Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Matthew McColl

The first, and only witness heard from today was Matthrew McColl. Mr McColl told the court that he was  "acquaintance" of Andrew McFarlane's and as such had attended his wedding in June 2002. Alex Prentice QC, The Advocate Depute, asked Mr McColl about the night before Mr McFarlane's wedding. The witness told the court he had met Tommy Sheridan, Andrew McFarlane and others at the Baby Grand (a Glasgow public house) before driving to the Moathouse hotel. The court was shown a diary, which Mr Prentice told the court was the 2002 diary of Tommy Sheridan which contained an entry "9pm Baby Grand-carry out" and "stay with Andy scrabble till 3pm."


Mr McColl then told the court that he had arranged to meet Jaqueline White at the hotel, describing Ms White as "someone he had known for a number of years." The witness also told the court that he had also met Beverley Dixon, who had flown up from Birmingham as "she fancied a night out in Glasgow." Mr McColl added that after three quarters of an hour or so in the bar he went to a suite in the hotel with Ms White and "her friends" Anne Colvin and Helen Allison. Mr McColl then stated  then left the hotel room for half an hour, to retrieve his credit card, and that when he returned Tommy Sheridan, Andrew McFarlane and Beverley Dixon had joined the group in the suite. 

Mr McColl was then shown a number of telephone records, to which he responded he did not know the numbers and "did not want to guess."  He then told the court he had left the Moathouse hotel between 10.30pm and 11.00pm as he was on medication for a medical condition. Mr Prentice then asked the witness if he had testified in the 2006 libel case between Tommy Sheridan and the News of the World. Mr McColl called this a "double edged question" before telling the court that he had not been cited to appear and had spent the period of that trial at his "holiday home" 


Finally Mr Prentice asked Mr McColl if he had "always said Mr Sheridan had been at the Moathouse hotel" the witness replied "no, I said he wasn't there to the police." Mr Prentice asked Mr McColl if he had "lied" to which Mr McColl answered that the police had "shown up at my door at half six in the morning, like they do with murderers" and that this had "annoyed him" and bothered his wife and children adding "it was not the first time they did it." Mr Prentice then asked the witness what was the truth, and he replied "he [Tommy Sheridan] was at the Moathouse" with that the Advocate Depute ended his evidence in chief and returned to his seat.


Paul McBride QC, representing Gail Sheridan, then rose to cross-examine Mr McColl. He asked  if he was married in 2002 to which he replied "no, single" Mr McBride then asked if had any children, the witness again said no. Mr McBride then asked if the witness was sure of that answer to which Mr McColl responded  that the question was "ridiculous" There then developed a problem with the court audio system and there was a brief break while this was repaired.


When court resumed Mr McBride put it to the witness that he had asked a "straight question, did he have a wife and child" to which Mr McColl replied "what did I tell you." Lord Bracadale, the presiding judge, then directed the witness to answer the question which he did with "no, no."  Mr McBride then asked Mr McColl if he had attended Andrew McFarlane's wedding with anyone and if so who? The witness replied "I'm not prepared to give her name in court" as it could be reported by the press. Mr McBride stated that applied to everyone giving evidence and asked his question again, Mr McColl replied "you can ask me until you are blue in the face, I'm not prepared to change my answer." at this point Lord Bracadale asked the jury to leave.


When the jury returned Lord Bracadale told them that because of the position adopted by the witness there were steps he was required to take and therefore  the case was adjourned until 10 am tomorrow. The court then rose for the day.

74 comments:

Bunc said...

If there's a weird twist that a trial could take then this trial seems to throw it up doesn't it? Is there any particular reason why McBride would cross examine this witness first? Surely his evidence is more pertinent to the charges against TS?

James Doleman said...

It was announced in court that all parties had agreed that Paul McBride could cross-examine first, no reason was given in front of the jury.

Anonymous said...

three of the 5 counts bagainst gail are vrelated to this, it would be a surprise if mcbride didnt take the lead

Legally Challenged said...

I need some clarification on the anwers provided by this witness.
At one point he states that the Police had disturbed his wife and children by an early visit to his home.
Later on he states he is not married or has no children and when pushed he stated that he was at the Moathouse.
When the witness stated "he"did he mean he as himself or as if pointing he as in someone else?

James Doleman said...

I've fixed the "he said" comment LC, as for the rest that was his testimony was.

Rod McKie said...

I was wondering eactly the same thing as Legally Challenged.

Lynn said...

Bunc don't agree that this evidence is more pertinent to TS, think it affects both accused. Here is part of indictment in relation to GS. Note the date mentioned is 14 JUNE 2002. This is the same as the date BBC news have given that McColl testified Moathouse shenanigans happened. Clearly one can't be in 2 places at once but GS testified in libel trial that she was with TS all that night and visited AMcF at his home.

''that your aunt, Annie Healy c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh arrived into Scotland from the United States of America on 14 June 2002; that said Thomas Sheridan was in your company during the whole of the evening of the 14 June 2002 and returned home with you after midnight on 15 June 2002;

and g)/ that you and said Thomas Sheridan visited Andrew McFarlane c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh, at his home at 216 Tweedmuir Road, Glasgow after 10pm on the 14 June 2002 when said Andrew McFarlane and James McManus c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh were present there between that time and when you left with said Thomas Sheridan after midnight on the 15 June 2002''

Peter said...

I will not comment on the adjournment - just checking if the account is correct James against the other press reports?:

a) Did the Crown witness (and the Crown and defence) confirm that he given a contradictory account of Sheridans alleged attendance at the alleged sex party at the Moathouse? One version that Sheridan was present and one version that Sheridan was not present?

b)Did the Crown witness testify that the police have severely pressurised him and treated him like a "murderer".

c) Did the Crown witness testify that he had a wife and children only for it to be revealed by the defence in cross examination that this testimony was false and that he did not in fact have a wife and children?

Thanks. P.

Legally Challenged said...

Thanks James that clarifies one point.

Campbell McGregor said...

The BBC's report mentions that he also saw Beverly Dixon at the party. (This is how the indictment spells her name.)

James Doleman said...

Thanks Campbell, missed that out for some reason, will add it now.

Anonymous said...

wondering why crown haven't called Andrew Mcfarlane........any views on this?

Anonymous said...

If this witness refuses to answer all questions how does this leave his testimony? Any legal experts out there that can help!

Anonymous said...

I wonder if this witness being required to leave the Hotel on two occassions one for a credit card, and one for medication have a connection regard to administering said medication

the_voice_of_reason said...

Anonymous 6:16

Unlike some American states, where a refusal to answer one querstion can result in all evidence being struck from the record, here all evidence given before the jury has ben heard, and is available for consideration save in very limited circumstances that may well not arise here.

As matters stand this witness remains on oath and able to resume giving evidence tomorrow. There is, however, a potential legal issue arising that will not be resolved till tomorrow, so cannot comment further.

Bit Confused said...

I had took what James Doleman wrote in the blog above to be that Matt McColl was stating that he had a wife and children when the police were banging on his door.. presumably in 2007 when they were doing the rounds questioning potential witnesses??

But that he was saying when questioned by McBride that at the time of the wedding he did not have a wife and child (i.e. he had got married and had children in the intervening period) but that he had been to the wedding with a female date who he was refusing to name, which is what caused the adjournment.

Is that a correct assessment Mr Doleman, or did McColl change his testimony to say that he currently/never has had a wife and child??

Whatsy said...

Re: "I wonder if this witness being required to leave the Hotel on two occassions one for a credit card, and one for medication have a connection regard to administering said medication"

I had previously assumed that small gatherings like this and the alleged Manchester one can be quite expensive to organise.

Today's witness was asked whether he was taking anything else other than alcohol, to which he replied "Drugs!", before clarifying - "medical, not recreational".

Hope that fully answers your question.

Anonymous said...

If you do not answer a question (assuming that the judge considers it a reasonable question) then you are in 'contempt of court'

James Doleman said...

Hello a bit confused, I've written what was said in court, it did seem rather baffling to me, even Paul McBride asked him if he was sure.

Perhaps it will become clearer tomorrow.

Lynn said...

Alex Prentice must be tearing his hair out, the defence seems to know every witness's weak point. But as humans don't we all have them? Doesn't necessarily follow we'd be willing to commit perjury in the high court though. How tiresome if this is the focus of cross examination gain.

Carnybull said...

McColl's witness statement disclosed to the defence presumably did not mention the girlfriend or her name because if he had I am sure the defence would have wanted to see a statement from her or proof her themselves. The fact he has refused to name her might indicate this is the first time her existence has been mentioned.
In these circumstances, the defence will want - and be entitled to - disclosure of her details. If the witness refuses he may be held in contempt of court.
However, if the prosecution have obtained her details, yet failed to disclose them as facts which may assist the defence or undermine the prosecution, that in itself may lead to an abuse of process application particularly from Gail Sheridan.

Anonymous said...

It seemed to me that Matt McColl got himself into a distressed and emotional state more than one during his evidence. With all his huffing & puffing I thought he got a bit confused. Perhaps he thought he was in a bar, when in point of fact he was in the High Court of Justiciary.

Davie

Lynn said...

If she wasn't at the Moathouse, does it matter a jot who she is?

Steve said...

Legal question: does anyone know if the jury will be asked:
"how do you find the defendant on count 1? ... count 2? ... etc" with separate answers, or are they just asked:
"how do you find the defendant (on everything taken together) - guilty or not guilty?"
Thanks legal eagles.

Anonymous said...

What are you suggesting Lynn? That the woman was allegedly at the Moathouse allegedly with him? Who is now his wife? I can see that making sense, him being tracked down and leaving the wife/girlfriend out of it. It's not something that any man would want his wife/girlfriend associated with. One thing looks certain though that he didn't go looking for the cops - the cops came for him.

Anonymous said...

i presumed the comment regarding medication and the credit card and administering of said medication was just Anon being a touch lite hearted and was not a question
could you clarify, Anon

Carnybull said...

He clearly answered in cross that he was with a woman (at the Moathouse). If that's so, she will have her own recollections of the night...wherever she was.

Victor English said...

I think you are correct about Prentice Lynn, I almost feel sorry for him.

He is a very good Advocate and his witnesses have not allowed him to lead the case, branching off on their own rhetoric and personal or political agendas.

This is the most unruly and unhelpful set of prosecution witnesses I have ever come across, they seem to be acting as if they are the accused. Alex Prentice has had very few witnesses who are prepared to let him lead and then follow that by just answering Sheridans questions as briefly and concisely as they can, which would help build his case. By the time each witness is cross-examined, we are way off on a tangent and a long way from Prentice's path. Sometimes he has had to re-examine just to correct points made in the cross.

The defence do seem to know the background of the case better. Today, by all counts, McBride leapt on the witness' evidence about whether he had sex with any of the named women. He said that he was gone before the sex started. The defence are pushing the point of the woman he took to the wedding the next day and he doesnt want to go there. Again he seems to defending himself rather than being a prosecution witness.

The key thing for me today was the mention of the credit card. This will be recorded in both McColl's credit card record and the hotel's records. Of course, this does not prove that Sheridan was there, but it could confirm that the party took place.

A quick google search of the 2006 proof will show that the previous (and presumably subsequent) witnesses tell a very different story to McColl about that night. The "wife" seems to be the key to this question.

James Doleman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

@ Steve - the clerk will probably just ask for a verdict to which the foreperson will respond with guilty/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.

James Doleman said...

If I could just remind the various "anonymous'" here that you do not have to give your real identity in the comments but if you select "Name/URL" from the list below you can give yourself a title, so making it a bit easier to follow the debate.

Anonymous said...

McBride asked if McColl had been married in "2002" he said no. The libel trial was in 2006. I am assuming that the police were not banging on his door until it became a criminal trial? McColl indicates that he was married.

The dates are important here.

We will have to wait and see what happens tomorrow.

Legally Challenged said...

Why would Mr.McBride ask about the witness married status in 2002 what is the significance of that year to this case?

the_voice_of_reason said...

Steve: the Clerk of Court asks the following questions:

"Ladies and gentlemen, who speaks for you?"

then

"Have you reached a verdict"

then

"What is your verdict on Charge 1?" and so on

then

"Is that verdict unanimous or by a majority?"

If the verdict is one of guilt, the Clerk may then ask

"Do you wish to make any deletions from the charge?"

The jury may of course delete any subhead they like, provided what remains is enough to constitute an offence.

Carnybull: I'm still scratching my head trying to work out any situation in which the non-disclosure of the name of a person present the day after an alleged incident could amount to "abuse of process", as opposed to a matter entirely at the Crown's discretion.

Anonymous said...

He is saying that he wasn't married in 2002 but when the police called at his house (when was this?) I am assuming when the criminal investigation started and McColl stated that his wife etc were present. McBride then asked him again if he was married maybe McColl was repeating his answer to the original question which was "2002".

McColl obviously has money a holiday home; leaving his credit card beind the bar.

This is worth a read again.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article686308.ece

Whatsy said...

Another point that may actually complicate the witness's reluctance to name his wedding date - in his testimony today, he admitted under PMcB's cross that he had maybe more than one girlfriend at the time, although I don't recall him indicating in front of the jury whether any of them were his date for the wedding.

Peter said...

As I have been saying I think the Crown witnesses are a busted flush - whilst we wait to see if this latest Crown witness even returns to the stand I have had a bit of a leftfield idea.

Bear with me on this one please ...

We agree that (as yet) no forensic evidence had been presented regarding the McNeilage/NOTW video.

Some posters here consider that the Crown MUST have conducted rigorous forensics on the McNeilage / NOTW video to establish that it was genuine before entering it as a Crown exhibit in this trial.

First Point: Is that pre-trial forensic assessment by the Crown a given? I do not know enough about the the pre-trial norms in Scotland to give an opinion.

Second Point to come so maybe wait for that before answering this one.

TBC:

Anonymous said...

That was a cracking good read, Anon. Thanks.

Lynn said...

Anonymous 9.51. You'll need to copy the text, an account and payment is required by The Times to read articles now. Anyway, agree he wasn't skint, isn't Mathew McColl the one and the same person 'Hadjie' that was mentioned in Keith Baldassara's testimony and the Moathouse isn't exactly a cheap venue. But how rich he is is neither here nor there. What interests me is that this witness doesn't seem to be an SSP member or been paid by NOTW. Nor does he seem to have tried to harm the unborn baby or broken the special 'relationship'. On the contrary, like Gary Clark he seems a reluctant witness. Waiting to hear on what grounds he's going to be branded a liar.

Peter said...

Lack of Video Forensic Process Cont:

It is common ground that the video was not revealed by the NOTW until after the libel trial had finished.

The NOTW trial say they had no knowledge of it until a couple of months after the end of that trial.

Conveniently therefore the video was not subjected to any forensic assessment at the libel trial.

At the time the NOTW published the video they said they had subjected it to (cough) "expert" assessment and that it was genuine.

It is reasoable to comment that if it was actually assessed at all that the NOTW assessment could not really be regarded as independent.

Sheridan is NOT facing a specific charge of denying under oath that he made a confession to McNeilage as the tape was not part of the libel trial.

If it had been part of the alleged perjury indictments the Crown presumably the Crown would have needed to:

a)first prove the tape was genuine by the use of forensic testimony before the trial

b) present that proof at the trial.

They have, however, at this stage only presented testimony from George McNeilage and Bob Bird that it is genuine.

TBC

Anonymous said...

A WOMAN who claims she saw Tommy Sheridan, the former leader of the Scottish Socialist Party, in bed with a prostitute and another man was threatened with violence and offered bribes to keep quiet, a court was told yesterday. Helen Allison, 52, a market researcher, said that she was ordered to keep quiet during a phone call in which she was warned: “You really don’t know what you are dealing with. Tommy Sheridan had brought someone up from England to pull out someone’s tongue.”

Miss Allison, who was giving evidence at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, said after the call she was “very angry. It was an indirect threat to me,” she said. Not long afterwards she received another call offering her money, she said.

The allegations were made on the sixth day of Mr Sheridan’s £200,000 defamation action against News Group Newspapers, publishers of News of the World.

The married MSP is suing over stories printed in November 2004 and January 2005 claiming that he attended “swingers” clubs and took part in orgies. The newspaper is defending the action.

Miss Allison said her part in the drama began when she was asked by Jackie White, a friend, to a “VIP party” at the Moat House Hotel, in Glasgow, in June 2002. Another friend, Ann Colvin, also went along.

She said that she was told that Mr Sheridan and a famous footballer would be there, but on arriving in the hotel suite she was shocked to discover that she had been invited to an “orgy”.

Anonymous said...

CONT

She said: “I saw Tommy Sheridan having sex with a female on the bed and another man sitting on the side of the bed putting a condom on. I knew Tommy Sheridan through the television.”

Asked if she saw his face, she replied: “Yes, he smiled at me. I was absolutely devastated, angry, very upset and I just about-turned and left the room.”

Later a woman claiming to be a prostitute, who she had seen having sex with Mr Sheridan, went into the hotel suite, followed by Mr Sheridan.

She and her friend, Miss Colvin, then left the party. She subsequently lost touch with Miss White, but got a call from her in January 2005.

By then Miss Colvin had contacted the News of the World to tell them about the alleged hotel orgy and Miss Allison had contacted her lawyer in November 2004 and had been given £1,000 by the News of the World as “an interim payment.”

Miss Allison said Miss White said she was “very angry that myself and Ann had spoken about the night in the Moat House and said to me that if we said anything about it we would be dealt with”.

Miss White called a second time and asked to meet her.

Soon afterwards, she said Matt McColl, a friend of Miss White’s, phoned her and offered her money.

Earlier in court, doubts were raised about the reliability of a key witness at the centre of allegations about Mr Sheridan’s sex life. It emerged that Anvar Khan, 38, a journalist who claims she had a steamy on-off affair with the MSP, was sued for defamation by a developer when she worked for The Herald newspaper six years ago.

Mr Sheridan has admitted to having a brief relationship with her in 1992 before his marriage.

The case continues.

Peter said...

Lack of Forensics on Video Cont:

I posit that it is at least possible that the Crown itself may have not done a forensic assessment for their own reasons.

They may have felt there was a risk it was not fully genuine.

Rather than taking the risk it was not genuine the Crown perhaps preferred instead to bind the credibility of the tape together with the credibility of the 2 crown witnesses.

According to the defence Bird and McNeilage had a nice little routine worked (with nice little touches about boxer shorts and mince) to provide a plausible background to the genesis of the tape.

TBC

Anonymous said...

According to that article, McColl is reluctant, VERY reluctant:

"Miss Allison said Miss White said she was “very angry that myself and Ann had spoken about the night in the Moat House and said to me that if we said anything about it we would be dealt with”.

Miss White called a second time and asked to meet her.

Soon afterwards, she said Matt McColl, a friend of Miss White’s, phoned her and offered her money."

Peter said...

Lack of Forensics on Video Conclusion:

IF the Defence has not insisted pre-trial on such forensics, for their own reasons, we may never get any forensics on the tape issue from either side.

Other than the obvious, there is a possible reason why the defence may not wish to subject the tape to FORENSIC assessment.

They MAYBE were not convinced that it was not beyond the capabilities of News International to have produced a video that whilst still false could not be forensically challenged with the resourcs the defence had available.

Why would the defence take the risk?

Surely instead it is safer for the defence to just put it to the Crown try to prove it is genuine and then pull the Crown up if they present no forensic evidence.

That avoids falling into what possibly could have been a nasty trap for the defence.

Instead the defence can just challenged the testimony of Bird and McNeilage.

The matter of the video is now perhaps just where it should be in terms of the burden of proof ie. the Crown must prove forensically the tape is genuine not the defence.

If the Crown does not do so there must then be reasonable doubt that it is genuine at all.

Having thrown this idea out there is anyone biting?

All this is speculation of course.

END

Anonymous said...

Anon Surely the Times Article is just that, it is yet to be substaniated that the events mentioned have ocurred?
Could there be another charge of witness tampering in the offing?
Or another case of mincie underwear.

Anonymous said...

Peter, considering the amount of "dirt-digging" that has been going on regarding the prosecution witnesses, so good that as you say they appear to found the "weak spot" of every witness so far, in my opinion it be far to say that the defence case is not hampered by lack of finance. It no-one is challenging the veracity of the tape then in my opinion it has to be accepted at least prima facie.

Anonymous said...

Peter.
Thats a cut for me get it in the can.

Whatsy said...

"If it had been part of the alleged perjury indictments the Crown presumably the Crown would have needed to:

a)first prove the tape was genuine by the use of forensic testimony before the trial

b) present that proof at the trial.

They have, however, at this stage only presented testimony from George McNeilage and Bob Bird that it is genuine. "


Couldn't the same be said for lots of pieces of evidence? There are already two conflicting "minutes" of the 9/11 meeting, with only one being vouched for as genuine by some of the Crown witnesses so far and disputed by the defence. At least one of those minutes must be false, and both rely on witness testimony to ascertain validity.

Is VT any different from various letters, documents, police statements as to their status as being "genuine"?

Peter said...

Anonymous said...

Peter, considering the amount of "dirt-digging" that has been going on regarding the prosecution witnesses, so good that as you say they appear to found the "weak spot" of every witness so far, in my opinion it be far to say that the defence case is not hampered by lack of finance. It no-one is challenging the veracity of the tape then in my opinion it has to be accepted at least prima facie.

November 24, 2010 11:06 PM

I think you are reversing the burden of proof Anon (please choose a user name so we can chat properly). The defence has already said it it is not genuine. Surely it is now for the Crown to prove the tape is genuine. No?

am no tellin youse said...

the Crown must prove forensically the tape is genuine not the defence.

Did TS not say at first it was an actor
He added did "the actor stand up and face the screen?"
Then some was missing,
dont think prosecution have to prove anything in relation to tape, the lawyers can correct me on that one.

Anonymous said...

The prosecution do not have top p[rove forensically that the tape is genuine, they must persuade the jury that it is. Anyone listening to the tape will be able to form an opinion.

Anonymous said...

The veracity of the tape is really down to the opinion of the jury, is it not?

Anonymous said...

They MAYBE were not convinced that it was not beyond the capabilities of News International to have produced a video that whilst still false could not be forensically challenged with the resourcs the defence had available. - what does that mean? That the defence are scrapped for cash? Outweighed by the superior resources of the State and the Murdoch Empire?

Anonymous said...

Did TS not say at first it was an actor
He added did "the actor stand up and face the screen?" Yes, he did, which is perfectly possible. Someone just turning up and playing a speaking part is a lot simpler than high-tech "splicing" and the tape would stand up to technical analysis for splicing, time-stamping, waveforms meta-data etc.

Peter said...

am no tellin youse said....

dont think prosecution have to prove anything in relation to tape, the lawyers can correct me on that one.

November 24, 2010 11:15 PM

thanks Anon: Which of course leads me back to my other point alluded to earlier.

With the video, very conveniently, not appearing in the libel trial the Crown get a bonus as they can now use it as evidence without ever having to prove it is genuine at all!!!

Glasgee people are not stupid of course so I expect they will spot the old soft shoe shuffle here (if that is what it is). They al presumably have seen Blue Peter "here's one I made earlier" (NB: Blue Peter is a good user name Anon)

We need some expert to comment on what are the duties of the Crown pre-trial regarding exhibits it wishes to bring.
.

Peter said...

Anonymous said...

They MAYBE were not convinced that it was not beyond the capabilities of News International to have produced a video that whilst still false could not be forensically challenged with the resourcs the defence had available. - what does that mean? That the defence are scrapped for cash? Outweighed by the superior resources of the State and the Murdoch Empire?

November 24, 2010 11:27 PM

Yes that's right. Nicely summed up mate. Murdoch is credited with (and sometimes claims it himself) that he has the power to change national governments so Tommy is well outgunned as you say.

Anonymous said...

Peter, you assume that the jurors, in the face of a lack of forensics, will assume the video to be faked.

They will make up their minds, based on testimony and their viewing of the tape.

Eraserhead said...

@Lynn... Might the reluctance of witnesses like McColl to give evidence be an indication of the reasoning behind the tactics of the defence to allow McBride to lead the cross examinations during this chapter of the trial?

Given that personal friendships might be on the line, this tactic may allow Tommy to avoid making the direct accusation that the witness(es) are lying to the court. McBride can do it on behalf of Gail (and indirectly for Tommy too).

Peter said...

Sorry "am no telling youse" I got confused and credited you as an Anon.
IF THEY ALL CHOSE NAMES THIS WOULD BE EASIER!

Anonymous said...

For starters a production has to be "bagged and tagged" and every operation on it recorded. Say, it was a mobile phone, every button press would have to be meticulously recorded.

Peter said...

Okay, Peter. I'll be Peter, if that's okay.

Now, the thing to remember is that the jury will judge the authenticity of the tape.

All the best, Peter,

Peter,

Eraserhead said...

A point to ponder; if the Sheridans are found guilty, might Matt McColl be open to a charge of 'attempting to pervert the cause of justice' if the allegations made by Miss Allison in the Times newspaper article are repeated in her evidence and accepted as truthful by this court?

Anonymous said...

@ Peter say for the sake of argument that the tape IS faked? How is it faked? Actor? By not saying EXACTLY how the tape in your opinion and resorting to throwing every which theory around only lends credence to the alternative theory, however remote and outlandish, that the tape is genuine.

Lynn said...

Hey James, why did my post about how legal costs are paid not appear? Don't think I said anything that hasbn't already been in public domain.

Peter said...

I have created a graph which, as I put the data into it, indicates a strong and growing correlation between the increasing number of posters who have now decided that (after all) it is not really necessary to show that the tape is authentic plotted against the receding number of days available for the Crown to produce evidence that it is.

Quite illuminating.

With impressive backpedalling like that they will soon be down the M62, sitting on me lap and eating me toast!

P.

Legally Challenged said...

Okay, Peter. I'll be Peter, if that's okay.



Now, the thing to remember is that the jury will judge the authenticity of the tape.

All the best, Peter,

How can the jury authenticate the tape if the tape has been alleged to be extesively edited.I have never been picked for jury duty if I were on this jury I hope that I would be bold enough to raise this as an issue to my fellow jurers.

Lynn said...

Eraserhead, heard the phrase sell your granny? I don't think loyalty to personal friendships is even on the horizon in this trial.

Steve said...

Does anyone know what the penalties are for being in contempt of a Scottish court?

Or allegedly so in the judge's opinion, if that's an appropriate qualification in this instance.

Thanks again, legal eagles.

Lilybelle said...

@ Lynne. I think it might be very relevant, especially today.

Lilybelle said...

The 2 witnesses that have been mentioned, Helen Allison and Anne Colvin, have nothig to do with the SSP, or any political party. They are by all accounts, just a couple of wee "wimmin", who seem to have become embroiled in this totally by chance, therefore, their testimony is important. I believe they even took a lie detector, and passed with flying colours. Yes, it was paid for by the NOTW, but I doubt even they could influence it. TS was invited to do the same, but declined, as I remember, from the newspaper reports. He has already denied being at the Moathouse, so is he going to change his testimony? Looking at the press and court statements of KB and M McColl, it is obvious they are good friends of TS, so might they not be trying to turn this around for him, with revese psychology? Seems to me, they are leading up to alluding to the fact that these ladies were in fact "like minded people", and were there specifically to "join the party".
I doubt that there would be any other way to discredit them, unless underhanded tactics were used to attack their character, so I will watch with much interest, what will happen in court today. It would be a terrible travesty for these ladies to have their characters besmirched, if their statements are indeed completely true. Just a thought...

Anonymous said...

Look like you've pre-empted today's events, LilyBelle (Mystic Meg?). Very well done!

Legaly Challenged said...

Lilybelle

Regarding lie detector testing do you know what questions were put to the these people during this test?
And how do you know that they passed with flying colours?
Where does that information originate from perhaps from some Sunday rag IMO.

hadgie the gadgie said...

Those witnesses failed to convince a jury 4 years ago with a much lower bar of proof. They have also been part of the evidence in this trial and so we now know that they received more money from NoW than they claimed in 2006 and also they had been wined and dined by NoW.

This tells me that the Crown had no other evidence to add apart from those witnesses in 2006.

Which means that even after a massive police investigation they didnt not have any evidence from the hotel, like receipts or hotel workers.

This decision also impacts on the evidence of anyone who mentions it, we might see the judge rule to strike the evidence of Baldassara, Scott and others.