Court resumed this morning with the continuation of Tommy Sheridan's cross-examination of Alan McCombes (an account if the yesterday's cross examination can be found Here ) Mr Sheridan opened by returning to the issue of the affidavit Mr McCombes gave to the Sunday Herald newspaper. In this document the witness had stated that the vote in the "9/11" SSP executive meeting had been 19-0 that Mr Sheridan stand down as convener of the SSP. Mr Sheridan asked the witness how many people were at the meeting, and after some discussion Mr McCombes settled on a figure of 21. Mr Sheridan then pointed out that Barbara Scott, as the minute secretary, could not vote and that himself, Kevin McVey and Duncan Rowan had left the meeting before the vote. Mr Sheridan then put it to the witness that this only left 17 people, not 19. Mr McCombes agreed that this was the case but that he could offer no explanation.
Mr Sheridan them moved on to ask Mr McCombes about their "shared political background" as members of the Militant. He put it to Mr McCombes that Militant was a "semi-secret" organisation. The witness agreed but argued that he had been instrumental in challenging that culture of "clandestinity" 20 years ago. He further stated he had not been involved in any factionalism in the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP)
Mr Sheridan then asked Mr McCombes if he was a "keen writer." Mr McCombes responded with "I wrote "Imagine" but we used your name for marketing purposes." Mr Sheridan the asked the witness if was angry that he had got "too much credit" for Imagine. Mr McCombes replied that he had never raised that point with anyone" Mr Sheridan responded "I know you are lying."
At that point the witness addressed the Judge, Lord Bracadale, and objected to Mr Sheridan's comments. Mr McCombes stated that if he was "dealing with a normal QC he wouldn't be able to ask questions like that." Lord Bracadale responded that any QC would have a duty to put issues like this to the witness and that Mr McCombes should answer questions put to him unless the judge himself told him not to.
Mr Sheridan then returned to the issue of the affidavit the witness had given to the Sunday Herald, and asked Mr McCombes if he had been the "mystery snitch?" Mr McCombes said he had wished to tell the party he had given the document to the newspaper, but had been strongly advised not to. The witness then began to speak to the court about the atmosphere at a meeting that had discussed this issue. Mr Sheridan objected and the judge reminded Mr McCombes that he should only speak to events he had direct knowledge of. A further exchange again led to Lord Bracadale intervening to remind the witness to wait for the question to be completed before he spoke.
Mr Sheridan then moved on to testimony Mr McCombes had given in relation to the 2006 libel case between Mr Sheridan and the News of the World (NotW) He highlighted a passage given, under oath, to the commission charged with gathering documents for that trial when the witness had stated that the disputed minutes "were always in my possession" which he said was not true. Mr McCombes challenged the accuracy of the notes and said that there must have been "errors in the transcipt." Mr Sheridan pointed to the record of the 2006 trial when Mr McCombes had been asked about the same quote and had not objected. Mr McCombes responded that he had "not picked it up then." but now realised the error.
There was then an exchange between Mr Sheridan and Mr McCombes on the issue of the disputed minute. Lord Bracadale intervened after an objection from the witness to a question from Mr Sheridan which called the minute a "dodgy and distorted document" and asked Mr Sheridan to avoid such terms in his questions. After further exchanges the judge asked Mr Sheridan to move on from the issue as it had been already covered both today and yesterday.
Mr Sheridan then moved on to Mr McCombes account of a meeting held between the two of them and Keith Baldessera on the 1st November 2004. Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that he had in fact denied any allegations of visiting a sex club at that meeting. Mr McCombes responded "you confessed" at which point Mr Sheridan produced his diary for that date in which was written "Mtg KB/A McC row they don't believe me" Mr McCombes said this could have been added at any time. Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that "just because you repeat something over and over again doesn't make it true."
The testimony of Mr McCombes then moved into the video tape made by George McNeilage that allegedly shows Mr Sheridan making admissions in relation to the case. He accused the witness of having "helped write the script for that tape" Mr McCombes called this a "scurrilous accusation," demanded Mr Sheridan provide evidence for the statement and "that is your voice Tommy." Lord Bracadale again intervened and the jury and witness left the court.
After court resumed Mr Sheridan again returned to the disputed tape and asked Mr McCombes how much George McNeilage had been paid by the NotW. The witness said he "had an idea" from comments made in the press to which Mr Sheridan put it to him that it had been 200,000 pounds. The witness denied he had "taken a penny" of this money. Mr Sheridan then put it to Mr McCombes he would profit from the case as he had a book deal. Mr McCombes said he was writing a book but that it was a "work in progress" and he had received no money other that a 6,000 pound advance. When Mr Sheridan asked who the publisher was Mr McCombes asked Lord Bracadale if he had to answer the question as he had signed a confidentiality agreement with the publishers. The judge allowed Mr Sheridan to ask if the publisher had any connection with News International, which Mr McCombes said it had not. Mr Sheridan finished his cross-examination by putting it to the witness that he was a "cool and calculated liar." which he denied. Mr Sheridan then returned to the dock.
The Advocate Depute, Alex Prentice QC, then briefly re-examined the witness on the issue of the video tape. The witness again denied having "scripted' the tape and called such allegations "truly bizzare" With that Mr Prentice ended and Mr McCombes was allowed to step down from the witness stand.
20 comments:
Gonnae get the clock fixed - you seem to still be on BST.
(Really posted at 1330 or so).
Another lively session between TS & an SSPer. I thought McCombes was the most robust of all the SSP witnesses so far called - he seemed credible and did not make any significant changes in evidence.
TS was also not able to control him at all - some witnesses have gone off on a rant before, which may have been entertaining, but was not usually that relevant, but McCombes was much more controlled and made a series of very effective points in the course of answering questions - although admittedly, not always answers to the question he was asked.
In particular, he didn't fall into the trap others have of claiming to know something when it was clear TS was about to produce evidence to the contrary.
He also seemed to get under TS's skin more than other Crown SSP witnesses, and was surprisingly able to appeal to the judge a couple of times regarding the nature of TS's line of questioning - I thought this was a big no-no for a witness.
It was interesting to see Bracadale make more interventions again today - he seems to be tightening the leash during TS's cross-examinations - both on TS and the witness. He was noticeably cross a couple of times, especially on one occasion with McCombes when he talked over the judge! Ouch.
On a less specific point, it was very annoying to see 30+ seats police-taped off in the public gallery. I checked with te High Court reception, and this was due to audible tutting and talking during McCombes's testimony yesterday from the public gallery near the witness.
I'm sure regular attendees will be able to make a good guess as to who was responsible for this, but to reduce the capacity of the court, make it look like a crime scene (which it may well be if further accusations of perjury are pursued after this trial) and make it much more difficult to attend for the public seems disproportionate for the sake of having a word with the one or two responsible and keeping an occasional eye on them.
Mr McCombes said he was writing a book but that it was a "work in progress" and he had received no money other that a 6,000 pound advance. Nuff said
He also mentioned he gave the £6k to his teenage daughters & their mother.
If his account is true, I can't see why writing a book about this whole saga would be unreasonable. Someone is certainly going to write one, whether McC does or not.
On further reflection, if McCombes's account is false, it will make an even better book.
Tommy sold his story for 20K to the Record after he won his libel case didn't he?
Tommy sold his story for 20K to the Record after he won his libel case didn't he? Yes, and your point is caller?
I believe both Tommy and Gail had contracts with Trinity Mirror, but I think half the SSP wrote for some rag or other, elected for a workers wage and anything they could make on the side and all falling over each other to get into the papers. What would really interest me is If News International published a list of any of those involved who had offered them information prior to the fall out, I'm sure there will be one.
Once again contrary evidence to the police statement and the testimony in 2006. How many witnesses have done that now?
McCombes also has the added problem of being the 'mystery' author of the affidavit which left his assertion that he was doing it for the party a bit hollow, when he did not consult the party. He has been shown, in my opinion, to be a person who has 'managed' the whole affair. That doesnt mean he was wrong or that he is lying, but it doesn't do much to prove the indictment against Sheridan.
Sheridan is doing well to get the SSP witnesses to start ranting, it backs up his position that this is a hostile and bitter political battle. It doesnt prove anything, but Sheridan doesnt need to prove anything.
I really don't get why the SSP seem to think that approaching this in such a manner helps the prosecution. Its almost as if there are two trials going on, one to decide if the Sheridans lied in court, one to show who acted properly within the Scottish Socialist Party. The SSP witnesses are taking part in the latter.
Prentice will be glad to get back to other issues, he isnt being allowed to lead the prosecution, as some witnesses think that they know better than him and go off on their own agenda.
Re: Perry Freemason
McCombes also has the added problem of being the 'mystery' author of the affidavit which left his assertion that he was doing it for the party a bit hollow, when he did not consult the party. He has been shown, in my opinion, to be a person who has 'managed' the whole affair.
I think he might admit to that - he was after all the press & policy guy at the time, and seems to have been the person most in charge of the SSP behind the scenes. It would have been his job to manage any such situation.
While the revelation that he was behind the Sunday Herald Affidavit was a bit of a head-scratcher at first, his explanation of this now makes sense to me, particularly when the carefully vague content of the affidavit is seen.
Also, I didn't think McCombes's testimony was in conflict with the 2006 testimony in any significant way.
The debate about whether he had the minutes "always" or "all" in his possession didn't seem that important, and when taking into account how he referred to having them "temporarily" in earlier police testimony makes me agree with McCombes's assertion that he didn't say "always", as it wouldn't have made any sense at the time. It would have been interesting seeing how Paul McBride would have handled that area, though.
What areas did you think differed significantly from previous evidence?
From memory, TS donated his money from the newspaper work to charity and unlike other his accounts were audited by the Big Issue.
Every week he would ask for charities or other campaigns to donate the money to. If you check back issues of the parers for that time you will see that each week the organisation which received the money was listed. Not sure what the others did which their monies as we never saw accounts for them!
The money from any colums written by the SSP MSPs went to the party coffers and/or charity, afaik, not into personal accounts.
"Tommy sold his story for 20K to the Record after he won his libel case didn't he?"
Thirty, and that included the infamous "scabs" story.
whatsy, these were important distinctions for three reasons.
1.It allowed sheridan to show a pattern that he has repeatedly shown to the jury witht several witnesses.
2. Mccombes claimed that the police statement was recorded wrong and that the court record was a misprint - very weak arguments
3. his change of position on the mintues coincides with the testimony of other witnesses, creating a narrative for sheridans defence. if you look at the dates of meetings,events and statements it could be used to suggest a deliberate attempt to conceal
"2. Mccombes claimed that the police statement was recorded wrong and that the court record was a misprint - very weak arguments"
Not really when you consider that polis are human too and that the court record they're using isn't the 'official' one but one recorded by NOTW legal team on terms of cost.
Shug, it was 20k, it was paid to Gail Sheridan for her story and arranged beforethev rseult of the defamation case. The monday interview in the Daily Record where Tommy decsribed some un-named people as "political scabs" was not part of Gail's deal.
There was no "infamous scabs story". It was the Daily Record who chose to single out the word "scab" and attach it to names and pictures.
The money Rosie Kane got from the Sunday Mail didnt go to the party, it went to her tax bill, that is a matter of SSP record.
It wasn't really the Daily Record per se that TS was writing for - it was the Trinity Mirror group, that is why the same article appeared all over their titles. I also recall? Gail doing quite a few "at home" articles for the Mail? Express? Anyway, "writing" for newspapers magazines pretty lucrative. A "ghost written" column in a Sunday newspapers can net 60-100K a year. Lots of politicians ans celebs do this: Alex used to/still does have a Saturday column in the Sun; even the late Jimmy Reid used to write for the Daily Record (controversially too when he slagged of the Miners and had to apologise next week blaming it on a "sub-editor re-wording his column"). And does anyway really believe that Wayne Rooney writes his column, David Beckham his books?
Alex as in Alex Salmond.
"audited by the Big Issue."?! Nuff said!
Re: Perry Freemason
"whatsy, these were important distinctions for three reasons.
1.It allowed sheridan to show a pattern that he has repeatedly shown to the jury witht several witnesses.
2. Mccombes claimed that the police statement was recorded wrong and that the court record was a misprint - very weak arguments
3. his change of position on the mintues coincides with the testimony of other witnesses, creating a narrative for sheridans defence. if you look at the dates of meetings,events and statements it could be used to suggest a deliberate attempt to conceal "
1 - what pattern are you referring to?
2 - I'd like to hear the tape of the 06 trial, as McCombes seemed very certain about what he said, and the point didn't seem worth going out on a limb on unless I'm missing it. What's the big deal about "always" V "all"? How significant is this? Or did TS just pounce on it as an apparent gift of a witness contradicting their own testimony in a tiny way?
3 - could you spell this out for me, as I've followed the case closely so far and I haven't noticed this.
Post a Comment