With that the Advocate Depute, Alex Prentice QC, ended his evidence in chief and Mr Sheridan rose to begin his cross-examination.
Mr Sheridan began by putting to the witness that he had said originally he had seen the tape in 2006, to which the witness agreed. He then asked Mr Moore "you don't like me" to which the witness replied "correct Tam." Mr Sheridan then produced a police statement in which Mr Moore refers to Mr Sheridan as "that little shit" and put it to the witness that that "level of hatred" would be enough for him to lie. Mr Moore responded that "everyone knows what you are" and then told the court about an incident at Cessnock underground station (In Glasgow) where he claimed Mr Sheridan had ignored him.
Mr Sheridan returned then to the question of dates and put it to Mr Moore that he was "confused." Mr Moore replied that he might be "confused about dates but I'm not confused about you sonny" and called Mr Sheridan's claim that he had been telling the truth about seeing the tape in 2006 as "pure delusional" Mr Sheridan then ended his cross examination and returned to his seat in the dock.
The Advocate depute rose to re-examine and produced a police statement by Mr Moore where he gives the date of his viewing of the video as 2004. Mr Moore called any suggestion that he had lied to help the News of the World as a "load of shite" and with that the Advocate Depute returned to his seat and Mr Moore was allowed to step down from the witness box.
21 comments:
There seems to be a confusion of dates here at the start of this summary.
It is hard to believe that the Tommy Sheridan on trial now is one and the same Tommy Sheridan that most of those who have testfied were happy to be associated with when vying for seats in the Scottish Parly.
It is also beyond belief that this bile being spouted is simply because someone allegedly failed to tell the truth.
If indeed it is only in regard to truth Mr.McCombes has a hard time in front of him.
Hello Steve, the confusion was in the testimony not my account.
Can you clear that up James as I am a bit confused too?
Did the witness confirm with the AD that he first saw the tape after the trial in 2006, then confirm this again when questioned by Sheridan. But the AD then re-examines and he confirms that his account in an earlier police statement, that he saw it in 2004, was actually correct?
Maybe an SSP'er could clear this up for me as the dates thing has been bugging me. McNeilage says that he taped Sheridan because of the things he was saying about his comrades. Didnt that happen in 2006, when he called them scabs in a newspaper.
I am sure that earlier witnesses had said that they were angry at Sheridan citing family reasons in 2004 and that he didnt start talking of conspiracies until much later. Or am I reading it wrong?
Poor show again by Ts's trying to make out that Mr Moore was a senile, old git - this witness was as sharp as a tack. We all saw that. Anyway, another day, more "liars".
@ In Dependent:
As far as I know, you are right. Family reasons were cited as the time, and many of the meetings I went to at the time gave NO evidence at the time of a conspiracy. Indeed the mood in the party was very much one of unity. It was only much later, as the trial approached in summer 2006, that these conspiracy claims by TS were made.
Thanks Bobby, that is what I took from the witness accounts. But McNeilage and McCombes seem to tell a different story. McCombes felt pressurised to go to the papers and McNeilage felt compelled to make this tape because, they claim, of what Sheridan was telling press and saying about their friends.
Even when Sheridan does start to talk about a conspiracy, they keep this information quiet. Then, when Sheridan wins his libel case, McNeilage announces the tape. That sounds more like the time he would be reacting and making the tape if it was inspired by what Sheridan was saying about them
McCombes, it appears, keeps away from papers and defies courts to keep the party's confidentiality when Sheridan is making the worst accusations, yet he claims that Sheridan's response forced him to go to the newspapers when it looks like Sheridan was saying nothing except the party line.
Apologies if I got this wrong, its difficult to put together, But when todays witness said he first saw it in 2006 because 'something had to be done' it chimed with my confusion.
I think Caroline Leckie said that she didnt even know Sheridan was suing about the Anvar Khan story until 2006. Until then she says that they hought the libel trial was about the other woman.
On that note, what happened to the woman McGuire? The indictment doesnt refer to her.
It is only when you become aware of conspiracy that you can speak out,it is not at this point that the alleged conspiracy starts systems can be in play long before awareness and like all such efforts the fewer that are aware the easier to conceal.
In Dependent: I think you are a bit mixed up here, the tape was (allegedly) made in 2004, shortly after TS had resigned.
GM only sold the tape after the civil case (Sept 2006), as he didn't want to 'do tommy in' - he had likely assumed TS would lose the case he brought against the NoTW, and certainly didn't want to be considered a 'grass' (as TS called him in court in the current trial). This was also the position other SSP witnesses in the 2006 trial were forced into in being made to testify in the case that TS brought against the NotW. They (according to their testimony) weren't willing to lie for TS, but at the same time didn't want to 'do him in'. I suspect it's for this reason that a couple of witnesses have had some small differences in testimony compared to 2006 - especially where in 2006 they might have claimed to not be able to recall certain things that in 2010 they can refer to.
Did Katrina Grant not also testify (several times) that she didn't like him? Surely it's fair enough not to like him, even hate him but surely you wouldn't include people who are openly hostile and even publicly hostile to Sheridan in a plot because they would be a liability? I wonder why Katrina and Willie don't like him and is this post 2004 or pre 2004? Does anyone know?
"Surely you wouldn't include people who are openly hostile and even publicly hostile to Sheridan in a plot because they would be a liability?"
I doubt you could get people who like him to plot against him....
You are probably right that I am getting mixed up Anon. It is quite hard to put it together.
The testimony from Moore that he first saw it in 2006 reminded me of what I thought McNeilage had said, that he had made the tape because of things Tommy Sheridan had said about his comrades.
Although you are definitely wrong about it being a couple of witnesses with small differences. We have seen the date of the alleged swingers thing moved a whole year by one witness and months by another so that they now fit together. And we saw someone who had said that he didnt go to the swingers club now say that he did.
And the early part of the trial we saw a whole load of differences re the minutes, about who had them, when they first saw them, if they had been destroyed etc.
Perhaps I am wrong re what Mcneilage said. It could have been that he sold it to the newspaper after the things Sheridan said about his friends, it isnt easy to follow.
Hello In Dependent, If you look below I used some of the free time this week to write a summary of the defence and the prosecution cases so far. That, hopefully, might be of assistance.
@In Dependent,
Tommy may have officially been saying nothing but the party line in 2004 but after he resigned there was quite a lot of media speculation about him being removed as part of a conspiracy.
I think the Daily Mirror ran a story that a 'lovers plot' between Carolyn Leckie and Alan McCombes had removed Tommy from the convenor's position.
Alan McCombes testified that he handed the affidavit in allegedly because of Tommy briefing the press on the sly. Alan could have suspected Tommy was behind the Daily Mirror story.
AM gave the affidavit three days or so after the 9/11 meeting so I don's see how a daily mirror article could have been the reason.
Well Sceptic on that logic an awfy lot of people didn't like him including pals who go back to school days and been in politics a long time, even his best man and all his work colleagues (except Rosemary Burn) - why did so many people dislike him so much they were in a plot against him including random people (Elizabeth Quinn and two people who knew Katrina Trolle)? My point is it wouldn't be good to involve people who were openly hostile to him that's all.
I can't get through to the court but do follow this blog and have talked to a couple of people who have been to court, but I can't work out what the plot against him is/was and it sounds very complicated and also doesn't sound like the "plotters" have actually got together to get their story right. I would love to know what actually is happening rather than what appears to be happening.
It seems that some would have it the only witness who has told the truth so far is Jock Penman.
Are the mobile phone companies are in on this conspiracy as well then?
No doubt there were and are factions in the left, but to perjure yourself? Are we to believe doing Tommy in is so important to his former friends and colleagues? We've either heard from one very stupid person so far, or 14 very stupid people.
One things for sure, there will be further perjury cases to be heard in the wake of all this.
The shameful bit is that all of this needn't have happened, and that the SSP could still have had a voice when they are most needed.
It could be argued that by scuttling off to the police and the courts the SSP leadership exposed their true colours before it really mattered.
Imagine that lot in a real struggle?
"Are the mobile phone companies are in on this conspiracy as well then?" - possibly. Bogus data?
Only one person took it to the courts.
Awesome information, many thanks to the article writer. It’s understandable to me now, the effectiveness and importance is mind-boggling. Thank you once again and good luck!.
Post a Comment