This morning as the court commenced Lord Bracadale, the presiding judge addressed the jury to tell them no more evidence would be heard today.
Lord Bracadale said "I have to tell you that Mr Sheridan is unwell. You will see that he is not in court Yesterday afternoon he went to see his doctor who certified that he is unfit to attend court at present."
The judge then added " "The doctor will review the position on Thursday. Mr Sheridan himself wishes, if at all possible, to continue the trial on Friday." before concluding "In these circumstances, there is nothing else to do, but adjourn the case until Friday morning."
50 comments:
Flu?
Get well soon, Tommy! All the best, mate!
Hello all, for obvious reason's I will be deleting any comment that attempts to cast doubt on what the jury was told this morning about Mr Sheridan's illness.
Hello James are new posts to older blogs not being posted?
I understand you must be extremely busy with your daily grind,your efforts though are greatly appreciated.
If time is such an issue, why didn't the Court continue on with business by leading some of the evidence against Gail Sheridan?
Hello anon, I'm posting comments to any posts, as long as they pass moderation.
I suppose that the Court could have continued "out of turn", but that would have been inhumane considering that Tommy is an ill man and will need Gail by his side. Lord Bracadale is not some sort of Barbarian.
BTW, adjourned has a d.
Cheers Steve.
I'm not sure if you know whay id really going on behind the scenes but some of us do.
Court insider, I've left your comment up just to highlight the sort of stuff that is cluttering up my inbox.
I have no information about any change of plea, and with all due respect neither do you. So lets stick to what we know and save the ill-informed speculation and spurious claims of inside knowledge for the pub, where they belong.
On second thoughts I've taken it down
yeah people should shut up and leave the speculation to the pub. if tommy makes a full recovery the trial will continue on. besides, the accused is always allowed to re-consider their position at any point in a trial, especially after a significant piece of evidence is introduced. have a speedy recovery tommy, all the best to you, gail and wee gabrielle.
So, can we expect a "significant development" come Friday?
That is again speculation anon. I've not seen or heard anything that suggests there is anything more than illness involved, although I can appreciate that some might be inclined to read more into it.
Tommy taking ill the day after the McNeilage tapes evidence!? - In my opinion people should be forgiven for speculating.
I, like God, do not play with dice and do not believe in coincidence.
Does everyone have to read something extra into every single little thing?
At the very least, conducting your own defence is bound to be stressful, and sustained stress lowers your immune system. Now that we're moving into winter, I'd be amazed if TS was not ill before the end of the trial.
But Whatsy, this blog covers every conceivable angle so whatever happens you'll never be taken by surprise - you'll have read it first here. In my opinion, TS hasn't been eating his greens, he was sneezing all over the place on Monday.
I don't see the point of resuming the trial on Friday, Tommy would be best to leave it until Monday at the earliest, gives him the weekend to build up his fighting strength.
Maybe Tommy needs time out to catch up on this blog.
Looking at the picture in the Scotsman I would say he is not to well.
Thanks James for all your hard work doing the blog which is great. I bet you can do with a well deserved break. I hope Tommy gets well soon.
Vanesa
Yes, a well deserved break for James. It's an ill wind...
I'll not be a happy bunny if this case doesn't run long enough to have Coulson under oath.
Not happy at all.
Me neither, Anon, I'm looking forward to the odious creep taking the stand, but it wont be the first trial that has collapsed one or another. In truth, only a very small proportion of trials reach the stage of a Jury delivering a verdict.
In all honesty, irrespective of his guilt or innocence if the evidence is weighing heavily against him, TS will I strongly suspect be urged to reach some sort of "deal" with the Crown, this is a common-place occurrence in courts up and down the land every day. If any aspects of the indictment are "proven" it could possibly be in TS's best interest to 'fess up, in all probability he may be let off with a spell of Community Service, rather than the more likely prospect of pushing an "embarrassing" trial through to the end. This is all theory though because in practice it apparently doesn't make any difference. Only TS really knows the truth of his own actions. I would hate to see an innocent man being pressured into admitting something that he is innocent of - that would be a travesty of justice.
It's good to see that people aren't getting carried away with speculation about Sheridan's illness, and that it's not allowed.
It's a shame the same can't be said of speculation on SSP witnesses.
How does it feel for some now the shoe is on the other foot?
almost all of the specualtion has been about sheridan, a quick look back on any of the days in this blog will confirm that.
This is nonsense, the judge stated that the doctor had 'certified' sheridans illness, out of that grows a story about a deal.
You couldnt make it up, well actually you could, and some have done
Bad thongs happen in this world which never get scrutinized, blair and the iraq war for example, why is there a perjury trial at all? Does anyone really care? It's depressing watching so called former friends berate Sheridan in open court, I guess he has no choice but to come out fighting. It's sad to see the drawn looks on their faces. You would have thought they were trying a mass murderer. No it's about whether a former politician lied about going to a swingers club. Hmmm.
Were into this trial by about 4 to 5 weeks now and people are still commenting anonymously.
What's the point? How are we meant to follow any kind of conversation if we can't keep track of who we are replying too?
It also means we can't keep track of who is making the most pathetic arguments. And my god there are a lot of them. Maybe it's just the one person being very busy.
I should have added to my post at (November 9, 2010 8:51 PM):
Let see how some react when people are questioning every little error made by the defence witnesses. When good socialist campaigners defending Sheridan get ridiculed and suspicion thrown over every comment they make.
Do you think anything will ever make Sheridan regret taking the NotW to court? Or if he does regret it he'll ever admit it?
lol well you are always welcome to go watch Bernard Ponsonby or Raymond Buchanan. Watching that pair you'd think that they were at a different trial, let's leave sensationalism and titillation in that pairs capable hands; this blog is for those with a genuine interest in this trial.
Jessica Fletcher, I appreciate your posts but one good thing so far about the comments section is we have, despite the obvious division and emotion attached to this case, managed to keep things civil.
I'd like us to keep it that way if possible.
Saddened said:
"No it's about whether a former politician lied about going to a swingers club."
Well I get where you are coming from.
Really though it's about whether he committed perjury in attempt to gain £200,000.
Blair and the war in Iraq has been scrutinised. Repeatedly. If you or anyone else has a decent plan for getting a case raised at The Hague, I'll drop everything I'm working on at the moment and join you.
James... I can't believe you have deleted my last comment.
What was uncivil about it?
The reference to the trial being about perjury for the gain of £200,000?
The reference that the Iraq war has been a constant source of debate and that I'm willing to help anyone that has a decent idea on how to get it raised at The Hague?
Maybe it was the way I worded it at one point, but I can honestly say that it wasn't intended to offend.
I have not deleted any of your comments Jessica, it was just delayed in moderation as I was making some tea.
"I have not deleted any of your comments Jessica, it was just delayed in moderation as I was making some tea."
lol
Sorry... crossed messages there.
Making tea James !! As a previous post said, it's an ill wind. Or so I thought when I landed up off work with flu as this site was the only thing I had to keep me from dying of day time TV boredom then I read about the adjournment! Does anyone think that TS missed the opportunity to appeal to the sympathies of the jury - brave Tommy laden with flu (or whatever) battles on to clear his name. Then again I can't believe he did't think of that. I must say that this blog has been so interesting; not just in following the trial but I also find my spelling, grammar and knowledge of the Scottish Justice system (which was nil) have improved. So thanks you brainy literate lot, and they say that the Scottish education system is failing!
The incubation period of 'flu is a couple of weeks; in a confined space such as an office if someone catches the 'flu, everyone else soon starts dropping like nine-pins. We wait and see...
Let's not get carried away with ourselves here ppl...there are many of us who may look healthy on the outside - but perhaps not all is quite so well on the inside: Crohn's Disease, ulcers of an internal nature, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Atopic Dermatitis (extreme - that may not show up above the neckline), depression to the extent that it is debilitating, flu (obviously) - I could go on.... For a trial which is set to last maybe 5 months, one can expect adjournments caused by genuine illness.
So let me get this straight if I can. Is the suggestion that the doctor who 'certified' Sheridan's illness is in on a con? Is Lord Bracadale lying about the illness being certified? Is something stange and exciting about to happen?
Or has Sheridan got a bit of a cold and has to stop for a couple of days?
I mean, after 5 weeks in Scotland, the idea of someone getting a cold or any other illness is ridiculous right? It never happens in any other workplace at this time of year does it?
No, it must add up to a major behind the scenes scandal that is about to emerge. Anyway, I have to go now, I've been called out to cover for workmate who is off with a bug. Or is she......?
"No it's about whether a former politician lied about going to a swingers club. Hmmm."
Indeed it is, a lot of trouble over nothing if you think about it. Was it worth it? I mean going to court to sue for libel to gain £200,000 as a MSP who lived on a worker's wage. I still don't understand why he did this.
Why did he not just ignore it after all it would appear that his family were accepting of some of his choices.
The issue isn't he went to a swingers club (allegedly) but the fact he lied in court about it - a court action he initiated and gained £200,000 that is the problem
Who advised him that this would be a good idea?
The precedent is Archer and Aitken though isn't it? If he hadn't got £200,000 I don't think the court would have pushed it but hey couldn't leave it if it was obvious.
What are you saying, Jim - that £200,000 is chicken-feed? Well, not to me and most other workers on an ordinary wage, it isn't!
In my opinion it's not 'flu, more likely to be "stress".
Jim who except GMn has gained or recieved £200.000 as far I know any monies awarded to T.S is outstanding on appeal by the NoW.
Not at all, £200,000 isn't chicken feed it's a lot of money, that's my very point.
That is why it is serious if he did lie in court because he was technically defrauding News International. That's why it has gone to court and he has been charged with perjury.
My understanding too is that Sheridan has not received the money because News International appealed, but technically he still has it, it is just on hold so to speak pending this trial I would imagine.
Sheridan doesnt need hard evidence of a plot, he only needs evidence that casts doubt or disproves the prosecution evidence.
I think Bobby's assertion that some people giving evidence are prepared to lie for Sheridan is a bit dodgy for this website.
Unless we also consider that those against Sheridan also line up in two camps, those who have already made their minds up that he is guilty, and those who know he is innocent but are prepared to lie in court.
Hello Perry, I've taken it off.
Bobby if you want to redo your comment without that assertion I'd be happy to post it.
Post a Comment