After a brief adjournment to allow Mr Sheridan to discuss legal matters with his solicitor regarding the witness, Mr Sheridan moved from the dock to the lectern and began his cross examination.
Mr Sheridan began by explaining that “I am going to suggest you are either confused, very confused, or you are lying, as I have never met you and have never been in Cupid's club. Do you understand?”, to which the witness confirmed she understood.
Mr Sheridan then stated that Ms Tucker had said in evidence that “you met me in 2003 to 2004”, to which Ms Tucker replied that that is when she thought it was. Mr Sheridan then asked if Ms Tucker had had a relationship with Ian Leiper, to which she replied “No, I stayed with him.”, to which Mr Sheridan confirmed with the witness “He was your flatmate”.
Mr Sheridan asked the witness about Tony and Louise Cumberbirch, to which Ms Tucker replied “I was more friends with Louise. I didn't hit it off with Tony due to his lack of respect for women”. Mr Sheridan then began to ask the witness if she knew whether Robbie knew Mr Sheridan, to which point the Advocate Depute objected on the grounds that, “yet again”, a witness was being asked to comment on another witness's opinion. The judge, Lord Bracadale upheld this objection.
Mr Sheridan resumed his questioning and had the witness confirm that her testimony was that Robbie and Mr Sheridan are not acquaintances. Ms Tucker added that Robbie had not been in Cupid's that night as they had argued before entering the club and Robbie had departed. Mr Sheridan then put it to Ms Tucker that she had told the police that she had seen Mr Sheridan standing in a corner in Cupid's, yet she had mentioned earlier that she had met Mr Sheridan outside the club. Ms Tucker responded that in her testimony “I hadn't got that far. I wasn't asked.” and that the first time she had seen Mr Sheridan was outside the club as when they were both about to enter and that Mr Sheridan was "going in to find his friends."
Mr Sheridan then moved on to how Ms Tucker had recognised him, and quoted her previous police statement when she had stated that she recognised Mr Sheridan because she knew his father. Ms Tucker added she had worked with Mr Sheridan Snr. In the "Corkerhill Project." Mr Sheridan then asked the witness if she would be surprised that his father had never lived in Corkerhill and had never worked in such a council project. The witness replied that she might have been confused, and Mr Sheridan responded that this was what he had suggested earlier.
Mr Sheridan then began to enquire whether the witness had ever been approached by News of the World, and at this point Ms Tucker asked permission to speak, and in the absence of any refusal stated “I didn't know anything about this case until the News of the World was on telly, then I was approached...”
Mr Sheridan then stated that the witness had spoken to Ian Leiper before the police spoke to her, and then the Advocate Depute objected on the grounds of hearsay, but Lord Bracadale allowed Mr Sheridan to continue.
Mr Sheridan then asked the witness how she could explain why Louise Cumberbirch couldn't identify the defendant, at which point the Advocate Depute again objected, and the judge sustained the objection.
Ms Tucker then told the court that she thought she had known the defendant's father, but if she was wrong she apologised to the defendant. Mr Sheridan then put it to the witness that she was confused, picked up his papers and returned to the dock.
Alex Prentice, Advocate Depute, then returned to the lectern and began to bring up the circumstances of the witness giving her police statement, at which point he was interrupted simultaneously by Lord Bracadale and an objection from Mr Sheridan, and agreed to not pursue this line of questioning..
Mr Prentice then stated that it had been put to the witness “that you were confused and tell lies”, to which she replied “I don't tell lies. I was confused about ... Mr ... his father.”
With that, Mr Prentice returned to his seat and Lord Bracadale thanked the witness and informed her she was free to go.
By Whatsy
By Whatsy
20 comments:
Corkerhill Project?!, what about this then:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/the-m77-now-corkerhill-residents-are-to-claim-compensation-the-road-that-leads-to-court-1.669966
"By the end of a tense March day 350 trees had been felled, minor scuffles subdued, and a handful of protesters, including Pollok's Militant councillor Tommy Sheridan, were arrested. The residents of the nearby housing estates of Corkerhill and Pollok, who had come to lend their support, drifted home."
#1 What possible relevance has that got to her evidence?
"she recognised Mr Sheridan because she knew his father... Ms Tucker added she had worked with Mr Sheridan Snr. In the "Corkerhill Project."... Ms Tucker then told the court that she thought she had known the defendant's father, but if she was wrong she apologised to the defendant."
I believe this is now becoming embarrassing for the crown, call this fiasco off for pitys sake
Why embarassing? Yet another witness who puts TS firmly in connection with Cupids it seems to me. Given how long ago it was then any confusion about dates doesn't seem surprising to me. She seemed clear and certain enough about his presence there. Of course this might be yet another of the growing crowd of peple involved in a grand conspiracy - yea right. ( it seems to me but the jury will form its own views)
Admittedly some of the witnesses have been embarrassing but Alex Prentice has still landed a few nuggets of evidence, but has he got enough to pull it all together and secure a conviction, that's for the Jury to decide.
I think this has been quite an interesting and informative day evidence-wise.
(i) Yet another witness with strong associations to Cupids claims to have seen Mr. Sheridan there, and (ii) he (Mr. Sheridan, that is) would appear to have the Club's address and/or phone number in his diary - albeit apparently attributed as the details of another person.
I also note that, whilst Mr. Sheridan makes the allegation that the Cupids witness is either mistaken or lying, he makes no comment as to how the clubs address etc. come to appear in HIS diary.
Indeed, Bunc. Just because not all the witnesses have perfect recall from several years ago, and some seem reluctant or embarrassed to be there, does not take away from the cumulative effect of their testimony. Are all these Cupids people part of a conspiracy too?
Plus the evidence of the passenger in the car, Gary Clark - what was his motivation?
It all suggests an answer to one of the central questions: was he at Cupids or not?
5.18.
Are you kidding?
Well Rolo Tomasi, if TS was indeed at Cupids that would convict TS on a charge making him Guilty of Perjury. Of course, for various reasons these witnesses could be confused/lying and TS was no where near Cupids and that charge would fall. That's what we are trying to determine.
No, we are bystanders able to get on with our daily lfe and look into this blog now and again and form our own opinions. It's the job of the jury to decide, based on the evidence and arguments they're having to sift through every day in court and I don't envy them one bit.
I don't envy the Jury one bit either, Lynn, you would need the Judgement of Solomon.
Solomon - we've already had the SSP split down the middle so that can't be the judgement.
> Indeed, Bunc. Just because not all the witnesses have perfect recall from several years ago, and some seem reluctant or embarrassed to be there, does not take away from the cumulative effect of their testimony. Are all these Cupids people part of a conspiracy too?
I think there is another issue/possibility here. This is effectively the second trial on the same issue, and in particular with rather confusing witnesses / witnesses that change their story, one possible explanation could be that they have false recall based on what they heard/read about the first trial.
Ms Tucker said herself: “I didn't know anything about this case until the News of the World was on telly, then I was approached...”. She might, for example, saw someone who looked similar and after watching TS and the allegations that he was in Cupids on telly falsely remembered. Not necessarily likely given the number of witnesses, but as just the growing number of witnesses work against TS, in my view the growing number of 'confusions', 'mistakes' and things that the NOTW got 'wrong' works in favour of TS.
I think this jury will need a hell of a lot of advice from the judge as to the meaning of the evidence and what normally is and isn't accepted as proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Christian Schmidt:
"I think this jury will need a hell of a lot of advice from the judge as to the meaning of the evidence and what normally is and isn't accepted as proof beyond reasonable doubt."
That is something judges are expressly advised not to do, as it trespasses on the jury's function as masters of the fact. He must explain that the burden of proof rests on the Crown throughout, and that the accused does not need to prove anything. He must explain "reasonable doubt", using an apporved definition from case law, but must be careful not to use specific examples of facts in dispute in the case, lest the jury think he has a view.
Some judges do try very subtly to point a jury in one direction, but in my experience juries do not always pick up on these. In modern practice judges tend not to rehearse the evidence at great length, but in a very unusual case like this I suspect Lord B will need to summarise Crown and defence arguments in some detail, particularly to ensure fairness to the unrepresented accused.
There is no unrepresented accused.
One of the accused is representing himself.
@ Voice_Of_Reason - Judges direct Juries that "their is suffient evidence to convict", "but that's not a verdict that's a Legal Direction". What's the difference? By the very fact that a case is being put to the Jury we can guess at the Judge's Opinion. In all my experience I have never found Judge's very subtle at masking their *Opinions*.
Anonymous: the question of sufficiency is a matter of law, which is a matter for the judge. The question of credibility or reliability is a matter of fact for the jury, and the judge must not trespass into that area.
If the judge upholds a submission of "No case to answer", in which the court determines that, taken at its highest, there is insufficient corroborated evidence, the charge does not go to the jury. The judge is not allowed to base his view on how plausible/ridiculous the evidence is.
For example, a great many uyears ago I did a jury trial in a fireraising case. By the end of day 1 the prosecutor and I were both clear that the main witness was blatantly lying. However, there was still enough evidence to create a case to answer, so the charge went to the jury, based upon a wholly half hearted speech from the prosecutor and me taking about five minutes to remind the jury what rubbish they'd heard. He was unanimously found not guilty.
The only recent judge I recall who was blatantly pro-Crown was the late Lord Dawson. There are one or two still living who sail close to the wind, but most are pretty straight down the line in my experience.
Yes, the late Lord Dawson and his rush to "break for luncheon" - the conviction (rape) that resulted out of that rushed verdict/trial was squashed on Appeal.
She was a poor witness for the Crown, the AD had to be pulled up for leading her to the 'correct' year. She also contradicted earlier evidence meaning that of the three 'cupids' witnesses, the jury can only take one of them as evidence. Either Tony Cumberbirch or Pamela Tucker is correct about the amount of people with Sheridan and being present at the house party. Louise Cumberbirch couldnt offer any evidence that helped either version.
When you look at the evidence for the actual visit to cupids, rather then the confessions to visits, it doesn't combine well.
The other three 'cupids' witnesses, the three who claim to be part of sheridan's group, all changed the dates from previous testimony and all were either offered cash from NOW or received payment.
With the defence witnesses and evidence still to be presented, the actual visit to cupids looks difficult to prove beyond doubt on what we have seen, the prosecution have more chance, in my opinion, in proving the confessions. These are vaguer and are about the general idea of visiting the club rather than trying to pinpoint a specific night.
Post a Comment