The next Crown witness on Wednesday afternoon was William (Liam) Young, a branch organiser for the SSP. After taking the oath Mr Young told the court about a meeting he had with Mr Sheridan around January 2005 in the Rat and Parrot public house. The witness testified that during this meeting the defendant said told him that he admitted attending the Manchester Cupids club at the SSP executive meeting on the 9th November 2004. Mr Young stated that he then asked Mr Sheridan "why are you telling me" to which Mr Sheridan had responded that the party had been damaged by the actions of the executive, which had "panicked" and he wanted to organise to "hold them to account."
Mr Sheridan then asked the witness if he had received a copy of the minutes of that meeting in 2006, Mr Young said at first that he did not think he did, but when shown the minuted recalled receiving them when they were sent out to the SSP membership. Mr Sheridan then asked the witness if he was a member of the United Left. Mr Young stated he had never joined the group but had attended "several meetings" and had also signed it's launch statement. He denied however that this group was a "party within a party."
Mr Sheridan then put it to Mr Young that his testimony was part of a "political campaign" to "back up the SSP" which the witness denied. He asked Mr Young "why would I tell you" and there was "no logic in me telling you." The witness replied "there is not a lot of logic in a lot of things you do Tommy." Mr Sheridan then put it to the witness that he had lied, to which he responded "no." Mr Sheridan then ended his cross examination and, as the Advocate Depute declined to re-examine, Mr Young was allowed to step down from the witness box and leave the court.
20 comments:
The witness replied "there is not a lot of logic in a lot of things you do Tommy."
Sums this whole disgrace up.
What seems to be contrived about this is the idea that Sheridan confessed to confessing, rather than confessing to going to the club.
The prosecution indictment is heavily leaning towards the idea that Sheridan confessed at that meeting. If they cant prove he was at the club, proving he confessed will do. It surprises me that, 2 years after the meeting, he would want to confess to confessing at the meeting.
We also heard in court that the video tape allegedly has Sheridan saying that confessing was the biggest mistake of his life. Is it really feasible that the man they are portraying as sleekit and cunning would make that mistake again two years later to these people for no reason. Not only that - volunteer the confession, almost pushing it at them?
Doesnt seem credible to me.
If it doesnt seem credible to you that may be because you are prepared to see only one possible explanation for this evidence. If TS was trying to garner support for some counter-push then he might try to suggest to potential supporters that the SSP wasn't supporting him even though he had been honest with the party.
I dont think I am only prepared to see one side Bunc, dont know where you got that from.
The point I was making was that it seems incredible that 2 years later Sheridan would want to talk about the confession at that meeting after he allegedly said confessing was his biggest mistake.
If it was an attempt to garner support for a counter-push, where is the evidence of this? Is it only two people, rather than a push across the thousands of members they claimed to have.
You seem to take any point as either for or against Sheridan.
If I accept that the tape is genuine then I dont think the idea of him going for another round of 'biggest mistakes' seems credible. And I would think that if he was confessing he would be confessing to the event rather than confessing to making a confession. Hope that is not too confusing for you.
Afaik they were talking about a 2004 in the Rat & Parrot, not 2006, ie shortly after the EC. the implication being that TS was trying to garner support around this time from the men who testified on Wed (CMcC, JMcV, LY)
My notes say that Mr Young gave a date of Jan 05 anon.I've updated the post to reflect that.
No, it was early in 2005, for Young and Macarthy, a few months after the mcneilage tape was supposedly recorded and 2006 for MacVicar.
If you do accept the video as genuine (hopefully there will be forensic voice experts soon to put the is it or isn't it sheridan's voice debate to rest) then he's basically describing people that he doesn't trust (particularly women) in those terms used in the video - Carolyn Leckie, Catriona Grant, Frances Curran etc) then it seems pretty plausible to me that Sheridan would be trying to get Young, McVicar and McCarthy onside as they have all stated they were in SML with Sheridan - especially given his alleged 'working class boy' comment to McVicar, he could have been trying to play to lad's lad instincts and get these 'Millie men' on side (esp as he allegedly stated anguish at being unable to keep McCombes and Baldessara onside)
Forensic experts wont be verifying whether it is Sherdidan's voice or not. There is no forensioc science rigid enough for the courts purposes when it comes to voice recognition. The forensic reports will be on the actual tape and recording.
How do you know what forensic witnesses will be saying? Most disturbing if you have any actual knowledge of their evidence in advance.
I dont, I know that voice-recognition is pretty much useless in Scottish courts and that when tapes like this appear the questions are on the authenticity of the tape, whether it has been edited etc.
Let's wait and see but I dont think Prentice would bring voice-recognition to the court, other than having people who know Sheridan ID him as he has done. It isnt a proven forensic science.
But you should calm down about it, dont get disturbed.
Well, ok, but I refer you to when Mr Sheridan said in public "it is my voice, but it's been spliced" - they'll be able to prove or disprove that
Forensic experts wont be verifying whether it is Sherdidan's voice or not. - that's an interesting point. Say for the point of argument, that's it's impossible to say one way or another whether someone's voice is recorded onto a tape. Where does this leave CCTV then, how can you know for definite that an image is someone? Or can the CCTV?/tape? be used only to corroborate another piece of evidence? If someone can be sent down because they have been spotted on CCTV, why not if they have been recorded on audio, or am I missing something?
voice recognition is nowhere as good as evidence as visual recognition.
anon 3.03 sheridan isnt an expert so him saying 'spliced' back then doesnt have a bearing on this case.
and voice recognition is already used in this case, by people familiar with sheridans voice.
expert analysis will look at the parameters of sheridans voice and look for comparable points. It doesnt confirm its his voice but can be used to back up other evidence.
the main focus, IMHO, will be on the actual recording and whether any tampering has been done. If its shown that any tampering has been taken place the judge can decide to rule it as inadmissable.
On a simple point of law, a ruling on evidence being inadmissible would have to have been taken before the evidence is admitted to court.
Logically, if you are saying that tampering would mean the judge dismissing the tape - thus rubbishing its authenticity - then no evidence of tampering should lead to the judge telling the jury it's authentic. Neither will happen. But the tape's here to stay, whether that's uncomfortable for you or not.
But there is two voices allegedly on the tape McNeilage and Sheridan. So say the tape has not been tampered with and is a genuine recording who is McNeilage having a conversation with then - Orville the Duck?
We are expected to believe TS is going around confessing that he confessed at the 9/11 meeting and lo and behold lots (if not all) of these people end up being his worst enemy? Bad luck or the worst judge of character ever? Remember these are people he's known for all his political life.
And this is at a time when you would think the best tactic by far is just stick to the story that he didn't confess. Every time he "confesses that he confessed" theres another person that knows what he says in the paper about scabs etc is a tissue of lies. So why do it? It don't make sense.
Forensic Speech Scientists can state whether the tape sample is a) consistent with known samples of Sheridan's voice, and/or b) distinctive.
www.forensicspeechscience.info
Forensic Linguistics is a newer discipline but is, contrary to the opinions of some commenters, respected and useful. JP French, the biggest and best known UK firm, have helped in many cases, including Scottish ones.
JP French analysed the tape for the news of the World. It was in their coverage back in 1986. It's a very well respected laboratory.
anaon 5.20 - that just isnt a simple point of law, evidence is tested in court and the Judge can instruct the jury to disregard any piece of evidence.
Post a Comment