As mentioned briefly below, before the Cross-Examination of Mr Baldassara the presiding judge, Lord Bracadale, spoke to the jury. He told them that the Crown was about to move on to a new "chapter" of evidence and that they might recall when Mr Sheridan took over the conduct of his own defence that he had told them that time would be given to him to prepare for each chapter. Therefore the court would not be sitting on Monday or Tuesday of next week.
Lord Bracadale also told the jury that this would be the last chapter of the prosecution and since that was expected to only last three days or so, the trial should be moving on to the defence case the week after next.
65 comments:
There were 31 witnesses to 10 November according to your summary on that date (you say 21 but it sums to 31) and I count eight since plus another three days worth.
Wikipedia says there were expected to be 180 witnesses. Have someone's plans changed?
That is how many were on the list, however it is usual for a list to be made up of anyone you might call, not who you will call.
That figure of around 180 witnesses was quoted in a few places around the time the trial started, but it was the total number of prosecution and defence witnesses. It is possible that the prosecution have decided to call fewer witnesses than they expected earlier, but some issues may become clearer when they have completed their case in a week or two.
So - the "final chapter". this means that we dont have any other witnesses on the "chapters" we have seen.
No video and audio experts?
Re: Frank Abagnale
"No video and audio experts?"
That was exactly what I thought when Brac mentioned the above. I had fully expected both sides to present expert witnesses on the veracity of the tape, and my eyebrows are still raised.
Can I take it from your excellent reports that the judge (is that the correct title in Scotland?) did use the word "chapter"?
If so, it is interesting that he chose that word and not, say, phase, section, track, delimiter, partition, division.
It's purely my subjective view but I associate the word "chapter" with a story. This may well be a cameo for the jury to consider.
Sorry Pauline, we cannot speculate about stuff like that.
Correct, Mr Whatsy, congrats on some fine reporting BTW.
Let's all look out for parachute deployment in the next 7 days.
Not Bracadale....
Chapter is the accepted word in a Scottish trial Anon, the indictment in this case is quite lengthy so it is understandable it is broken up.
Firstly James, thank you for your sterling efforts and riviting blog, I wouldhappily put a fiver behind the bar at your local for you, or donate the same to your preferred charity, it's been invaluable given the brevity of some press coverage.
I wonder if the next prosecution witness is in fact the bold Tommy?
Must be about due.
Can't see TS needing 2 days to prepare questions about timecode and camera metadata (the two things that will-or otherwise- confirm the chronology of the recording)
Anyway, thanks again bud, you've put a few witnesses testimony in the public domain that news producers have excluded from their bulletins or selective precis.
Couple of points re the above:
Sceptic is correct. Today, for example, the Crown issued draft submissions in a major Inquiry, divided into Chapters. This was also the term used all the way through the case when Advocates depute swopped over to cover different types of evidence.
Anonymous 9.28 - there are no circumstances in which the prosecution can force the accused to give evidence. He retains an unfettered right to silence; if he declines to give evidence that may be the subject of comment, but he cannot be made to answer questions in his own trial. The remaining evidence is likely to be technical/scientific.
Is evidence aganst Gail being brought up seperately, so far, from reading your blog, the prosecution seem to have made no case against her.
Hello Andy, there has eeen some evidence against Gail Sheridan, Katrine Trolle testified that she was not at a conference where Gail said she had met her.
I assume the rest of her indictment will be covered in the next chapter.
There is some "speculation" (I put it no higher than that) that the Crown are not especially desperate to secure a conviction against Gail.
At a certain level of seniority, Advocates Depute are given virtually complete discretion as to how a trial should be conducted. It would not be unprecedented for the Depute to withdraw the libel against Gail at the close of the Crown case, and seek only a conviction against Tommy.
This does of course raise potentially interesting questions about what Tommy might say about the Crown in his speech to the jury, and what directions need to be given. Not an easy one for judge's directions when the sole remaining accused is unrepresented.
Looking at the indictment, there has only been evidence so far in one of the three charges against Gail Sheridan. The evidence from Trolle and one other witness (cant remember which one) that says she wasnt at a conference in Perth. But one Crown witness (Campbell) said that she was.
As there are charges against Both Sheridans relating to the alleged hotel orgy, that must be the final chapter.
This means that there is no evidence offered by the prosecution on the charge about Gail Sheridan and the phone call to cupids.
It also means, unless I missed it, no corroborating evidence for the charge against Tommy Sheridan of suborning Colin Fox!
Just a thought.
re The first trial. I presume that as in England someone sued for defamation must justify what they have printed - truth, public interest etc. I believe that in that trial the judge set a surprisingly high standard for the jury to find for Tommy. Namely that if they found that one of the News of the World's allegations was found to be correct then they must find against TS. In spite of this, the jury found for TS.
In this trial it is true that the state has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This appears a high level of proof but in practice it has led to a number of miscarriages of justice. Reasonable doubt is a rather treacherous term. It doesn't mean that if there is a doubt the jury must find for the defendant. In practice it has meant that the jury can find against the defendant if on the balance there could be a reasonable possibility that they committed the crime.
The accepted wisdom is that Tommy is innocent until proved guilty. This is not the case in this trial. He has already been pronounced guilty by an endless stream of defamatory articles and reports (even during this trial). In addition the state has produced an endless train of witnesses. One questionable (and indeed pointless) witness may be doubted, but the sheer weight of numbers in this case leads to those outside the court accepting that there are powerful argument in favour of his guilt.
Because this case tries to overthrow the verdict of the original trial and because it seeks to crush the defendant under the sheer weight of witnesses (however contradictory they may be) that I find this trial oppressive and an attack on human rights.
There are other reasons why this is one of the most serious attacks on human rights that I have seen in the courts. At present we cannot discuss them.
That's more than just a thought, Denizen. That's a polemic.
The nature of perjury is that there is a charge to answer that a previous trial was corrupted by a serious instance of lying. If you view this as trying to "overthrow the verdict of the original trial" and regard such as an attack on human rights, you are questioning the validity of "perjury" as a charge after any court case. Should Archer or Aitken been spared such an attack on their human rights?
Your point about the Crown trying to crush and oppress the witness through weight of evidence is frankly baffling. Presented with a mass of different testimony to the accused's guilt, I think it's perfectly acceptable for the Crown to use as much of it as sense and time allow. How this plays to those outside the court is irrelevant as far as I can see, except perhaps in the instance of trying to assemble a jury for a retrial.
Denizen: I'm sorry, but I'm struggling to follow your logic here, and an baffled by your reference to "an endless stream of defamatory articles and reports", none of which you cite in any detail and none of which appear to have been reported for breaching the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
This is a criminal trial for perjury. Therefore it does not try to "overthrow the verdict" of the civil trial; that can only be done by appeal. The jury are NOT being asked "Was the verdict in the defamation case correct?" but "Have the Crown proved, by corroborated evidence, that the accused deliberately and knowingly lied in court?"
Re the "attack on human rights". The state granted both accused Legal Aid and sanctioned, at public expense, the employment of junior and senior counsel. Tommy Sheridan instructed a QC with vast experience in human rights law, then elected to dispense with her services. I'd suspect that her knowledge of ECHR is rather greater than that of any commentator here.
Finally, your understanding of the burden of proof and reasonable doubt is quite simply wrong; the jury cannot find guilt proven "on balance".
Denzien, you cannot possibly know what the jury are thinking and it is only their opinion that matters.
Tommy took the fight to the courts, fighting allegations about your personal life against a gutter newspaper in a civil case are one thing, fighting allegations of perjury in a criminal case are quite another.
Somebody, perhaps multiple people in the original case took the oath and then told lies.
In such a high profile well publicised case what were the crown to do? Just leave it? Give the impression that perjury is ok?
That would have had a greater detrimental effect on all of our human rights.
Does the crown not have a duty to make the best case it can, having pursued the criminal investigation and brought the case to court?
What exactly is the alternative suggestion? That the crown shouldn't be trying to win a perjury case?
I don't think the Crown really gives all that much of a damn about Tommy Sheridan or the stunning Gail.
I don't think it cares all that much about Murdoch or about his papers. I would wager it is even less interested in who did what with who and where.
I would put it to you that the Crown has an interest in and duty to uphold the integrity of the system.
Where perjury has so obviously occurred (that is they couldn't all be telling the truth at the defamation case) then they must pursue.
The ball was set rolling by Tommy when he took it to the courts.
That ball is still rolling.
There is no breach of human rights that I can see, and to use the term demeans it for when genuine breaches occur.
anon, you said "In such a high profile well publicised case what were the crown to do? Just leave it? Give the impression that perjury is ok? That would have had a greater detrimental effect on all of our human rights."
Why would this be a breach of human rights and why does it matter that the case is high profile? This happens in every jury case, one side is lying, one isn't and, at the end, one side claims that the jury got it wrong. But, as you said in your opening sentence, it is the jury's decision that matters.
If the crown had launched a perjury investigation simply because it was "high profile" or because one side of the case had been lying, or because of a judge's comments during the case, then that might be a case for someone to claim a breach of their human rights. Sheridan, in that case would be right to say he is being singled out.
But that isn't what happened, thankfully. A perjury case would not have been launched for those reasons. The jury's decision in the libel trial should NOT be challenged just because one party doesn't like it.
What happened in the case of Sheridan was that new evidence emerged, notes from a meeting that hadn't been seen before, a letter from a group of individuals claiming Sheridan had confessed to them, and the McNeilage tape.
In that case it is legitimate to pursue the perjury case, without it meaning that the Crown are challenging the jury decision in 2006. The jury reached the correct decision based on the evidence in front of them.
That is also why there might seem to be an imbalance in the police investigation.
We have seen Sheridan asking people who gave evidence in 2006 if the had been cautioned by police about perjury before being interviewed. They said that they hadn't. This means that the police were not pursuing a general case of whether perjury was committed in the libel proof. They were following evidence and information that Sheridan had lied, so only he and people who backed his story would be cautioned.
During the police investigation other evidence has been turned up.
The evidence in 2006 failed a very low bar of proof. This is about whether the new evidence can confirm that the Sheridans were lying in 2006, with a far higher burden of proof.
Hello denizen, sorry but we can't discuss events that happen outside the prescence of the jury. If you could repost without that part I'd be happy to postit
Sorry north east lad, if you had said "it is alleged she had lied" I would have posted that, could you rephrase.
Sorry James.
I had been trying to make the point that the decision of the Crown to not call Fiona McGuire (as yet) may be significant. She was the woman who it was reported in court went to the NOTW with a story about TS, for which she received £20,000, while she was allegedly the girlfriend of Duncan Rowan who we know also approached the NOTW with allegations about TS shortly after the first story was printed.
If the Crown believed her evidence, you would have expected her to be a key Crown witness.
Of course, if the Crown believed she was lying, why did she not get charged with perjury?
N.E.Lad
'Of course, if the Crown believed she was lying, why did she not get charged with perjury?'
A DEED POLL SEEMS A GOOD IDEA
Perjury here, perjury there
The truth is staggering with wear and tear
Many break the oath they swear
But there’s no police, no questionnaire
(unless, your name is Tommy)
There is a distant billionaire
A lover of the laissez faire
(Who crowned as king sham Tony Blair)
Whose raison d’être is ‘ensnare’
([particularly] if your name is Tommy)
I’m thinking that it was Voltaire
Who asked us all to beware
Of betrayers who forswear
Fill their boots with crooked fare
([at your expense] if your name is Tommy)
- “What you do speaks so loudly, I cannot hear your words”- Voltaire
Davie Munro
TS made a big point that one of the witnesses had a "criminal record". Well, one of my friends has a "criminal record" too. She was jailed for 3 months for a Breach of Peace for being naive enough to take part in a "peace protest" at a well-known base organised by the said TS. This has cost her dearly, ever heard of CRB checks? I really find some banging on about "criminal records", the very person who was so prominent in these "peace protests" absolutely nauseating in my opinion.
With respect one of the witnesses, Tony Cumerbirtch had a criminal record for tresspass with a firearm, possession of amphetamine with intent to supply and possession of stolen goods. He also admitted previously lying in court.
I would say knowing that was not irrelevant to the Jury's ability to make a judgement on his truthfulness, one way or another
Just a note re some of the comments above about the rights and wrongs of bringing this trial. Wasn't it the judge who presided over the civil trial who recommended (not the legal term I know) after the verdict that a perjury investigation should follow? He obviously smelled something fishy/hammy/mince related. On another note, have any of you ever served on a jury and tried to carefully follow the evidence only to hear some of your fellow jurors spouting absolute nonsense in discussions? Sometimes I think an IQ test or similar should be a necessary requirement for jurors although I am not suggesting at all that this is the case in this trial.
@north east lad - re: Fiona McGuire not being called by the Crown
The Sheridans don't face any charges relating to Ms McGuire, despite her story in NoW beingthe prime reason for TS's original defamation action. So it's maybe not that surprising she hasn't been called yet.
Also, during Bob Bird's cross-examination it was made clear that the McGuire story was printed "in good faith" and had no corroborating details such as phone records or witnesses, and that NoW were concerned for Ms McGuire's mental health before she testified in the defamation trial, so much so they had her assesses by NHS to see if she was mentally fit to enter the witness box. After she testified, the NoW paid for a holiday in Dubai.
With all that in mind, I would not be surprised if she is not called by the Crown.
@ North East Lad Re: Fiona Mcguire. I believe she has been treated for some form of mental illness and I think at least one other witness referrd to her as unstable so if she wouldn't make a good witness I wouldn't be surprised if the prosecution didn't call her.
Plus doesn't she have a somewhat , err, chequered history which may throw some doubt on her reliability.
@ David Munro
Never mind profanity
Be careful of the vanity
That tempts a fool to use
The enemies main tool
That is the bourgeois state
Oh dear what a mistake!
([particularly] if your name is Tommy)
Indeed, Lynn, it was Lord Turnbull himself that Instigated an Investigation into a Suspected Matter of Perjury (I don't think that is the legal term), to put it mildly Lord Turnbull was fuming, raging after the Defamation Action (I think that is the correct term), I really think that I saw steam coming out of his ears. In my opinion that court turned into a circus. I'm with you that I detect a strong smell of ham/fish/mince and the longer this goes on
the stronger the stench becomes. But the important thing to remember that a young family's future is at stake, that that nasty Bird endangered Gail's unborn child, that is is one relationship that Bird will never break in my opinion. Oh, evidence, never mind that - there is more to trials than evidence.
That's why we have 15 on a jury Lynn (12 on a civil trial). Advocates try and suss out the jurors in my opinion and adjust their pitch accordingly in my opinion. TS can only thank his lucky stars that you are on this particular jury in my opinion.
It is odd how many people are determined to dismiss a defence case that has not even started yet. I wonder if these same people get the vapours when it is the crown who call defence witnesses liars?
This is a trial, not a game of tiddlywinks
sceptic,
let's hope the defence case is full of witnesses who can counter charges and accusations. a defence of "you could have harmed my baby" is not defence at all.
If what Sheridan says is true, and the News of the World did delibrately print malicious lies about him, you can understand why he might want to make that point to the editor of said newspaper anon.
There are far to many people (usually anonymous people) who already have the Sheridans tried and convicted even before they get to put their side of the story.
Makes you wonder about theur agenda.
Anonymous 1.50. I think you mean thank his lucky stars that I am NOT on the jury !!!
Could someone give a reasonable explanation as to why Gary Clark testified reluctantly that he went to Cupids. TS did not accuse him of being part of a political cabal or of accepting money from NotW. Therefore why did he say what he did? Many people are receiving treatment for depression this medication is not hallucinagenic even when taken with alcohol !!!
re Fiona McGuire
Perhaps her mental state is not as it should be. That should not excuse her allegedly making up a story and selling it to newspapers for £20,000. Of course if her testimony were completely fictitious, the real question should bbe who may have put her up to it, and for what purpose.
On an entirely separate and unconnected point, wasn't Fiona going out with Duncan Rowan who was tape recorded passing a name to the NOTW of a woman who it was being alleged had a fling with TS?
Did this ame Duncan also side with the United Left witnesses in terms of confirming the accuracy of the disputed minute?
Just wondering.....
Hello Danny G, sorry but could you avoid phrases like "desperate attempt" etc.
'"Many people are receiving treatment for depression this medication is not hallucinagenic even when taken with alcohol !!!'"
Danny G.
incorrect I'm afraid.
A person who is abusing alcohol, and also taking medication for depression could well hallucinate. At the very least they will be confused or delusional.
I would guess he reluctantly testified because he'll be only too aware of the his poor mental health.
As nearly all alcoholics will tell you, their memory and recall of events in the past is often confused.
Davie
What is the next chapter going to be? Have you sharpened your pencils for Wednesday James? We are all on tenterhooks!
Hello Steve, looking at the indictment (see http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/09/sheridan-indictment-in-full.html) the only part we have not covered is:
" that you did attend the said Moathouse Hotel on 14 June 2002 at an event organised by said Matthew McColl along with said Andrew McFarlane at which you and said Andrew McFarlane went into a bedroom with Beverly Anthea Dixon, c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh and you did have sexual intercourse with said Beverly Anthea Dixon; that said Helen Todd Allison and Lily Anne Colvin had not lied during their evidence during said civil jury trial when they said that they had seen you at the said Moathouse Hotel "
So I'd expect that to be covered and perhaps more on Gail Sheridan's charges?
Thanks. Others suggested expert testimony on the tape. Three days seems ambitious given progress so far.
Bloomin heck, no wonder the accused needed another 2 days off court to prepare.
How much of the defence case - the innocent until proven guilty Sheridans aside - will consist of character evidence or 'for he/she's a jolly good fellow' testimony?
Anyone know if the Crown are calling mobile phone geographical plot evidence re: Tommy's whereabouts otherwise than at the dates and places aforesaid in the indictment?
Peter, yes but all of that has already happened weeks ago and according to James's post above about remaining indictment, the Crown is going in another direction and we might see fresh evidence from people with no connection to the supposed 'plot'
Wait and see.
The Crown did well to hide the NOTW paid /oddball witnesses is to put them in the middle.
I therefore expect the Crown to try and finish strongly on their second best evidence.
I cannot believe that would finish with more witnesses paid by the NOTW or common criminals
There may also be a last minute rush of other unassailable technical evidence about the tape etc that will help salvage the Crown case. Equally there may not be.
From watching trials a lot of the “technical” stuff although exciting to nerds can just turn out to be techno – bluff.
It is often overstated pre-trial to try and break the accused or pressure his/her witnesses.
Often when presented it is not quite what the Crown sets it out to be and the jury who are not experts do not know who to believe.
Quality testimony from people of good character;who are rational; who have not been paid and have no axe to grind is most important.
On balance that has been lacking from the vast majority of Crown witnesses so far. A large number have been previously paid / offered big money by the NOTW. There are also a couple of common criminals peppered amongst them - which does not look at all good.
I have been back through all the court reports this last week.
NONE of the Crown witnesses appear to be able to say consistently and categorically that they saw Sheridan at this place, at this date, doing this, with that person.
All the Crown witnesses so far are either: wrong/confused about dates; unsure who was there; unsure what happened; unsure what was said; have been contradicted by other Crown witnesses or said something different at the first trial. A very confused bunch overall.
Lynn,
I am waiting with baited breath. (particularly about the genuiness of the NOTW tape)
My mum did teach me to type badly.
If I had kept with her shorthand lessons I would be up there tommorrow to lend a hand.
In my opinion, if the Crown don't have (but they might, we must wait and see) satisfactory and compelling technical/evidence to back up the witnesses testimonies they should never have embarked on this Prosecution in the first instance.
Unrelated satire:
What tape your honour? ... oh that one ... yes well ... lets move on shall we m'lud .... no that's not all we have m'lud ... err .... I have ...I have ... err ... i have this genuine bit of lint, an original Tesco loyalty card, my car keys and ... and .... this half sucked murray mint ... slightly fluffy yes m'lud ... but a mint that I contend m'lud may once possibly have been sucked by someone who used to work with the accused's father ... I think. The Crown rests.
Peter - regrets, I have a few... and not paying enough attention to the poor teacher who tried to teach me shorthand (and it was 'proper' Pitman, not the upstart Teeline used more frequently now) is one of mine. I'd imagine James and Whatsy's shorthand must be pdq judging by the quality and quantity of their court updates.
I think it is now clear that any technical evidence from the prosecution now will be about the moathouse allegations, the chapetrs about the tape and cupids are gone.
We will not see any SSP witnesses in the last week of the prosecution as the only one that has any connetion to the Moat House story is Baldassara who testified last week. Prentice led him to the moathouse story, indicating that is where the prosecution is going next.
We might see technical evidence from the defence about the video, but not from the prosecution.
A brief legal point.
The first case concerned a civil trial (between two private individuals)brought by TS on the charge that the NOW defamed him. He won.
This trial is a criminal trial (between the State and a private individual) that chrages TS and GS with lying at the defamation trial.
If he is proved to have lied then there is no legal issues with double jeopardy.
However what happens if he is found not proven? The purpose of a defamtion action is to restore your reputation (as a legally protected interest under what Stair 4 1 1 states as one of four personal intersts protected by law)
Not proven proves nothing, and therefore cannot "restore your reputation" as the perjury case is based on a defamtion one. Therefore not proven cannot be legally competent?
Discuss!
Simply not true, not proven is no different in law from not guilty. It may, to a point, assist the arguments of the NotW in their attempt to appeal, though that would be difficult to frame a legal argument on as the appeal judges will view an acquittal as a rejection of the evidence, irespective of whether it is 'not proven' or 'not guilty. The fact that the original proof was a case of defamation is irrelevant to the question of whether Mr and/or Mrs Sheridan committed perjury.
But, although the jury might be making a statement by using 'not proven' or the public might take it to mean something, it is the same as 'not guilty' in law.
"Not proven" is a verdict of acquittal; technically, the "not guilty" verdict is the alien incursion into Scots criminal law, as it was, until the 1750s, not possible for a hury to return such a verdict.
Given that both "not Guolty 2 and "not proven" depend in law solely upon the jury not finding the Crown case proven to the requisite standard, and there being no distinction in law between them, it would be legally feasible, if reckless, for the NOTW to proceed with their appeal against the verdict of the civil jury even if the accused is acquitted.
Please always bear in mind: the ONLY issue for the jury is whether they do or do not find perjurt proven. They are not delivering any decision on the outcome of previous civil proceedings.
"Ladies and gentleman, because of the position adopted by this witness in refusing to answer the questions, there are certain steps I am required to take and it is not possible to continue with his evidence at this stage."
Thumbscrews?
I think the case made by the prosecution is strong and it will be interesting to see the defence. Several witnesses from various backgrounds have painted a consistent picture, there is a recording purportedly of the accused admitting the behaviour in question. And so far the defence has produced only one person who contradicts the masses of others. It looks like a pretty firm case.
The defence's unpicking of the prosecution case is that it is all a grand conspiracy and everyone is lying or faking. From here it doesn't look anything close to producing reasonable doubt.
So I am very interested to see the defence's case.
Anonymous ( I wish people would choose a name !!)
I do agree with your overall judgment but I must say I am very surprised that the prosecution has not led expert evidence giving a technical view of the tape. All TS has to do is to produce some expert who will human haw about "possibilities" for manipulation of the tape. It's not hard to produce experts who will give differing views so it seems to me the prosecution has left an open goal for the defence on that aspect.
Bunc, re Crown presenting experts on tape authenticity, you forgot to say... Yet. Or is it too late for this to happen? There are clearly still a few days of Crown evidence left, and it may stretch into next week due to court not sitting in afternoon today after McColl's refusal to answer q about identiity of his girlfriend.
Lynn, technical/forensic evidence is usually kept back until the end, so you might be in luck - yet.
Alex Prentice would have to be daft/naive/out of time/? to not have the tape forensically verified, as Bunc says it would be far to easy for the defence to muddy the waters on this one:
To quote a famous Ealing comedy: "Well Sir, same as with Photoshop I suppose it is possible that someone, somewhere with the right equipment, expertise and knowledge could concoct a tape", "Thank you expert witness, no further questions".
It would be very unlikely that technical evidence in the form of testimony will be brought as we have moved on from that chapter, unless it is to do with the availability of the witness.
The Crown must feel that the evidence presented so far on the video is strong enough. Or, it is possible that both sides see that their expert evidence would make little difference and, if they are not contesting the technical points made by either side, then have agreed that neither of them will bring expert evidence on the video. An example of that would be if one side had technical evidence on an aspect of the tape, but the other side's evidence did not contest that. The other side's technical evidence may not be contested by the Crown. Both sides, in that case, might see no point in adding evidence that does not advance either argument.
One of the anons said "The defence's unpicking of the prosecution case is that it is all a grand conspiracy and everyone is lying or faking. From here it doesn't look anything close to producing reasonable doubt."
The defence 'unpicking' of the prosecution case has not started, what we have seen is cross-examination of Crown witnesses combined with court productions. It is impossible to say what the defence case is. But, the parts that we have seen, the NoW investigators diary, the mention of both the owners of cupids club and the man who held the house party afterwards for instance, show far more than just "this is a conspiracy".
You also say "Several witnesses from various backgrounds have painted a consistent picture"
As I pointed out to Bunc, this is not true, several witnesses from a variety of backgrounds have given testimony on different evidence, there is nothing "consistent" between witness A who say they saw Mr Sheridan at a swinger's club, and Witness B who say that they saw him at a flat with Anvar Khan, they are not related.
On the other question someone asked about the jury. They will be asked to rule on each charge, Mr Sheridan has one charge of perjury and one charge of Subornation. Mrs Sheridan has one charge of perjury. I would guess that several counts will be removed before the end of the trial and they will be asked for their verdict on the charge of perjury with the remaining indictment 'as deleted'. So, no, they dont speak to every count on the indictment, they answer one question on each charge, but they DO consider each count as, if they find Sheridan guilty of one count only, they must find him guilty of perjury.
I am tempted to predict at this point what counts will be remaining but, even though everyone else seems to be doing it, I will refrain from doing so on this blog.
It would be very unlikely that technical evidence in the form of testimony will be brought as we have moved on from that chapter, unless it is to do with the availability of the witness.
The Crown must feel that the evidence presented so far on the video is strong enough. Or, it is possible that both sides see that their expert evidence would make little difference and, if they are not contesting the technical points made by either side, then have agreed that neither of them will bring expert evidence on the video. An example of that would be if one side had technical evidence on an aspect of the tape, but the other side's evidence did not contest that. The other side's technical evidence may not be contested by the Crown. Both sides, in that case, might see no point in adding evidence that does not advance either argument.
One of the anons said "The defence's unpicking of the prosecution case is that it is all a grand conspiracy and everyone is lying or faking. From here it doesn't look anything close to producing reasonable doubt."
The defence 'unpicking' of the prosecution case has not started, what we have seen is cross-examination of Crown witnesses combined with court productions. It is impossible to say what the defence case is. But, the parts that we have seen, the NoW investigators diary, the mention of both the owners of cupids club and the man who held the house party afterwards for instance, show far more than just "this is a conspiracy".
You also say "Several witnesses from various backgrounds have painted a consistent picture"
As I pointed out to Bunc, this is not true, several witnesses from a variety of backgrounds have given testimony on different evidence, there is nothing "consistent" between witness A who say they saw Mr Sheridan at a swinger's club, and Witness B who say that they saw him at a flat with Anvar Khan, they are not related.
On the other question someone asked about the jury. They will be asked to rule on each charge, Mr Sheridan has one charge of perjury and one charge of Subornation. Mrs Sheridan has one charge of perjury. I would guess that several counts will be removed before the end of the trial and they will be asked for their verdict on the charge of perjury with the remaining indictment 'as deleted'. So, no, they dont speak to every count on the indictment, they answer one question on each charge, but they DO consider each count as, if they find Sheridan guilty of one count only, they must find him guilty of perjury.
I am tempted to predict at this point what counts will be remaining but, even though everyone else seems to be doing it, I will refrain from doing so on this blog.
"I am tempted to predict at this point what counts will be remaining but, even though everyone else seems to be doing it, I will refrain from doing so on this blog." - go on Victor, be a Devil.
Post a Comment