The court heard from 5 witnesses this afternoon, Ian Campbell, Charlie McCarthy, James McVicar, Liam Young and Jack Ferguson, all of whom are members of the Scottish Socialist Party.
Mr Campbell testified that Jock Penman (a previous Crown witness) had told him "he would lie for Tommy Sheridan" and also about a conversation he had with Katrine Trolle .
Mr McCarthy, Mr McVicar and Mr Young told the court about separate occasions when, they claimed, Mr Sheridan had made admissions to them about a visit to the Cupids club. Mr Ferguson testified that Jock Penman had told a meeting at Tayport that Mr Sheridan had admitted the Cupids visit at the 9th November SSP executive meeting. Mr Ferguson was also questioned about an abusive message that was left on Mr Sheridan's phone.
It was also announced that the court will not be sitting tomorrow and will resume on Friday
Full report to follow.
17 comments:
Does Sheridan really expect us to believe that nearly everyone he has known politically over the past 25 years is in a secret conspiracy against him, along with many others, who have testified to meeting him in dubious circumstances? If Sheridan is proved to be lying, then he is not only guilty of perjury but of a betrayal of former socialist comrades and friends for his own ends. How can any socialist can stand over what he is doing, justify and defend it?
...from 4 witnesses this afternoon, Ian Campbell, Charlie McCarthy, James McVicar, Liam Young and Jack Ferguson,
That's 5 witnesses...
James, Ferguson didnt testify that Penman said that, He testified that his father said that and that Penman didnt challenge it or disagree. His father, Ken Ferguson (SSP press officer) wasn't at the meeting in question.
If Ferguson only testified that his father said something about a meeting in Tayport, then that is hearsay and should not be allowed.
He actually said that penman 'accepted the explanation of the decision of the EC that his dad had given (including admission by TS' and then had gone on to speak & elaborate further', not simply that penman 'didn't disagree' - that's not what the witness said, he said he verbally accepted it
hello all, this is a summary, full report to follow
Oh and it was 5, a long day, thanks for the correction anon
'Does Sheridan really expect us to believe that nearly everyone he has known politically over the past 25 years is in a secret conspiracy against him'
Knowing the individuals involved, I'm afraid the answer to that is yes.
To Anon 0913.
Really? Sheridan must be telling the truth and all those dozens of other people must be lying?
You don't think it is possibly the other way around?
What would the entire leadership of the SSP have to gain by doing in Sheridan, who was (at the time) a great electoral asset to the party?
Even if they all did want to do him in, if that many people were involved, why get the NotW involved? If they've that many people involved in the 'plot to do in poor Tommy', they could have done so democratically within the party.
The conspiracy theory just doesn't fly.
I'm thinking the judge knows whether something is hearsay and when it's allowed, folks.
Hello anon, sorry to delete your comment but we cannot publish anything said in court outside the presence of the jury.
The judge did actually inform the jury of who Friday's witness is
I'm not sure that he did (it's not in my notes) so just to be on the safe side I'd rather we didn't go there.
He definitely definitely did
Sorry anon, I'd rather not risk it.
Post a Comment