the £92 for champagne was actually for 4 bottles of rose champagne. I'd imagine £23 per bottle at the Scotsman Hotel was a relatively cheap way to get blootered. Hopefully they weren't due in court the next day!
A very expensive cab ride to Court!
As a matter of fact:
1. The House of Commons reported that there was a culture of illegality at the NOTW with various illegal payments being hidden as payments for other matters.
2. This witness denies seeing any payment to the admitted phone hacker Mulcaire. Fair enough.
It is fair to comment that the HofC found that NOTW paid off invoices presented by various convicted criminals, such as Mulcaire, who were conducting illegal acts on their behalf.
(I would have thought Tommy who is doing a great job would have raised that report. Maybe the defence is waiting its moment rather than missing a chance.)
The HofC found that payments were laundered through different means including the use of aliases so that higher ups in News International could plausibly deny that they had seen any evidence payments to said convicted criminals if matters came to court.
The matter of true level of knowledge has not yet been fully tested in court under oath. Mulcaire and co pleaded guilty in the last case so it did not come out i testimony.
If Mulcaire and Coulson, are as reported, Defence witnesses in this case then, without commenting on evidence they will give, its fair to say there's a storm coming .....
Does anyone know if the defence is going to call the ex-NOTW deputy editor. The one who gave the inerview to the New York Times that Coulson and others not only knew of the illegal acts but actively promoted them? Why not I say!
Peter: the allegations in this case are that Tommy and Gail Sheridan committed perjury in certain specified instances, and that Tommy suborned a witness to commit perjury on another occasion.
In terms of the law of evidence in Scottish criminal law, the matters to which you refer would be wholly inadmissible, as they do not go to the issue of whether these accused committed the crimes charged. The fact (if it be proven) that certain Crown witnesses and their associates may have committed criminal offences on other occasions in other jurisdictions would be of no assistance to the jury in determining whether perjury was committed in the Court of Session in July 2006.
Hello Peter, had to delete that last one as it was discussing evidence that has not been given
Didn't sound like Bird & Lang did a very good job of rounding up all the documentation they ought to. To me it seems like this can only have been through lack of competence or intent to conceal evidence, and neither reflects well on them. The latter, of course, would have a much larger bearing on the case.
Again, I'm no legal expert and may have missed some of the subtleties of Lang's evidence. Anyone with greater legalese care to elaborate on this?
The questioning of Mulcaire and Coulson over NoW and a 'culture' of hacking and illegal evidence is very relevant to the case and, in my opinion, would certainly be admissable.
We have been told that Mulcaire has two entries in his diary schedule that relate to Mr Sheridan, and that Coulson was involved in the purchase of the 'confession tape'.
If they had obtained similar stories in similar ways and then misused this information it would be a strong argument for Sheridan's defence. If they can persuade a jury that the NoW are capable of faking the whole episode, and that they cannot be trusted to reveal all of the evidence, then that is a reasonable line of questioning towards creating reasonable doubt in the Crown case.
" the allegations in this case are that Tommy and Gail Sheridan committed perjury in certain specified instances, and that Tommy suborned a witness to commit perjury on another occasion.
In terms of the law of evidence in Scottish criminal law, the matters to which you refer would be wholly inadmissible, as they do not go to the issue of whether these accused committed the crimes charged."
Hoorah! a voice of reason at last!
(Oh you are.. ;-) )]
As long as the jury are pointed in that genral direction by Bracadale, right will prevail, in spite of dust and mud throwing...
Of course from a pure entertainment point of view I very much hope that all that stuff would be admissible!
Thousands of clients and many good people who work in the legal sector, particularly in the voluntary advice sector, will shortly be facing the pain inflicted by the ConDems cuts to legal aid.
Coulson receiving a mauling by a legally aided funded Tommy Sheridan will be a nice bit of Schadenfreude.
The HofC found that the NOTW have a "culture of illegality" under Coulson's stewardship. Without his knowledge (allegedly) behind his back NOTW agents were given access to a large slush fund for bribery, bugging and other illegal activities.
Mulcaire was accordig the HofCpaid a retainer of least £100K a year to bring in stories.
He was to get information/gossip by illegal means and the NOTW then made up stories on the back of those reports.
Mulcaire has previously pleaded guilty for such matters regarding the Princes.
It is therefore directly relevant that both Mulcaire Coulson and the other NOTW agents appear in this trial.
Great respect to you Voice of Reason is it not to formalistic if you do not regard the proven criminality of agents of the NOTW and the making up by them of stories and evidence in previous cases as relevant.
The judge appears to consider it a fair basis to resist the indictment as he has allowed the defence witness list and he has allowed the defence to raise these issues already.
OK, say it for the sake of argument that it is a proven fact that the modus operandi of the NotW is to bug phones to obtain leads, then send a "fake sheik" to entrap the suspect. They means by which the NotW obtained the evidence doesn't make it any less reliable or credible. You should go and ask a certain snooker player and goalkeeper about that.
Ex SSP No 100.
There is no "for sake of argument" debate about the illegal modus operandi of the NOTW. It is a given - as night follows day.
We know this as the NOTW in their evidence to the House of Commons already admitted that their very large slush fund was misused to renumerate agents for illegal acts.
The defence of the NOTW is that the higher ups, including the Editor Andy Coulson, were not aware of that misuse as it was done by just two people (one of whom was Mulcaire).
The HofC found that lack of knowledge by the executives to be very unlikely but as at that time there had not been a full investigation they accepted Coulsons denial. That matter is currently under reviewby the HofC and the police.
Two NOTW staff/agents were left swing in the wind (including Mulcaire) and went to jail. They pleaded guilty to various illegal acts for money concerning the Windsor lads.
Enquiries have now been extended as more evidence of the illegal activity has emerged invlolved up to 4000 high profile figures including Sheridan and various MPs & MSPs.
If that figure of 4000 is true and the various legal actions are pursued it is likely to change the face of journalism and the laws regarding privacy in the UK.
So I think the NOTW are in a better position than you to kow of their own illegal activity - that they have already admitted!
So as I say the "culture of illegality" at the heart of the NOTW as the HofC put it is a given.
TBC
Cont:
As regards the video tape in this case there is a significant difference compared to other alleged recordings taken by the NOTW such the certain snooker player and the great goalkeeper (does jelly legs) to whom you refer.
They did not deny the recordings were genuine. They, as I recall, both said they knew they were being taped and played along in order to draw out the conspirators who they allegedly knew were seeking to entrap them.
Sheridan could have advanced that line. He has not.
Sheridan has already said in court as he did not make any confession to McNeilage so presumably the video/recording must be false.
The defence claim the NOTW and its agents (including in this case McNeilage who they admit they paid £200,000.00) had the motive, means, opportunity and a declared intent to get Sheridan and their track records proves they would use any means to do so.
As Andy Coulson told the House of Commons things went very badly wrong during his time at the NOTW.
This period of things getting out of control was at the same time the defence allege that Sheridan was targeted by News International and this video came to light.
He was referring to the illegal acts and the slush fund that was why he says he resigned.
The convicted criminals who the NOTW had admitted conduct illegal operations are capable of a lot to get their pay.
If they were any where near Sheridan the justice system should be very wary of anything the NOTW put in its paper at that time including this video.
It's not the first time that journalists have been sent to jail - Daily Mirror ones too!:
"City Slickers guilty of tip scam
Two former Daily Mirror "City Slickers" financial journalists have been convicted of a share tipping scam.
James Hipwell, 39, was found guilty of conspiracy to breach the Financial Services Act.
Southwark Crown Court heard Hipwell made £41,000 in six months by buying, tipping and then selling shares.
A private investor, Terry Shepherd, was convicted of a similar offence, while Hipwell's colleague, Anil Bhoyrul, had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing.
Hipwell, from London, and Shepherd, from Surrey, denied the charges.
The men will be sentenced at a later date and could be jailed for up to seven years and face confiscation orders. They will remain on bail."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4507448.stm
Peter - In your opinion where are you on a scale of 1 to 10 (fake - genuine).
In your opinion, what is your take on Elizabeth Quinn's evidence?
And, in your opinion, what is your take on the couple in Aberdeen/Dundee's evidence.
In my opinion these are major sticking points, if you can explain these points rationally and reasonably it will in my opinion swing the pendulum back towards TS.
There are also another couple of "anomalies" whereby by TS failed to challenge certain witnesses on certain point when in my opinion it would be reasonable to expect TS to do so.
"n your opinion where are you on a scale of 1 to 10 (fake - genuine)"
Sorry but we could not post that.
No worries, James
Peter -
In your opinion, what is your take on Elizabeth Quinn's evidence?
And, in your opinion, what is your take on the couple in Aberdeen/Dundee's evidence.
In my opinion these are major sticking points, if you can explain these points rationally and reasonably it will in my opinion swing the pendulum back towards TS.
Peter wrote: "Sheridan has already said in court as he did not make any confession to McNeilage so presumably the video/recording must be false."
Must it be?
Anonymous November 21, 2010 10:21 PM:
" Peter -
In your opinion, what is your take on Elizabeth Quinn's evidence?
And, in your opinion, what is your take on the couple in Aberdeen/Dundee's evidence.
In my opinion these are major sticking points, if you can explain these points rationally and reasonably it will in my opinion swing the pendulum back towards TS."
Hello Anonymous:
Regarding your two "sticking points" as you will no doubt know the burden of proof rests with the prosecution.
The defence does not need to explain anything.
Mr Sheridan is innocent.
That is not my opinion - the court holds him to be innocent.
The Crown has presented a large number of witnesses with a series of bizarre stories to try and show his guilt.
To reverse the burden of proof onto the defence would force the defence to come up with explanations for some of the very bizzarre things alleged by Crown witnesses.
The fact that some Crown witnesses (seemingly) have no reason to lie does not make their evidence any less bizzarre.
For example a Crown witness recently testified that she knew Sheridan had been to Cupids as she saw him standing outside it but then said it was because she saw him inside it.
She then testified she went to a house with him and she and Sheridan went for a pizza. That witness says she knew it was Sheridan as she had worked with his father - previously she had said it was because she recognised him from his opposition to the poll tax (14 years before).
The witness then agreed she had not actually worked with his father so could not identify him from that as she had said a few minutes before!
The witness could also not remember when this alleged incident had taken place.
The defence have simply said the witness must be confused, lying or both.
It is very difficult for the defence to show in any detail why she was lying or why she was so confused without access to the full facts of her life.
If the Crown witnesses cannot explain their own bizarre evidence why should the defence need to?
I don't see therefore why you would need a detailed explanation from the defence about the "sticking points" you refer to.
TBC:
It's remarkable though, how the testimony of the independent witnesses tends to back up that of the legion of criminals, "socialist" conspirators and paid perjurers (assuming innocence).
We've only heard one side of the story though, so let's suspend judgment.
STICKING POINTS CONT:
To be a bit playful and perhaps to put the burden of proof properly ….
Are you saying that purely because a couple of Crown witnesses have supported the evidence of Trolle and Khan that TS was in their living rooms a number of years ago is compelling evidence of Mr Sheridans guilt just because he cannot explain away their evidence to your personal satisfaction?
Before I voted on a jury to send someone down for 10 years I would want a lot more than failure to by the defence to provide a reason for an event the accussed said never occurred! I could not release the noose to the hangman just because I felt personally unsatiated by the defence. I need concrete evidence not simply testimony.
That is even before we consider the large payments/large offers made to Trolle and Khan and the fact that the Crown witnesses to whom you refer are very close friends of Trolle and Khan.
To be more playful if TS is lying or confused about these living room visits does it mean he is lying about other matters that show his innocence?
Others on this blog have said the Crown witnesses should still be believed despite the defence having shown them to be lying / confused or in the pay of the NOTW - so shouldn’t by the same logic the accused have the same discretion about alleged discrepancies in his evidence.
This may not be the answer you wanted Anon. To show I am not a complete spoilsport I have a number of feasible scenarios that can provide a reasonable explanation on the "sticking points" you raise.
I will:
a)await James guidance about whether that is an appropriate discussion before posting them.
b)I will post the theories but only if you enter a good user name in the URL/name field so it is easier to follow the thread discussion. Try "Pizza Nut"
c) If you could explain simply why you consider the testimony of the Crown witnesses, that you refer to as he “sticking points”, prove TS guilt it may be a more fruitful and relevant discussion.
Ta. P.
Yes, Peter TS is innocent until the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. You have given yet another lengthy response that (conveniently) ignores the matters at hand.
SO, let's have another go:
Elizabeth Quinn?
The couple from Aberdeen/Dundee
The tape
To be honest, in my opinion, Elizabeth Quinn did seem very credible. TS pushed and pushed but she didn't give an inch. Personally, I didn't find her a particularly pleasant character but that is besides the point.
The couple in Aberdeen/Dundee - why would they say what they said without any apparent motivation.
And the tape - a "spliced concoction".
We want answers Peter.
If there isn't a reasonable explanation it can only lead to one conclusion in my opinion.
@ Peter people have been sent to jail for a lot longer, indeed executed on a lot less evidence than has been presented so far against TS.
Dont they usually get a chance to put a defence case anon, or is that just a silly formality we can do away with in this case?
It's not really a case of the defence to proving anything - they do not have to corroborate anything. They can simply deny the charges and the jury are perfectly entitled to accept that. If, however, the prosecution presents a mountain of evidence that goes unchallenged/unexplained and the accused remains silent, well we could only speculate at the verdict.
Reasonable people are going to looking for reasonable explanations to points of evidence that the Crown makes, not just dismiss them as "mere testimony".
Hello everyone, could we avoid discussing possible sentences until we have a verdict?
Thanks
J
"Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that this represented a conflict of interest as Mr Lang was both a Crown witness in the trial and in charge of producing documents required by the defence.", eh! What's the difference between this and the Crown Office/Procurator Fiscal Service being required to furnish the Defence with documents?
Anonymous November 22, 2010 2:03 PM
To be fair Anon I said I would post my theory if James said it was OK to do so and if you chose a user name. Meet me half way on that.
If you don't like "Pizza Nut" try "Spielberg"
Living Room visits:
Whilst we are waiting for that you may wish to consider what independent proof exists (other than the Crown witness testimony) that TS was in the living rooms on the dates they say he was.
I note the Crown evidence on what allegedly occurred in the living rooms and the dates has altered considerably - strange / a bit worrying no?
NOTW Video:
Also what PROOF IS there that the NOTW video (which McNeilage admits he altered/deleted) is genuine.
There is none yet.
I suggest you wait for the Crown to prove that the video is genuine themselves before you consider it to be genuine!
In assessing the Crown case you may thn want to see what the defence say about it.
So a bit hasty on that matter are you not Anon?
You should hope I am on your jury when you face charges Anon and I that you are not on mine.
The defence producing a bad/inadequate defence (in your opinion) to a charge made by the Crown is not proof of guilt.
Check out a "A Trial By Jury".
It's a detailed factual account of a murder trial jury deliberations.
There are jurors who just know the guy did it as the physical evidence. Others feel him guilty as his defence to the charges is so patently ridiculous. There are others on the jury who want to consider if he actually did do it. The battle ensues in the jury room.
I won't tell you the end but it's intriguing. It's only short book but well worth it.
lol James, it appears that some commentators have already moved on the the pre-sentencing reports, at a time before the defence case has even begun.
OK, Peter. Go ahead, give us your theory and we'll see if it puts the ball back firmly in TS's court. I'm all ears.
I'm not saying that anything is proven to my satisfaction. It's just that I prefer to discuss the actual evidence and if TS has got any valid points he really should make them. Making statements about "unborn child" and "relationship that you won't break" really doesn't it, a cynic would think that that kind of tact is designed to play to the emotions ("natural justice"). Anyway, I don't find any of the characters in this play particularly savoury. We really need a "smoking gun" one way or another because it doesn't look like any party in this drama is going to 'fess up unless they are backed into a wall.
Well, some might say the video is a smoking gun.
"the video is a smoking gun"... or a "spliced concoction" TS played by an "actor"...?
Thanks for choosing a user name Pizza Nut maybe others can follow suit:
You have 3 "sticking points": the alleged video confession; the alleged visit to Katrine Trolle's home; and the alleged visit to Elizabeth Quinn's home.
Chew on these possible theories that have been hinted at by the defence.
They are in sections dealing with various points and I have to get the tea on so wait until the end before you get stuck in.
1. NOTW/McNeilage Video:
There are a number of problems with the NOTW video/recording.
a) Technical Evidence:
I will not deal here with the technical aspects of wavelength etc as the evidence has not yet been taken.
b) Versions of the tape.
Are there not up to 3 versions of the tape? ie. the McNeilage version, the NOTW version on its website and the Crown version shown in court.
If we just take the McNeilage and Bird testimony it is clear the version shown on the NOTW website was edited at least twice from the "original".
Firstly it was altered by McNeilage who admitted he deleted various parts of it.
Secondly someone edited it before the NOTW put it in sections on its website.
The third version shown in court was much longer than the NOTW version.
Was that back to the second version?
So that is two possibly three versions so far by my count in terms of length.
Maybe there are more versions?
I do suggest a full "like for like" will need to take place to establish the veracity of each of the versions.
TBC:
Peter. The jury heard the entire tape.
Next.
PIZZA NUTS STICKING POINTS CONT
c) Who Created The Tape and Why?:
McNeilage says he acted alone in making the tape.
he has presented a series of bizarre motivations.
He had previously said in the media that he was asked to make it by others as people in the community had a right to know.
In court he then said he acted alone.
Bob Bird of the NOTW said McNeilage always acted alone.
Whats the truth? I don't know. I have a reasonable doubt though that McNeilage is telling the truth.
Considering McNeilage's: past and recent record as a common criminal that came out in court; his admitted conduct for NOTW money; the very convenient poor quality of the recording; and the changing of his story regarding motivation I have my reasonable doubts.
What I am certain of is that the HofC investigation established that the NOTW have a history of deploying plausible deniability techniques in legal matters through the use of third party agents.
Andy Coulson has confirmed for example their where two "rogue" agents of the NOTW committing illegal acts for money.
The rogues were in effect, if we believe Coulson, defrauding the NOTW by getting paid from the NOTW slush fund for illegal acts. They were jailed.
The HofC found it was unlikely that illegal activity was limited to those two rogue agents.
It is quite possible therefore that rogue NOTW agents worked with McNeilage and created the tape (before or after the libel trial) and effectively stiffed the NOTW for a large amount of money for a dodgy tape.
Of course it is arguable the NOTW were happy to be stiffed as it helped them with their libel case / libel appeal (depending on when it was produced).
Essentially the tape helped them get Sheridan so they did not look too closely.
Alternatively that NOTW executives were complicit in the creation of the tape.
That is perhaps less likely, or at least hard to prove, as according to the HofC the NOTW higher ups took care to have layers of plausible deniability between itself and its agents committed illegal acts.
I do have a reasonable doubt that the NOTW/News International can act honestly in relation to Sheridan with this history of illegality and the "get Sheridan at all costs" atmosphere before and after the libel trial.
Coulson admits himself that things went very badly wrong at the NOTW during any of the years this video could have been created ie. 2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006.
Somethig smelly here. A reasonable doubt the tape is genuine. In my eyes - Yes.
TBC:
@Peter
"c) Who Created The Tape and Why?:
McNeilage says he acted alone in making the tape.
he has presented a series of bizarre motivations.
He had previously said in the media that he was asked to make it by others as people in the community had a right to know.
In court he then said he acted alone.
Bob Bird of the NOTW said McNeilage always acted alone.
Whats the truth? I don't know. I have a reasonable doubt though that McNeilage is telling the truth. "
I find your use of the word "bizarre" rather dubious, and indeed find it bizarre that you would describe this possible motivation of McNeilage as "bizarre" when it was corroborated by William Moore's testimony.
I have reasonable doubt that you're an honest commentator on this.
Anonymous said...
Peter. The jury heard the entire tape.
Next.
November 22, 2010 5:52 PM
No Anon.you are not keeping up mate.
The "original" tape if we believe McNeilage has only been heard / seen by him.
If we believe McNeilage it was altered by him before he showed it to anyone and prior to it being passed to the NOTW.
So you tell me how many versions does that make at that point?
So what the jury heard was not the original tape but a versio of a recording of a tape presented to the Crown by the NOTW after McNeilage had edited it and after the NOTW or its agents had it in their possession for an (as yet)undetermined period of time.
It could easily have been 2 years if it was actually created in and McNeilage gave it to NOTW agents in 2004 rather than 2006.
Alternatively versions could have been created before and after the libel trial in 2006.
What is clear is that, even on the Crowns own evidence, the jury are NOT listening to an original version.
Next!
instead of Anon you could use Next! as your Username in the Name/ URL Field if you are going to join in. More fun that way.
"Spielberg" is still going free as a user name as well - may be appropriate for you whoever you are!
Cheers,
P
Peter,
The jury heard an unbroken 40 minute recording, allegedly of Tommy Sheridan confessing.
Your analysis is bizarre. Utterly bizarre.
But here's a deal for you - how about we wait three weeks and see if 15 people think the evidence against Sheridan is real or not?
Ta ta
From this blog;
" 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. "
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/11/george-mcneilage-cross-examination-by_08.html
Always good to stick to the facts chaps.
Date of Creation of Tape/Date NOTW Knew Of Its Existence:
Would the NOTW play funny buggers with the timelines or create a video for their own purposes. Yes in my view – I have a reasonable belief they would as the HofC found that the NOTW had a “culture of illegality” at that time.
The NOTW, before this trial started, appear to have told the Crown that the tape was created in 2004 but they only got it in 2006. That is what Bob Bird of the NOTW and McNeilage has said as well.
I have not yet seen the Crown make out a full technical case yet as to when the video was actually created it may become clear in the technical evidence part of the trial.
It appears that McNeilage by contractual agreement with the NOTW would only get his money if he said that he would say the tape was genuine in court. That genuiness (is that a word) must of course include that it was created when he said it was ie. in 2004.
I will say that it is very convenient for the NOTW libel appeal if they can say the video/recording was created in 2004 but only given to them in 2006 as it could then be presented as “new” evidence by the NOTW as it would allow the paper to appeal the libel verdict. As they did!
Of course it may not actually have been created in 2004. It may have been created in 2005 or in 2006 in the run up to the libel trial, during that trial or just after.
If it had been presented prior to the libel trial it would have been subject to strict examination according to legal tests so there was a good reason not to present it then.
Its appearance in 2006 also conveniently provided cover for the NOTW executives who the defence consider were desperate to protect their backsides after making huge and costly misjudgements regarding the McQuire and Khan sex stories.
Due to the decimation of the NOTW witnesses in the libel trial, there is no guarantee they were actually going to continue their appeal.
Especially after the Mulcaire scandal the NOTW are not keen on appearing in court. In effect this video was a way of challenging the libel appeal without actually challenging it in court. The rogue agents /McNeilage may never have expected it to get this far when it was created.
The important matter is that for any chance of pursuing an appeal, or saying they were going to, on the basis of this video the NOTW needed to be able to say they only KNEW about it in 2006 AFTER the libel trial.
There are ways that plausible deniability could have been achieved. The HofC investigation established that the NOTW have a history of deploying plausible deniability defences in legal matters through blaming third party agents. It is quite possible that rogue (or otherwise) NOTW agents created or where involved with the tape before or after the libel trial and made up dates about its genesis.
So again I ask would the NOTW or its rougue agents and McNeilage play funny buggers with the timelines for their own purposes either to get Sheridan or to get huge payments.
Yes in my view they would – I have a reasonable belief they would as the HofC found that the NOTW had a "culture of illegality" at that time.
TBC:
@ Peter - there will be the original tape taken from the recording machine
that the Crown will have submitted as a "production" in the trial. The "edited highlights" version of the tape that the NowT placed on their website is of no consequence since it has been edited to reflect the attention span of a NotW reader. There will have been many "copies" of this tape made, but the original should/will include "hidden" data to match it with the original recording device. It's the veracity of the original tape that we are talking about.
Justsaying said...
From this blog;
" 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. "
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/11/george-mcneilage-cross-examination-by_08.html
Thanks for that - I rest my case that the jury heard a version of a tape we do not know how many versions there were in between that version and the original version.
On the basis of Bird and McNeilage there is at least 2 and potentially (due to the number of edits and the longer deletion of the end section)up to 5 versions of it depending when the alterations were
made.
What does TS mean by "breaks"? It's like "young family", "baby". To most people a "break" means an actual stop in the recording where the actual stopped period.
TS uses words in a legalistic fashion i.e what is the commonly accepted interpretation is not the legal one i.e. child 17 year old etc.
Fair dos to him, since he is in a court of law after all and is entitled to play at that game but it confuses things for folk discussing the evidence.
@ Justsaying - the issue of "breaks" - whatever that means - and possible reasons for have already been discussed in-depth on this blog.
Well Peter I have heard the NotW edited version on their website and what I heard was actually 3 voices, McNeilage, "Sheridan/actor/splice", and a third guy that kept butting in and making comments - who is he? any idea? he did sound awfully like Sean Connery.
Peter - it's the original tape from the original recording device that the Jury will have been played - nothing else would stand up to forensic examination.
That genuiness (is that a word) No, you mean genuineness.
Could anyone direct me to the part of this blog that deals with the evidence gained by forensic analysis of the tape in question?
Oh hold on there isn't any, because no such evidence has yet to be presented.
Could we all stop stating "facts" about the tape when no such facts have been established?
@ Peter in your opinion is that TS's voice on the tape? TS but "selectively elected/spliced"? an actor/impressionist? a "concoction"?
created electronically/computer generated? We really need to get to the bottom of this once and for all.
Since everyone is talking about the tape here is our original report on the subject
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/10/video.html
It might also be worth reading the original testimony on it which is here
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/11/george-mcneilage-testimony-part-two.html
And the cross-examination re the above
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/11/george-mcneilage-cross-examination-by_08.html
Thanks for that, James.
Peter said.
Are there not up to 3 versions of the tape? ie. the McNeilage version, the NOTW version on its website and the Crown version shown in court.
Hello Peter I was not aware that there are three different versions of the tape?(Thanks for that)
If the tape be genuine it can only be classed as genuine IMO if it were an entire and unedited original version.
The tape is like buying an atrtifact at some overseas flea market were the seller ensures it to the real and the only one in existance hence the high price and lenghty haggle.
You return home and in discussion with others you find that they too have visited the same flea market and also haggled for and returned the same artifact but when compared there are slight but noticable variants, but all buyers claim it to be genuine.
It defies logic for a tape to allegedly lie around from 2004 that could have been used by the SSP as part of its propoganda, to be left in a toybox? unused unshown and unheard of, perhaps a smoking gun takes time to construct?
Issues with the tape Motive means and opportinuty
1) Motive, it was sold for a great deal of money. It was broadcast by an organisation engaged in a libel battle with the defendent. Both parties have motive to fake a tape.
2) Means, the tape is crude, and has no pictures of the alleged Tommy Sheridan figure spealing. Therefore faking it is not beyond the means of George Mcneilage, never mind News International
3) Opportunity, the tape does not see the light of day until November 2006 (two years after it was supposedly recorded) when all the facts on it are widely known after the civil trial. There was plenty of time for it to be manufactured.
Of course that is a one sided view, but is it enough for a reasonable doubt one wonder?of course that is for the jury to decide.
One thing that has bothered me for a while, if GM spent so much time making this tape why does the camera never show Sheridan? Surely he could have lined it up to where he was sitting so there was some pictures.
Hmmm, if you were recording someone with a camcorder would you really point it at their face? You can see someone's back Sheridan? an actor? on the tape.
NotW also tried to make out that you could clearly? see a ring on Sheridan's? the actor's? finger.
Anonymous said...
That genuiness (is that a word) No, you mean genuineness.
November 22, 2010 7:56 PM
Thanks Anon getting confused with Guiness (hic)!
Finishing up the section on the video.
Some here think that this video can be traced to the machine it was created on.
As the NOTW promised the Crown that the video they gave to the Crown was from the original machine that McNeilage also gave them for some it must make the tape the original tape.
If that is the case whether it is Sheridan or not is in the video or on the recording is the main issue.
If of course there is any doubt in the technical evidence that the tape does not match that machine then there is a reasonable doubt about the production of the tape.
As we all know we are awaiting the technical evidence.
What is without doubt at this point is that the version of the video the Crown played in court to the jury was the original version ONLY in the widest sense.
"Original" as in the sense Crown got that video from the NOTW and the NOTW told the Crown it was the original that McNeilage gave them.
I say that just from the evidence of Bird and McNeilage we must accept that video was in the possession of NOTW/News International or its well resourced agents for an unknown period of time.
I do have a reasonable doubt about the validity of any evidence left in the NOTWs possession. None of the NOTW evidence has withstood scrutiny so far.
NB: I read the Daily Star (in Barbers bad excuse I know) the day after the Windsor boys wedding was announced and it had raunchy and intimate pictures of the young couple. A bit shocked until I realised in the small print they had been mocked up with lookalikes. Think there is some video somewhere as well.
TBC:
Another thought IMO the tape could be genuine in as far the video section is concerned, and audio section improved improvised or overlaid at some time in the tapes history.
This point IMO could be confirmed or disproved by some clever engineer (In film/audio not locomotive)
Whatsy said to Peter November 22, 2010 6:22 PM ... I find your use of the word "bizarre" rather dubious, and indeed find it bizarre that you would describe this possible motivation of McNeilage as "bizarre" when it was corroborated by William Moore's testimony. I have reasonable doubt that you're an honest commentator on this.
Whatsy: How is this for honest commenting?
I have honestly said earlier in this forum I have a long history of connections to various parties on either side of the political battle. I even met old George a number of times, many years ago, in our Poll Tax battles and at Militant conferences meetings etc. George was open about his petty criminal past. Despite the Militants hard line on people who steal from other poor people, as opposed to shoplifters at M&S etc, he was welcomed in to the Militant by me and others mainly on the basis of support by comrades like Tommy (now that has a Shakespearean feel to it!).
I also know that the opposition to Tommy went back a long way to the Militant days from certain comrades in the Militant in Scotland. For example when the EC recommended he went on the Militant CC there was resistance from his rivals. I know from my NUS days that some of the individuals and groups who later joined the SSP despised him so I am not to shocked to find factional activity with a deeply personal slant to it occurred against Tommy.
I have said despite my residual respect for a number of the ex-Militant SSP witnesses who gave evidence against Gail and Tommy I disagree with what they have done. I do, however, understand why they say they did it. Note my emphasis.
I have already declared honestly that I am in favour, politically, of a Not Guilty as it provides a limited basis for the left to move on. If Sheridan is jailed (this is a political statement not a legal prediction James) then the national and international labour movement will establish a Free Sheridan campaign and the various appeals will take place.
In those circumstances the SSP comrades will widely (however unfairly) be seen to have crossed class lines. If not already a sect the SSP will become one as its raison d’etre will become to defend their party comrades from that approprium to be heaped upon them.
CONT:
Peter, I'd ask you not to make remarks on other commentators motivations or honesty.
If you could edit that bit out?
Hello James,
I think you may have misread my post.
The dishonesty part of it was the quote of what said about my posts.
My response to that post does not contain any reference to that posters dishonesty partly as I do think he is dishonest just incorrect!
But to avoid getting caught in a Kafkaesque discussion just give it a look again and let me know if I still need to take it out.
I will then do as you ask. Ta P.
CONT Whatsy:
A NOT GUILTY gives the SSP comrades a period of time to withdraw and reflect. It will also give Tommy some time to reflect. The wider most advanced sections of the working class, who are very generous, will celebrate a historic victory over Murdoch.
In time that movement will provide a route back for genuine socialists in the SSP and Solidarity. If Sheridan the class fighter is in jail for the next 10 years I cannot see that happening for the SSP.
I am also in favour of a Not Guilty on a civics basis as I feel this Crown prosecution has flies on it. I have cause to disbelieve most of the evidence and testimony from the Crown. I have explained why. The number of Crown witnesses who have been paid by the NOTW is truly shocking and galls me.
I disclose my political history and my motivation when highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of both sides case. It is therefore reasonable to describe me as an “honest observer”. I also pick a user name !
I do also, with respect, continue to find the idea that McNeilage gave the video to the NOTW out of a desire to assist his local community and in revenge for the treatment of SSP witnesses by Sheridan to be a “Bizarre” explanation.
At that point the records show that McNeilage and his lawyer were actually in very detailed negotiations with the NOTW over a £250,000.00 fee.
McNeilage admits himself he wanted the big money so his angry at Tommy, “community hero” bit does not wash mate. He could have given it to the Polly Toynbee at the Guardian for a croissant,cappuccino and a train fare home if he was genuine guy.
So “Bizarre” is not too harsh for George’s self serving statements. Not at all.
You might be right Peter but I found it ambiguous so if you could rephrase.
Ok James will try and work out where I went wrong - just having a Guiness to toast the sad end of the 1st Republic.
the working class, who are very generous, will celebrate a historic victory over Murdoch. - well not this working class person. this has got nowt to do with class war in my opinion. the scum and notw are predominantly read by the working class, it's the working schemes that have their roofs littered with murdoch's satellite dishes. this guff, in my opinion, just does not wash.
@ Peter 5 years is the maximum sentence for perjury. no-one convicted of perjury is going to SERVE 10 years.
6.05 The maximum sentence for perjury in Scotland is life. Not that I'm suggesting that as a likely sentence. But under Scots Law it is possible.
November 23, 2010 6:03 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
@ Peter 5 years is the maximum sentence for perjury. no-one convicted of perjury is going to SERVE 10 years.
------------
That is good news Anon - if true.
I am not sure you are quite right though on maximum sentence or what will be served.
Maybe do some more research and give me your references.
Scottish media covering the case quote 10 years and 7 years as maximum.
Some have quoted life imprisonment but I think that is more in the sense that in Scotland the sentence is in the discretion of the judge.
In England, as I understand it, perverting the course of justice by means of perjury is 10 years maximum.
In terms of serving, if a prisoner maintains his innocence in prison he could do the full sentence that is set.
There are a number of studies that show that parole boards take admission of guilt as grounds for early release.
Hence a the miscarriage of justice victims often serving the maximum or very long sentences before release and even die in jail if they maintain their innocence.
There has never been a case like this before in Scotland.
Without predicting a verdict I suggest the jury will need to be absolutely sure the Crown has proved its case before putting the matter to the judge for sentencing.
Due to the very serious sentencing options available it will no doubt weigh heavily on the jury to consider the high burden of proof on the Crown to PROVE guilt.
Based on the media reports from court if I was on the jury I would have the view that reasonable doubt can without doubt be reasonably be found with the Crown case - in my humble opinion.
Anonymous said...
the working class, who are very generous, will celebrate a historic victory over Murdoch. - well not this working class person. this has got nowt to do with class war in my opinion. the scum and notw are predominantly read by the working class, it's the working schemes that have their roofs littered with murdoch's satellite dishes. this guff, in my opinion, just does not wash.
November 23, 2010 6:03 AM
Heh Anon I have Sky ! Though I am thinking of swapping to the benevolent dictatorship of Richard Branson's Virgin media.
My comments about class are mainly separate from jury considerations. Having said that Sheridan made a class appeal at the libel hearing.
Also have you heard of a thing called a "Liverpool jury". It is in some of the law reference books.
It generally came into use after the Ploughshares Women case.
The judge instructed the jury that as the defendants (who had pleaded not guilty) fully admitted that they had broken into an MoD base and disabled Hawk Fighter jets bound for Indonesia that it must find them guilty as charged.
The jury found for the defendants!
We were all at the court and it was a proud day in Liverpool.
The Crown had not wanted it held in Liverpool.
Hopefully the fair people of Glasgow can recognise the wider injustice and power plays behind this prosecution. As the Crown case is full of holes they have an easier job than the jury in Liverpool.
NB: The Ken Dodd money under the bed trial is also quoted as an example of a "Liverpool jury" but that verdict was more an act of solidairty with the Diddy Men who work as miners in the jam butty mines rather than with Doddy who, truth be told, is a bit of a Tory.
peter wrote: "Without predicting a verdict I suggest the jury will need to be absolutely sure the Crown has proved its case before putting the matter to the judge for sentencing.
"Due to the very serious sentencing options available it will no doubt weigh heavily on the jury to consider the high burden of proof on the Crown to PROVE guilt."
This is always the case. The Crown will have considered this before launching the action.
Sheridan isn't a special case, he's just another accused.
"The Crown had not wanted it held in Liverpool." - now you mention it the TS trial was originality to be heard in Edinburgh but TS fought hard to have it held in Glasgow - so that he could take his baby to school.
"Hopefully the fair people of Glasgow can recognise the wider injustice and power plays behind this prosecution" - but that has got nothing to do with it - this trial is about whether or not the Sheridans committed Perjury at the original Defamation Action. Any verdict based on "Liverpool Juries" would be a gross miscarriage of justice, we want a verdict based on the evidence. Besides, a in my opinion a "liverpool jury" is not even relevant in these circumstances. We can only hope that justice, true justice - not "natural justice" - prevails.
The maximum sentence for perjury in Scotland is life. - well, life imprisonment is the maximum sentence for Breach of the Peace!
TS should have fought even harder to have this trial heard in Liverpool then - not one Scum/NotW has been sold in that city since Murdoch printed those awful lies concerning the Hillsborough Disaster.
Anonymous said: TS should have fought even harder to have this trial heard in Liverpool then - not one Scum/NotW has been sold in that city since Murdoch printed those awful lies concerning the Hillsborough Disaster.
November 23, 2010 7:20 PM
Yes Anon theoretically (nods to James) a defo Not Guilty down here.
NOTW witnesses no chance.
Imagine the scene:
Right we have heard the NOTW paid some witnesses.
Who owns the NOTW again?
Murdoch?
What! the owner of The Sun.
Yes.
Shall we take an indicative vote?
Yes?
(Quick count.)
OK All Not Guilty.
Next!
Jury would be in and out in 5 minutes lad.
Anon November 23, 2010 6:52 PM
Can you explain the difference between "natural justice" - and justice, true justice -
Is justice not just in itself?
Peter - you are sounding increasingly like TS's script writer!
Anyway lets hope the jury decides the case on the evidence - not whether they like or don't like the NOTW or want to create some sort of class war victory. Oratorical defence flourishes will no doubt stir the red blood - but they will have little relevance to the truth or otherwise of the charges. It's the truth that should matter in this trial - nothing else.
Bunc said...
Peter - you are sounding increasingly like TS's script writer!
Anyway lets hope the jury decides the case on the evidence - not whether they like or don't like the NOTW or want to create some sort of class war victory. Oratorical defence flourishes will no doubt stir the red blood - but they will have little relevance to the truth or otherwise of the charges. It's the truth that should matter in this trial - nothing else.
November 23, 2010 10:17 PM
No scriptwriting here Bunc - that is the other sides thing!
My point is Bunc that the jury can easily in my view find him Not Guilty on the lack of evidence so far but still consider that in doing so they are striking a blow in the wider sense for Justice against the Murdoch anti-Scottish, anti-worker, anti-labour movement machine.
It is right and proper for TS to raise both points as it was the Murdoch empire, don't forget, who started this assault back in 2004.
TS as you know is Innocent - that is his legal status.
The Crown need to prove that he is guilty.
I suggest they get a move on as there are apparently only three days left of their prosecution.
Peter,
The prosecution has been pretty comprehensive so far.
Tommy's legal status may well be that he is innocent until proven guilty, but it is almost as if you are suggesting that in itself is a defence.
Like Sheridan, you say little with a great many words.
As for it being the Murdoch Empire that started this assault, I think we know who dragged this into court, leading to the circumstances in which the accused both find themselves.
No Peter, the Prosecution presents their case, it is then then duty of the jury to determine the Accused guilt or innocence. So far we have heard from numerous witnesses and also a tape of an alleged confession has been played to the court, and, at this stage of the trial, we still have other prosecution evidence as well as the defence case to hear. It is for the jury to decide on guilt or innocence ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THEM IN COURT.
"a blow in the wider sense for Justice against the Murdoch anti-Scottish, anti-worker, anti-labour movement machine." is not really a defence, or is it? In my opinion trotting out such an argument is tantamount in conceding to the crown case. And how exactly would this "blow" benefit the Scottish, worker, labour movement machine?
People are making the mistake of looking at the overall picture. The other prosecution evidence that we will hear will be relevant to the current chapter, it doesnt add any weight (or detract from) other points of evidence that are relevant to other counts on the indictment.
There are two charges against Mr Sheridan and one against Mrs Sheridan, but these charges are related as counts in the indictment. The Crown have the task of proving just one of the counts to prove perjury. The Defence, on the other hand, have to refute all of the counts. I think, from memory, it was 18 counts in the case of Mr Sheridan and 5 for Mrs Sheridan.
Without having access to the court every day it is difficult to say exactly what is presented in court, but I would think that it is safe to say that some of those counts will be dropped before the defence even starts, that would be typical.
Some of the counts have had very little presented by the Crown, they dont seem to be pushing for them. They have offered very little, if any, evidence on some of the counts against Mrs Sheridan and very little on Mr Sheridan's charge of subornment.
The thing about the overall picture that some seem to be looking at, say a wide-ranging conspiracy or, on the other side, the weight of numbers of witnesses, would be used to paint a picture in the summations of both the Defence and the Crown. But when we are looking at evidence and testimony produced and presented in court, each piece of evidence relates only to that particular point and a particular count on the indictment.
So, the evidence we hear this week about the hotel party has no bearing on earlier evidence.
We have yet to see the defence case so it is impossible to make a judgement on the veracity of the evidence before us until we see the counter argument, we should not be thinking that Mr Sheridan's cross is the same thing as his defence.
Hello Peter, sorry but had to delete that one, it was the "full of holes" could you rephrase that and try and avoid drawing such definite conclusions?
Victor - good points but I think you may miss the human element.
In a technical sense the weighing of the evidence would be as you say. But it's human beings who will weigh the evidence and I would suspect that there is some degree of unavoidable "bleed" between issues.
What I mean is that if someone weighing evidence feels that there is an overall preponderance of evidence in a particular direction then, in judging if they have "reasonable doubt" on a particular issue which is less clear one way or the other, they may well be influenced to a degree by their overall judgment. Is that not a very normal way that humans would make judgments where there is a question of whether they believe something to be the case or not?
Any chance you could take that out for me (just this once) as I lost the original text. No problem if not. Ta. P
Excellent point, Victor English. People should go back and re-read the actual text of the Indictment very, very carefully, noting the way the body of the text is structured and particularity the placing of every single comma and semi-comma.
No Bunc I am not missing the point about human judgement. As I did say, that is for the summaries of their cases that we will hear at the end.
The point I was making is that people were talking as if there is evidence piling up, as if each piece of evidence complements the other. It simply does not! The first and most important task for either side is to prove or disprove each point of evidence, if the prosecution manages to have a good case of proving one point then they will push that at their summary, backed by the other stuff for weight. Whereas, a witness who turns up and says that he/she saw Sheridan at cupids, even if they seem trustworthy, does nothing to add to the evidence of Mr Sheridan having affairs or confessing at a meeting. It is all about the evidence.
For example, if, during a trial for theft, we see 10 reputable and sensible witnesses give an account that they definitely saw the person thieving, but the defence then turns up a piece of physical evidence that proves otherwise, lets say a timed CCTV picture or a hospital record that places the accused somewhere else at the time, then the combined testimony of the ten witnesses is useless.
The overall picture comes at the end to lend weight to the summations, which will be focussed on what either side sees as their strongest point (or adversary's weakest point) of evidence.
What you are doing is trying to create a bigger picture before we see the whole picture (i.e. the defence case). What you are seeing is a lot of witnesses, who have aparently different backgrounds and motives but are agreeing. In fact they are not agreeing, as they are testifying to different things. The SSP witnesses do not agree or confirm an extra-marital affair with Anvar Khan, Mrs Quinn does not agree or confirm that Sheridan confessed at a meeting. We also have not seen the quality or quantity of defence witnesses. So your impression could be severely diluted by a similar range and number of witnesses.
It may be that a wider picture does emerge, but it is not emerging yet, it cannot be, we have only heard one side of the evidence so far.
Victor English is spot on Bunc - as always, its all about the Laws of Evidence.
@ Steve - the clerk with probably just ask for a verdict to which the foreperson will respond with gulity/not guilty/not proven. In the event of a guilty verdict they will then be asked if they want to delete any of the Indictment.
Post a Comment