When court resumed after the lunch break Mr Sheridan rose to address the court to inform the jury that he would not be giving evidence in his own defence but would be calling witnesses. He then called his second witness, Alan Brown, a civil servant at present "on secondment' and working on a full-time basis the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union. Mr Brown told the court he had been involved in politics since the mid 1980's and agreed he knew Mr Sheridan "very well" as they had attended numerous conferences, demonstrations and picket lines together. Mr Brown also confirmed he had been cited as a Crown witness in the present case, but had not been called on to give evidence. The witness agreed that he had expected to be giving evidence about events on the 5th November 2004 when he had attended a PCS rally in Glasgow, which was addressed by Mr Sheridan, and gave the court a brief outline of the events of that day.
Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Brown if he had been following the case as it had unfolded. The witness confirmed he had been as he had thought he was to be called as a witness. Mr Sheridan then inquired if there was any particular piece of evidence he had seen in press reports of the trial that caught his attention. Mr Brown confirmed there was and it related to events during the "September weekend" in 2002, the weekend the Crown alleges Mr Sheridan visited the Cupids club in Manchester.
Mr Brown told the court that he had arranged to meet Mr Sheridan on the Friday night of that weekend, to discuss what he called an attempted "coup in the union" He stated he had met Mr Sheridan outside the Centre for Contemporary Arts (CCA) in Glasgow and around 9.30 pm and then Mr Sheridan had "given him a lift" to his home in Hamilton leaving his company at between 10.45 pm and 11 pm. Mr Brown said he did not know the date of the meeting but was "sure" it was the Friday of the September weekend as it was unusual for him to work during that holiday and that he was certain of the year due to the events taking place in his union at that time. Mr Sheridan then showed the witness an excerpt from the Scottish Socialist Voice of the 27th September 2002 which contained an advertisement for a "people's festival" with the Friday night event taking place in the CCA. Mr Sheridan asked the witness if "it was possible this is the event where you met me" Mr Brown confirmed it was.
Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Brown if he had told him where he was going after he left his company in Hamilton. The witness replied that Mr Sheridan had said something about going to the East End of Glasgow to the "pokie, or something like that." Mr Sheridan then produced his 2002 diary and had the witness examine the entry for the 27th of September. The court was then shown this portion of the diary which has an entry saying "SSP People's festival must attend" and further down the page "visit Cokie-yard" Mr Sheridan asked Mr Brown if he might have said "Cokie" rather than "pokie" when he had left his company in Hamilton. The witness agreed that this was possible.
Mr Sheridan ended by asking the witness if he was sure of his evidence, which Mr Brown said he was, and if he had told the truth to the jury, which the witness stated he had. With that Mr Sheridan ended his evidence in chief and the Advocate Depute rose to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Prentice began by putting it to Mr Brown that he had been involved in politics and trade union work for many years and therefore must have a lot of issues to deal with and lead a "busy lifestyle, a statement with which the witness agreed. Mr Prentice then put it to Mr Brown that 2002 must have been an "intense year" for him, and he must have attended "hundreds if not thousands of meetings" Mr Brown replied "not thousands but a lot" and added "People in Glasgow know the September weekend, it was a holiday and I remember that it was unusual to meet at that weekend" Mr Brown also said again he was sure of the year because of "events in the union." Mr Prentice then suggested to the witness that he might be wrong in his timing. Mr Brown replied "no, I'm absolutely sure it was that Friday." With that answer Mr Prentice ended his cross-examination and, as Mr Sheridan declined to re-examine, Mr Brown was allowed to step down from the witness stand.
185 comments:
Didn't another witness say that TS did attend the event but not on the opening night (the Friday of the alleged Cupids trip) but the next night? So my diary entry does record the dates of the event but that doesn't mean that I was there the whole time. Could the AP not have put that possibility to the witness?
I think even the Sheridan bashers on here cannot believe Tommy has the mutant like ability to be in two places at once.
If this witness is to be believed (and why not as he was originally a Crown witness) then Tommy could not possibly have to Cupids in Manchester that night as Khan and Trolle allege.
He could have only got to Manchester at 5am in the morning - err when it was shut.
He would have needed to drop that guy off, pick up McFarlane, pick up Trolle, pick up Clarke, pick up Khan drive down to Manchester and stop off for petrol(as Khan said he did)share out the condoms, drive off to another house for a lengthy sex party and drive back to Glasgow in the early morning.
Certainly it means they could not have then gone off to another house for a lengthy sex party (as Trolle says they did)
Trolle says they were returning to Glasgow in the early morning but if we believe this guy they could only have just been geting there.
So not cracking open the champagne just yet but putting it on ice.
Yet another anon that appears to dislike any evidence in favour of the defendant? Maybe some of the United Left supporters wish they could lead for the prosecution instead of AP as they are evidently more qualified.
Odd - did TS and this witness only remember this once the witness had seen press reports about this case? Thats what this seems to imply. Very peculiar.
This is certainly a very poweful piece of evidence and to anon above until the trial began everyone thought the date of the alleged Cupids visit was 2001 not 2002. No surprise then that Mr Brown did not come forward before as who would know that Nov 2002 was a significant date?
Where is the forensic evidence to back up this witnesses claims?
"Where is the forensic evidence to back up this witnesses claims?"
Well done you have just won the prize for most desperate post of the year!
TS not giving evidence himself - I wonder why?
Sceptic - irony by-pass?
Hello anon, that has not been mentioned in court so therefore will not be published here.
Sorry but those are the rules I'm afraid.
Yes, OK it's TS not giving evidence himself? and GS? yet in my opinion is what is REALLY significant. Like you, I wonder why.
Mr Sheridan rose to address the court to inform the jury that he would not be giving evidence in his own defence.
What, when there is so much at stake for a young family, come on Tommy, as a man, step up to the mark.
Sceptic said...
This is certainly a very poweful piece of evidence and to anon above until the trial began everyone thought the date of the alleged Cupids visit was 2001 not 2002. No surprise then that Mr Brown did not come forward before as who would know that Nov 2002 was a significant date?
December 3, 2010 6:19 PM
Spot on Sceptic,
If you recall Trolle apparently dismissed the idea that there even was a Cultural Festival that weeken dismissing it as a euphemism for the sex trip.
The huge problem for the Crown is that when it started changing dates around from the libel trial it started to become like the guy on the Generation Game with the spinning plates on top of poles.
You can keep all of them going at first but eventually they start to slow down, but at slightly different rates and they drop off one by one.
Prentice was presumably hoping to keep them all spinning until the end of the trial and then get the hell out of dodge.
It looks like a number of plates are slowing down now and they will be dropping out in slow motion.
I go back to my very earliest post when I said the only case the Crown had at all was the United Left witnesses. Overeach perhaps on the part of the Crown.
I will not be asking for Prentices card any time soon put it that way. Didn't he do well - not.
As I say no champagne yet but treating myself to a nice Bourbon.
In my opinion TS would have to be mad to give evidence, what could he possibly gain by getting up there and allowing the prosecution to cross-examine him? He gets to make a closing speech anyway.
I imagine those calling for him to give evidence either do not understand courtroom tactics, or are part of the group of commentators on this site who seem desperate for Tommy Sheridan to be convicted (whatever the evidence)
What exactly does 'Cokie-yard' refer to and why would Sheridan go there?
Agree there is an air of desperation about some of these anonymous comments now.
I would assume Mr Sheridan will be leading evidence on who or what "cokie" is or was.
Peter said:
He would have needed to drop that guy off, pick up McFarlane, pick up Trolle, pick up Clarke, pick up Khan drive down to Manchester and stop off for petrol(as Khan said he did)share out the condoms, drive off to another house for a lengthy sex party and drive back to Glasgow in the early morning.
---------------
Sorry it's even better than that.
That is just Khan and Troles evidence.
I forgot also to mention the supposed chat outside Cupids with a woman who claims she knew his dad or knew him from the poll tax, he goes into Cupids and has sex with various people, drive everyone to the sex house were he has sex for hours, orders a pizza, drives off with the other woman who doesn't know his dad, has , drives back to the sex house, they all have the pizza in the sex house and he drives back to Glasgow and drops everyone off.
Busy night considering he could only have got to Manchester at 4am / 5am in the morning!
Peter,
you are hardly applying the same rigour to your examination of Mr Brown's evidence as you have to the evidence of scores of prosecution witnesses.
was Mr Brown schooled to give answers? Was he paid by anyone, blah de blah?
You could not be more credulous.
"Clive"
I must say that having been in court for much of the trial that Mr Sheridan;s witnesses have so far been a breath of fresh air. Without commentating unduly on their veracity they have at least stuck to answering the questions put to them without hysterical outbursts or political speeches.
What effect this might have on the jury I do not claim to know, but the contrast certainly made an impression on me and the people I was sitting with today.
Sceptic - desperate to hear the truth more like. Im not sure what TS could have to fear as an innocent accussed. But we'll leave that there.
One thing does intrigue me.
I am not speculating now on what will happen in this case. This is more an exploration of the implications of different verdicts in terms of potential future court proceedings given the type of case that is running.
I am not arging here for or against any particular verdict.
OK Lets assume for the moment that the jury brings in a not guilty in a perjury case like this with the sort of evidence and witnesses we have seen.
That would in effect mean that the jury has chosen not to accept the testimony of those who have, in this case, directly given evidence that TS either visited the sex club or confessed to it.
Now perjury involves not only saying something that was not true but doing so knowingly and with some nefarious or malicious purpose or intent.
It would HAVE to be concluded that those who gave direct testiminy about his confessions or who said they witnessed him at the club had done so falsely , knowingly and maliciously ( or for gain).
You could not conclude that they had testified to something false accidently or innocently - it's a perjury trial at the end of the day and there was no ambiguity about what they were being asked to testify to.
All of which leads to the conclusion that the crown will have no option but to institute perjury chages and potentially a further investigation into some of the prosecution witnesses in the event of a not guilty verdict. No other course of action would have any logic.
I know that technically not guilty and not proven are seen as being the same thing - in terms of the status of the accussed.
But here's an interesting thing - it may not imply the same status for witnesses for the prosecution in terms of subsequent risk of perjury charges.
Not proven would not imply ( to the same extent as not guilty) that the jury felt the prosecution witnesses were lying - merely that their evidence was insufficient to take the matter beyond reaosnable doubt.
The not proven would then lets TS claim his innocence while perhaps avoiding the state being complled to run a farce of yet another round of perjury investigations and charges.
Interesting eh? Views?
@Watcher. Did Sheridan cross examine these witnesses in the same manner as the other witnesses? I.e. calling them liars and accusing them of being involved in a conspiracy against him. If not it's comparing apples to oranges on their reaction to being cross examined by him.
The witness was cross-examined by the Crown not Mr Sheridan Trainspotter, this is the defence case you see.
It was also put to witnesses, whom Mr Doleman has not reported on yet, that they were not telling the truth. Not one that I recall treated us to a 15 minute rant on the subject of their veracity.
Anonymous "Clive" said...
Peter,
you are hardly applying the same rigour to your examination of Mr Brown's evidence as you have to the evidence of scores of prosecution witnesses.
was Mr Brown schooled to give answers? Was he paid by anyone, blah de blah?
You could not be more credulous.
"Clive"
December 3, 2010 6:53 PM
Clive I did say "if" his evidence was true. Read my posts please.
Prentice only asked him if he was confused presumably as the Crown know the defence witnesses have not been paid. You imply you could do a better job than Prentice.
Also this witness has not been caught out about payments and offers of payments as Trolle and Khan were.
He is not a common criminal as some of the defence witnesses are so the jury need to decide who to trust.
Crown did not lay a glove on him.
Exactly Bunc, a not guilty verdict would be effectively saying that the prosecution witnesses (all of them) deliberately, knowingly, willfully and with pre-meditation told lies under oath in a Perjury trial in which the Accused person upon conviction could receive a lengthy prison sentence. Any who does that in my opinion should go to jail for years. In fact anyone lying in court or making false accusation should receive the same sentence that the Accused would have received upon conviction - that is what an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth means.
Sorry all but a not guilty verdict means nothing of the sort, it merely means the jury have not regarded the charge as proven. For example a juror may think a crown witness was truthful but also that other testimony casts doubt on other aspects of the case so they vote not guilty. No conclusion can be drawn on the jury's opinion either way (which is why perjury trials are so rare)
Sceptic - I understand you r point in general terms but think of the specifics here.
Some witnesses have asserted here that they directly heard TS confess or that they directly saw or were with TS at Cupids. No ifs no buts no maybes.
Given the framing of the indictment then a not guilty can only mean that these witnesses were lying. Not mistaken, not accidentally in error - but lying with malicious intent. That would be the same standard that was applied in considering the case against TS woudl it not?
Not guilty woudl be a clear assertion of TS innocence of the indictment as framed. This for example says he lied when he said he did not confess at the meeting. If he innovcent then he did not lie and therfore it must be concluded that he did not confess at that meeting. It follows that those who testified that he did were lying and have perjured themselves.
To say otherwise is to say that a not guilty does not have the force of declaring TS innocent of the charges in the indictment.
Personally I would not like to be on that jury. There is conflicting evidence about the visit allegedly made by TS to the sex club in Manchester. A witness today claims to have been with him in Glasgow. It will come down to who the jury believes. One of the witnesses today, Mr Kerr didn't give the police a statement before the trial, as was his right, and gave his evidence in court. After hearing what happened to Mrs Sheridan when she went voluntarily to Lothian and Borders police, I don't blame him!
The charge against TS of suborning a witness was deleted due to lack of corroboration. Was there any less corroboration at the time of the deletion than when the indictment was served? If the same level of corroboration (ie none) existed at both points in time then clearly there could be no prospect of securing a conviction on that count in law. So why was it pursued?
Doubtless there may be private views on this. Perhaps pertaining to excreta, volume, adhesion (EVA).
Do the Pokie-Cokie?
Mr Sheridan then showed the witness an excerpt from the Scottish Socialist Voice of the 27th September 2002 which contained an advertisement for a "people's festival" with the Friday night event taking place in the CCA. Mr Sheridan asked the witness if "it was possible this is the event where you met me" Mr Brown confirmed it was.
Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Brown if he had told him where he was going after he left his company in Hamilton. The witness replied that Mr Sheridan had said something about going to the East End of Glasgow to the "pokie, or something like that." Mr Sheridan then produced his 2002 diary and had the witness examine the entry for the 27th of September. The court was then shown this portion of the diary which has an entry saying "SSP People's festival must attend" and further down the page "visit Cokie-yard" Mr Sheridan asked Mr Brown if he might have said "Cokie" rather than "pokie" when he had left his company in Hamilton. The witness agreed that this was possible.
Well, call me old-fashioned, but TS's question about the festival and the 'pokie/cokie were surely leading questions and I am staggered that AP did nothing to prevent them.
Not quite so surprised that the usually voluble Sheridan has availed himself of the right to silence. Though the fact he is allowed a closing speech on his own behalf may possibly have a bearing on his decision to sack his counsel and have the last word himself despite refusing to give evidence.
To those posting with legal knowledge, would a not guilty result have direct implications for Alan McCombes, as he had given a signed affidavit regarding TS's confession?
Bunc, lets take a hypothetical example. The crown says Frank is a bank robber and say it happened on the 1st Janurary. I believe the witnesses but the date is unbelievable Frank has an alibi that day that cannot be shaken. Mr Verdict has to be not guilty, the crime could not have happened on the date alleged, however I did believe the witness.
It could well be that as in any trial the course of events has resulted in "legal implications" for part(ies) but to publish details would be Contempt of Course if there are any details to publish. We will have to wait to find out.
Well, call me old-fashioned, but TS's question about the festival and the 'pokie/cokie were surely leading questions and I am staggered that AP did nothing to prevent them
AP has been leading questions through the whole trial,rules for 1
Watcher - that pof course depends on wthere the date is a critical matter in the indictment.
In the case of the SSP meeting there is no issue of dates. the matter is whether something was said or not said. if TS is not guilty ythen he is innocent of confessing at that meeting ergo anyone who says he did is lying - they cannot simply be mistaken. What is there to be mistaken about?
Bunc, one might believe that there was a genuine misunderstanding in the heat of the moment. Or in legal terms that there was no way to prove it was not beyond our old friend reasonable doubt.
Anon, the affavit from Mr McCombes mentions no confession.
Bunc
The perjury issue is not as clear as you imply. For example, DS Fraser I think it was already stated that the police came to the conclusion that Fiona McGuire's claims were untrue. Yet no decision to charge her with perjury.
If the Crown's witnesses found themselves charges with perjury in cases where the accused was found not guilty, I think you would find a greater relunctance of people to become witnesses for the crown. That being the case, it is likely that even if TS is acquitted of all charges, no Crown witnesses will face prosecution - 'not in the public interest' will be the justification.
Thanks 7.41
Well if AP couldn't spot or gave little heed to those leading questions on key evidence, breaches of the same rule of advocacy by the Prosecution would come as no great shock...
I don't see how that is a leading question Jaimesie "you say you heard something that sounded like "pokie" could you have misheard the word "cokie?"
Seems totally reasonable to me.
Re: the reason that they are so many womwn on the Jury, for lengthy trials the Clerk of the Court has to enquire as to the potential Jurors availability; it's more a case that more women have less commitments therefore able to sit on longer trials.
Anon - again I understand the point.
But TS made a point of raising the perjury issue in cross with certain witnesses. A group of people in the court will be aware of this and when thinking about the outcome may possibly ruminate on it in the way I am outlining.
Sceptic - a leading question can be a question that suggests the answer the questioner wants...cokie fits the bill.
Alan Brown expected to be a crown witness. That means that the Crown had a good idea what his evidence was going to be. Surely after spending £1.1m the police would have done a little bit of checking to see if Alan Brown was telling the truth.The fact that the Crown only asked if he was sure confirms, to me, that they couldn't disprove that he meet Tommy that weekend.
It's a resonable point to draw out Jaimsie, esp when you have a diary entry to back it up. Should we have waited for the witness to list every word that rhymed with "pokie" until TS said, thats it!
A jury deciding on a not guilty verdict does not automatically mean that the prosecution witnesses committed perjury. The presumption of innocence means the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
If the jury cannot make their minds up who to believe because of the conflicting evidence, and have reasonable doubt, they must find the accused not guilty. This does not and cannot imply they believe the prosecution witnesses are lying.
I have read many appeals in criminal cases, the Lords always say the jury were entitled to come to that verdict and no one except the jurors are privy to why they came to the verdict,so why are we not allowed to hear the full disclosures that have been made no matter how long it takes?
Still leading - especially as the diary entry was known by the Court already.
Time for some quiet reflection methinks...one of the finest songs ever written about totalitarianism;
Paul Simon
Sounds Of Silence
Hello darkness, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence
In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
'Neath the halo of a street lamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence
And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence
"Fools", said I, "You do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you"
But my words, like silent raindrops fell
And echoed
In the wells of silence
And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming
And the sign said, "The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls"
And whispered in the sounds of silence
"Jamesie Cotter Esq. said...
Sceptic - a leading question can be a question that suggests the answer the questioner wants...cokie fits the bill."
I disagree. 'Could it have been Cokie' could lead to the answer 'yes' or 'no'. That is no more leading than 'Is you name Hugh Kerr', which can also lead to the answer 'yes' or 'no'.
A leading question would have been 'do you agree that what I said was probably Cokie' - still allows a 'yes' or 'no' answer but the question has suggested the expected answer with 'do you agree'.
Factoid: the Simon and Garfunkel fave that our grans love to sign - Bridge Over Troubled Water is actually about DRUGS!, but don't tell gran.
When we drive on our main trunk routes our images are recorded on Traffic master cameras and the data is held centrally. These images have been used for example as counter terrorist tools. You see lots of them if you use the Irish ferries for example.
http://tinyurl.com/2wg9xg8
So I am curious as to why the Crown has not seen fit to dig out the images of Sheridans car making the Manchester trip? In my book if they do not, it is because he never made the trip.
To "anon" oddly enough we do not post allegations from anonymous people trying to publish unsubtantiated evidence about witnesses that has not been heard in court. That won't change no matter how many times you try and post it (what's that, 20 now?)
So yes, if that is what you mean by "my roots" you are quite right.
James, to me the question is not how people on here are responding, but why did AP give Alan Brown such an easy time, especially as he had nailed Hugh Kerr's double standards earlier in the day.
Bad mistake James - you have remained neutral until now!!!
James, I know we aren't doing justice to your reporting but Ithink bloggers might have trial fatigue and it is a Friday night after all. Previous witness said he didn't show at the SSP event till the next night, now someone says that he was there on the Friday so I suppose its 1-1 and we're waiting to hear about the Cokie.
In my opinion there is a lot of clever manoeuvring going on in this trial. It will be interesting to see who out-foxes who.
Sorry posted someone's comment under my log in after editing
That was by Watcher.
What is good about this blog is that we have a complete history of all the witnesses and I have checked out again what was said by previous witnesses in particular KT and AK.
AB has given TS an alibi I agree but there is no evidence to back it up ie phone records/petrol receipts etc.
But there is evidence of phone records re KT - in particular when AP presented them to the Court TS requested for the rest of the afternoon to check the mountains of records.
We will have to see if the evidence is presented by TS.
"AB has given TS an alibi I agree but there is no evidence to back it up ie phone records/petrol receipts etc."
The defence does not have to 'prove' anything - the Crown does. For that reason, the Crown MUST be able to corroborate evidence or the charge would be 'no case to answer'. The defence merely has to show reasonable doubt, and no corroboration of defence evidence is therefore necessary.
Having an alibi is a good defence against an allegation that you were somewhere else, and in this case the alibi evidence is corroborating Tommy's claim that 'I wizna there'.
The jury will have to decide whether the quality of the alibi evidence is strong enough to provide a reasonable doubt - the jury may dismiss the alibi as a mistake over times, or it may decide that the evidence was compelling - in which case it would have to have a reasonable doubt, and acquit.
Thought so James, was Watcher's comment the one that raised a reasonable doubt in my opinion about your "neutrality", but of course that is for the Jury to decide.
9.22.
I think that's a pretty simplistic view. One person in the face of scores does not a reasonable doubt create.
And we've yet to hear TS explain to the jury exactly how this conspiracy against him unfolded and all the disparate players came together.
My view is that Sheridan will have to do a whole lot better than he did today.
I do try my best to be as objective as I can anon. Of course it is up to others to decide if I succeed or not, but it is my aim.
Anon this is not a numbers game, you do not convict someone on the basis you have more witnesses than them.
Also please note the defence does not have to explain anything, never mind exactly. They just need to create a reasonable doubt.
Charlie is right, if every trial ended in the losing side's witnesses being accused of lying, we'd have perjury trials every day of the week.
Instead, we only have this badly performed pantomime to entertain us this Christmas. All it lacks is Gerard Kelly as Widow Twankie making an entrance... but unfortunately he wasn't available.
Oh no he wasn't!
Gerard Kelly R.I.P.
Does GS still not have to provide an alibi? At the very least she has to say: "It wiznae me, I didnae dae it", and if the Jury found that "compelling" enough they would be perfectly entitled to acquit.
Innocent until proven guilty anon, that's the rule. The accused does not have to do anything, the Crown has to prove the charge and if they cannot the accused walks.
Both TS and AP address to the jury will be very interesting.
"Anonymous said...
Does GS still not have to provide an alibi? At the very least she has to say: "It wiznae me, I didnae dae it", and if the Jury found that "compelling" enough they would be perfectly entitled to acquit."
GS has already said "I didnae dae it" by pleading not guilty. Even if no evidence was presented on her behalf, it is still for the Crown to convince the that the evidence against GS is sufficient to find her guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt.'
Depending how this Trial goes it could set a lot of legal precedents. I refer your Lordship to HMA v TS where it was held blah, blah...
8.12 'Could it have been cokie?' When you stand back and look at the context of TS with his own witness in chief and the entry in the TS diary already in evidence, then that question is suggestive because it stands to reason that a defence witness (particularly of the 'comrade' type) is more likely than not to twig that Tommy is hardly going to ask him to agree with a proposition harmful to the defence case.
If this witness is giving alibi evidence for the Friday night then one presumes that an alibi notice has been served (if that applies in Scotland?) and the Defence Statement (again, if necessary in the jurisdiction) contained details of the alibi? Did he mention any Friday night alibi when interviewed?
Having known some Danish people something has been puzzling me for a while.
Essentially I presume Katrine Trolle give evidence in court that her legal name or the name she is now known by is Katrine Trolle.
I presume also that she may have said her married name was Katrine Gray.
Did she:
a) say what her name was before she was married?
b) give her original Danish family name?
Thanks,
Peter.
The BBC mentions Irene Lang being questioned about the alleged minutes.
"Prosecutor Mr Prentice challenged Ms Lang on the reference to "destroy" the minutes or any document regarding "Comrade Sheridan".
She said: "There was a reference to that, but it was not meant literally." "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-11911524
That's sounds like it would have been an interesting testimony.
That will be the next report Jessica. Tune in tomorrow!
Anonymous said...
Exactly Bunc, a not guilty verdict would be effectively saying that the prosecution witnesses (all of them) deliberately, knowingly, willfully and with pre-meditation told lies under oath in a Perjury trial in which the Accused person upon conviction could receive a lengthy prison sentence. Any who does that in my opinion should go to jail for years. In fact anyone lying in court or making false accusation should receive the same sentence that the Accused would have received upon conviction - that is what an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth means.
December 3, 2010 7:11 PM
Was this not the purpose of the investigation ordered after the libel trial was supossed to do, that is find out who had lied under oath I presumed that investigation would have included all who gave evidence at that trial.
It is clear from the number of posts to this blog that during this trial that statements under oath in 2006 do not concur with statements in this trial.
If this investigation was soley to find who had lied there would be more than the Sheridans in court today.
Even the police have doubts about Fiona MgGuire story
if a minute of agreement has been done to say the "diary's" have the correct entries does that not mean an automatic guilty on one of the charges for both of them and someone could end up not going to the cokie in the east end but the big pokie hoose in lee ave.
did someone not post yesterday that they couldnt think of a trial in scotland that the accused was found not guilty after refusing to give evidence? why take the risk if you have nothing to fear? it all sounds contrived, not giving evidence. coulson is meant to be coming next week. was he at cupids? was he at the ssp meeting? has he ever met TS? think the answer to all those questions is no! is it not just as was said earlier a pantomine alowing TS to use very expensive court time to have pop at anyone he wants.
if the outcome of this trial id not guilty or not proven given the weight of evidence there will never be a perjury trial in scotland again. so the crown have to win because with no fear of being charged and prosecuted for lying witnesses will say anything but the truth to help the accused "get aff way it".
is there any truth in the rumour that just like TS did with his wages when an msp (giving half to the ssp) he's going ask the court, crown, police and defence to donate half the cost of the trial to his new solidarity party?
Thanks. It's getting a bit interesting hearing the defence side of things.
I'm quite disappointed we don't get to hear from Tommy, and see how he stands up to being questioned. We've stuck through this trial for some weeks now watching Tommy question witness after witness. Now we hear that the main focus of the trial will not take to the stand himself. I'm a little lost for words.
The defence witness says he was in Hamilton with Sheridan between 10.45pm and 11pm on the night of the visit to Cupids. Lets say it was 10.45pm.
He was alone in the car with Sheridan.
According to Khan and Trolle they were picked up separately.
Supposedly two other men were in the car.
So that would be 3 pick ups possibly 4 if the two men were picked up separately.
If the pick ups were in Glasgow Hamilton is 25 minutes from Glasgow.
That takes us to 11.10pm.
If he made just three pick ups in Glasgow that would take about 10 minutes each conservatively.
That would take us to 11.40pm.
Glasgow to Manchester is 3 and half hours. NB: Khan said there was a rest stop on the way so that would be 15 minutes conservatively.
The journey and the stop would take us to an approx 3.00am arrival in Manchester.
------------
According to the varying accounts of the Crown witnesses in Manchester the following allegedly then occurred:
- a conversation outside Cupids with a woman who supposedly knew his father
- drinks and chat inside Cupids followed by
- a lengthy sex session in Cupids with multiple partners
- wash up and clothes back on
- a further journey out to a house in Wigan about 25 minutes away
- a drinks party in the house in Wigan
- a lengthy sex session with mutiple partners at the house in Wigan.
- clean up, get dressed etc.
- a journey to pick up a pizza
-return to the house in Wigan to eat pizza.
Trolle says the return to Scotland took place started in the early hours of the morning. Let us say that is 5am or 6am.
-------------
So all the events in between the dotted line must have occurred in a 2 hour period - 3 hours at the very, very most.
I don't think that is feasible.
I take it all back the police did do a rigourous forensic examination of the NOTW tape after all.
It appears to have involved the use of the very advanced technique of sitting down and having a little listen to it and thinking it is Sheridan.
That's that sorted then!
From The Independent:
The court also heard from Detective Sergeant Stuart Harkness, 38, who was deputy senior investigating officer in the case.
The Lothian and Borders Police officer said that one of the lines of inquiry was to investigate a tape handed into police which shows a meeting between George McNeilage and a man alleged to be Sheridan in which the latter allegedly makes admissions about his private life.
Under cross-examination from Sheridan, Det Sgt Harkness said police were instructed to "probe the veracity" of the tape.
He said he saw only a "fleeting glimpse" of the figure on the tape and could not say if it was Sheridan.
He added: "My understanding from listening to the tape is it is Mr Sheridan."
---------------
several times i've tried to get a comment published on this site but without success so i'll try again.
on another thread Peter said :
"If you don’t believe that then look up the factional dispute in the WRP when some to gain factional advantage accused their leader of some of the worst things possible - much worse than Sheridan was accused of."
lefty trainspotter asked:
are you both a)comparing Sheridan to Healy and b) saying both were victims of malicious and false claims?
those i think are important questions Peter i'm sure many people would be interested in your answer
Book your seat early James, Whatsy etc
From The Independent
Coulson to appear in court at perjury trial
By Jonathan Brown
Saturday, 4 December 2010
David Cameron's director of communications Andy Coulson is to appear at Glasgow High Court next week to give evidence in the perjury case of former Scottish Socialist Party leader Tommy Sheridan.
The former News of the World editor will be called by the defence on Wednesday or Thursday to answer questions in connection with the publication of sex allegations which led to Mr Sheridan successfully suing the tabloid in 2006. The private investigator Glen Mulcaire is expected to be cited the following week. Mr Mulcaire was jailed along with the newspaper's royal editor, Clive Goodman, for phone hacking in 2007, which prompted Mr Coulson's resignation as editor.
Detective Chief Superintendent Philip Williams, who investigated the affair on behalf of the Metropolitan Police, will also appear.
Mr Sheridan is defending himself in the trial. He and his wife, Gail, who is also charged with lying under oath during the defamation case, deny the charges.
From the BBC: "The court also heard from Mr Sheridan that he will not be giving evidence during the trial."
Wonder what the jury make of that?
If I was GS and had to sit through all the claims that have been made about my husband during this trial, I'd expect him to get up there and give evidence that he was not in the places mentioned and not with the women who claimed to have had affairs with him. What possible motive is there that he is not doing just that?
Indeed, Curious of Govan is right. It is generally accepted that the allegations of sexual misconduct against Gerry Healey were true! If there was a political question there, it was why the WRP allowed him to get away with it for some time before they turned against him.
Is the jury entitled to draw inferences from TS's decision not to go into the witness box? The judge did rule this in the Archer case, but this may not always be the case.
Anon 11:33 Since TS won't be giving evidence he is never going to DIRECTLY addresses the issues that you mention, we are then only left to speculate as to what any possible motives may be.
Some of you should Google the name holly greig and get an insight to how things work on how investigation and prosecution work or don't work in Scotland.
TS's decision not to go into the witness box means that we are NEVER going to hear the answers to the questions that we most want answered, TS's decision only leaves a lingering doubt as to his true position in my opinion.
TS doesn,t need to go in the box as his closing speech to the jury will be his evidence,why would he want to be cross examined by AP???the fact he is defending himself makes it all the more relevant not to go in the witness box i think,to many judges on here,go visit the court
TS is quite right not to go into the witness box. Why take the risk of allowing himself to be humiliated by having to answer potentially very private questions. Imagine the questions he could be asked about how often he liked to have sex, for example.
He doesn't need to answer questions himself if he can call witnesses who can give alibi evidence etc
Yulefae:TS doesn,t need to go in the box as his closing speech to the jury will be his evidence
Complete and utter poppycock!
In a situation where an unrepresented accused has elected not to give evidence, any Judge worth his salt will surely direct the jury that an accused does not give evidence by giving a closing speech. Many defendants think they can 'bulletproof' their evidence from cross-examination in this way. It would just not be allowed to pass without judicial comment and would make it even more likely the Judge would tell a jury they are entitled to draw adverse inferences from a failure to enter the witness box and submit oneself to the same degree of scrutiny afforded the Prosecution witnesses.
A closing speech is not evidence - only comment.
POPPYCOCK,you can say what you like in your closing speech,it,s the jurys job on what to believe as fact or otherwise,take it you dont attend the courts
Ever since Anvar Khan's testimony it was clear that she lied. To believe her story about Cupid's and TS demanded a suspension of disbelief beyond my imaginative powers.
Since then witness after witness has been shown to be paid, to be expecting payment, to be deeply confused or just plain made up porkies.
After Khan's testimony the case should have been thrown out. I presume it has been kept going because it uncovers the seamy side of the News of the World and the police, if not the prosecution service. For this I am grateful to the judge. Even at my advanced age and level of cynicism, much of the ugliness of this case has taken away my breath.
As an afterthought, what point is there is TS taking the stand? Every time he examines a witness he is telling us his views on this case. Even though Mr Sheridan in full flight is a joy to behold, one can have too much of a good thing.
Errr Campbell et al .... disgruntled members of the WRP did in fact use the allegations against Gerry Healey in their factional dispute in their attempt to topple him.
I do not know if they were true or not* but they were certainly used as part of the factional dispute as I say.
So no it is not surprising at all to me that the United Left used the sex stories circulated by the NOTW to manouvere against Sheridan.
It can get very nasty in left parties - not for the faint hearted!
Anyone care to(cough)disabuse me of the above.
* although it was not my party I had a girlfriend back in 86/87 who used to be on the WRP youth committee who had a few tales.
Denizen:
Ever since Anvar Khan's testimony it was clear that she lied. To believe her story about Cupid's and TS demanded a suspension of disbelief beyond my imaginative powers.
I feel the same about the fact that he ever had a sexual relationship with her at all - but he admits hed did.
In my opinion it does look odd an accused not allowing himself to be placed under the same scrutiny that he has placed others under. There is in my opinion a distinct lack of "balance", something does not seem right, does not add up. Based on TS's "tactics" I for one am "drawing a reasonable inference".
Yulefae: No - it is you who seems to have limited Court experience. It is quite wrong to assert that you cannot say whatever you like in a closing speech. There are rules of advocacy and whatever latitude TS grants himself in his usual speeches, he will find himself pulled up sharply by the Prosecution or the Judge if he attempts to bend/break the rules every other defendant has to obey.
DENZIEN:
'As an afterthought, what point is there is TS taking the stand? Every time he examines a witness he is telling us his views on this case.'
Well, quite: cross-examination should be confined to facts in issue and not used to advance comment and views on the case. If Tommy had been represented, his advocate would have had to abide by that rule of advocacy. Just because he has chosen to dispense with his QC, the rule is no different for him.
See: Archbold 2011 at Pages 1282-1283; 8-217 for a precis of the rules of cross-examination.
'Cross-examination should not be used for making comments, which should be confined to speeches'.
Now politicians of Tommy's ilk may be used to making speeches before an adoring public - uninterrupted by awkward questions - in the form of a polemic. Indeed stewards may be on hand to assist Cardonald's peoples' hero and deal with the odd heckler keen to remind all and sundry that in the immediate aftermath of the Poll Tax Riot - instead of helping found the Trafalgar Square Defendant's Campaign - a certain Scottish working class hero told a media baying for arrests that he and the ABAPTF would be 'naming names'.
A polemical style may indeed have served various trade unionists well
when defending themselves in Court in respect of labour disputes etc. But this trial is a lot more personalised because it is all centered on whether TS perjured himself in pursuit of an action not instigated by the masses or their union reps - but run by TS for and by himself.
The point here is that TS has chosen to avoid cross-examination on any part of his defence. That is his right and the Prosecution must still prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
An inference from his failure to give evidence cannot of itself prove guilt.
The jury must be satisfied that the Prosecution have established a sufficiently compelling case so as to call for an answer from TS before they can draw any inference from his silence.
If despite any evidence relied on to explain his silence or in the absence of any such evidence, the jury conclude that the silence can only sensibly be attributed to the defendant's having no answer, or none that will stand up to cross-examination, they can draw an adverse inference. (See: Archbold at 4-398 to 4-399).
To the anon who has now posted 15 comments about the "poll tax riot" this is not part of the case and nothing related to it will be posted.
Sorry but those are the rules.
Excellent post - Naming Names.
With all due respect James. From this blog: "Mrs Drummond stated she had been involved in the campaign against the poll tax in the 1980's but had then dropped out of politics." Maybe, that is what is giving commentators the impression that commenting on the poll tax riots is fair game.
up4it said... "Extract from post"
if the outcome of this trial id not guilty or not proven given the weight of evidence there will never be a perjury trial in scotland again. so the crown have to win because with no fear of being charged and prosecuted for lying witnesses will say anything but the truth to help the accused "get aff way it".
Q1) How many perjury trials occur each year in Scotland
Q2)why limit lying witnesses to only the accused.
Q3)Has this blog not shown that witness testamomy has changed from 2006 to was has been said in this trial.
NAMING NAMES
Iam sure he will know how to address the jury he has after all beat an allegedly very senior counsel Mr Jones,i didn,t mean anything but you can as Lord B has pointed out on numerous occasions use things that are not allowed in evidence to be put before the jury
Hello anon, a number of witnesses have mentioned their involvement with the poll tax campaign in Glasgow. However as far as I can recall the London poll tax riots have not been brought into evidence by either the defence or prosecution.
I do have to be careful not to post comments that relate to evidence not heard by the jury, I'd suggest that the poll tax riot falls under that category.
Why on earth would Mrs Sheridan or any other Catholic / wife / mother /socialist wish to take the stand in these circumstances.
Why should she subject herself to the whims of what is clearly now a desperate prosecution.
If she took the stand she would on past evidence possibly be subject to:
a) an intimidating sectarian attack on her, her daughter and her families Catholicism and the symbols of that religeon.
b) a possible repeat of the intimidating accusation that she may have been trained by republican terrorists.
c)intmidating false accusations that her decision not to assist the police and the NOTW in the persecution of her husband was somehow akin to terrorism.
c) a wholly salacious, prurient inquiry into her private sex life.
c)allegations that she is a liar.
d) attempts to turn every little thing she might say under oath against her (as they did in this prosecution). That would run the risk that the police / NOTW can threaten her and charge her with perjury again in the future further upsetting her and her daughter. If they don't get the result they want in this trial the NOTW, police and the Crown will be like a wounded bear. Best stay out of their path.
The police and Crown, it appears to many commentators and the defence, dragged her into this matter in a squalid desperate attempt to pressurise her husband to plead guilty.
Both Tommy and Gail have shown admirable fortitude resisting these attempts to split them up over the past few years
The squalid attempt to do so is not an attractive sight for Scottish justice system.
Legally, politically and morally Gail is absolutely right to not take the stand if that is what she decides to do.
May I just remind commentators That Mrs Sheridan's defence has not yet begun and that the question of her taking the stand has not yet been told to the court.
"allegations that she is a liar" - accusing a witness of being a liar is just par for the course for prosecution counsel. They invariably say something along the lines of "I put it to you that your story is a pack of lies". They do it as a test. The key thing is how the witness responds, both verbally and by their demeanour. This can actually work in favour of an innocent person because they in all likelihood will act like someone who is genuinely innocent. A lot of it is to do with involuntary actions. Think of it as a lie detection test. Now speaking personally, I would not want to subject myself to this because I may (involuntarily) give myself away. A Court is not meant to be an easy setting to lie in - it is deliberately designed that way.
If I was in GS's opinion and was genuinely innocent I WOULD give evidence. Because I would know that in despite of crap that AP would likely through my way and try as he may he would get no where. And once he has to give up I would be effectively vindicated. If I was GS (and innocent) I would be desperate to take that stand.
Anonymous
"Because I would know that in despite of crap that AP would likely through my way and try as he may he would get no where. And once he has to give up I would be effectively vindicated."
Sorry but that's naive. AP spends his working life in courts, GS on aeroplanes. Maybe if AP questioned GS at high altitude during an electrical storm it would be a bit fairer. If I felt I had told the truth in a previous trial and was then charged with perjury, why would I take the stand again? It's not up to GS to prove that she's innocent, it's up to AP to prove that she's guilty.
Get over it the right to remain silent is your right,as for the COPS tactics,there just a bunch of thugs in uniform who like the NOTW THINK THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW,Prentice will never mention this in his closing speech,but i,m sure McBride will have something to say about it,and the law now being you cant be interviewed if you want legal representation.
The charge thats left is easy explained,as the DS Fraser said you can make honest mistakes and it,s not perjury,
What has the previous trial got to do with anything, Keith?
Fair enough, yulefae. If GS has made an "honest mistake" why not just say so. Other witnesses have admitted to making "honest mistakes".
What's the big deal?
As Naming Names has previously posted: If despite any evidence relied on to explain his silence or in the absence of any such evidence, the jury conclude that the silence can only sensibly be attributed to the defendant's having no answer, or none that will stand up to cross-examination, they can draw an adverse inference. (See: Archbold at 4-398 to 4-399). This, in my opinion, is the position that GS (and TS) are in at moment.
Anyway, I am sure that Lord Bracadale will explain everything in his summing up.
Anon 4.24:
"Think of it as a lie detection test. Now speaking personally, I would not want to subject myself to this because I may (involuntarily) give myself away."
Why not, what have you been up to Anon? (only kidding!)
IMO there will be a lot of folk posting on this blog who are glad they are not sat on the jury.
You sit in the court, study the evidence, reach a "verdict". Then see the Sheridans sat in the dock and thank your lucky stars you are not on the jury imo.
Anonymous
"What has the previous trial got to do with anything, Keith?"
That's where Mrs Sheridan was alleged to have comitted perjury...that's what!
What has whether or not GS elects to give evidence or not and any reasonable inference that can be drawn got to to with this trial.
got to do with the civil trial.
And come to think of it, GS readily and willingly gave evidence in the civil trial, so she is not as someone has previously implied a "stranger to the courts".
Peter why was GS not terrified of being accused of a "liar" last time around by the NotW Advocate, kind of funny don't you think?
One big difference between GS's and McBride's job. GS is well used to communicating silently.
McBride, I imagine, would take some persuading to introduce his client''s evidence or silence on such to the Court by standing in the aisle indicating fire exits by balletic overhead gestures whilst puffing into an imaginary life jacket.
Although the complexity of Special Measures directions now often result in an over-elaborate spectacle to try and accommodate the witnesses every supposed frailty. One day it will all end in tears:
"Hello Johnny, I'm a lawyer, this is the judge, that's an usher, there's the public gallery, that's Mr Phearis the jury usher, here's the church, there's the steeple, open it up and see the people....".
Anonymous said...
Fair enough, yulefae. If GS has made an "honest mistake" why not just say so. Other witnesses have admitted to making "honest mistakes".
What's the big deal?
She may well take the stand,her defence starts after TS,so we will have to wait and see,by all accounts she stood in the libel case and done well
I really think that if GS is truly innocent she could swing this in the Sheridans favour and acquit TS in her wake in my opinion.
In my opinion GS played a large part in securing the libel win last time round.
Funny how nobody else saw Sheridan that night! You would have thought that there were tens of folk who saw him and would come forward to testify for him. And Alan saw him almost outside the venue. How convenoient. Less chance of them being seen together by others! All a bit fishy!
Anonymous said...
In my opinion GS played a large part in securing the libel win last time round.
It should be noted that the status of G.S in the libel trial was that of a witness, this time around she is a defendant and right of silience is permitted.
Perhaps Mr Brown will not be the last witness to allege he has an "alibi" for Mr Sheridan on the night in question. Not that one wishes to speculate on future developments inthe case)
Jamesie Cotter Esq. Upper West Side
Please refrain from any further breaches of our clients copyright.
For goodness sake,how many weeks are we now into this case andpeople still talk glibly about the 2006 libel trial.To repeat what others have previously said that was a Civil Law defamation hearing initiated by TS against NOTW/NGNI.He was not on trial and also won. Yes some have commented re. the inordinate amount of money,police resources to date.But for me the big issue is why (certainly under Scots Law anyway) has for the first time ever led to criminal perjury charges arising from a civil law matter.As stated unprecedented in Scotland. Whatever the truth here ,its quite rare for perjury trials to arise from criminal trials.One thing seems clear to me that this case has little to do with a quest for truth ,justice and the American, sorry meant Scottish way. Of course that is only IMHO and it would fall to the jury to consider.
Hello Leftbanker, sorry but had to delete that one as it referred to issues not mentioned in court and a witness that had not even appeared yet.
Could you try and avoid that sort of thing please.
For those not familiar with lefty trainspotter issues.
Peter was comparing Sheridan to this man
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Healy/Chap11.html
in a positive way!
The other thing that looks suspicious on the Brown testimony is why did not give evidence at the first trial. Surely he would have risen to Sheridan’s side especially as the outcome was up in the air? Alan in his testimony had no trouble remembering the time he met Sheridan but at the first trial it seems he could not remember seeing him at all! [edited by JD]
Oh well, better delete post at 8.06pm above James!
I had a dream.......with apologies to Paul Simon:
Hello Comrades it's my new trend
come and preach to you again.
Before a prison van harshly bleeping
backs into my jeep whilst you're sleeping.
Gives me anger supplanting all my doze Gets,
right up my nose.
In vestless jeans I am alone
wi' only half a bar of Toblerone
Stayed in Glasgow all the while
Not down south on lover's mile.
Blameless life in Cardonald
Doing exactly what I'm told
And those traitors in the SSP,
Conspired to frame up me.
With journos from the Fourth Estate
All trying to seal my fate.
Why some people would destroy
A humble, sinless, Glasgie boy?
Must be obvious to everyone,
Two hundred grand's a tidy sum.
And no less than one deserves,
For the shredding of the nerves,
harm done to the unborn child,
with both parents being
so meek and mild, only riled.
Not as if he ever felt the shame,
from interviews to name the names.
He's a fine upstanding socialist
not the kind that's ever pissed.
There's an air of desperation about you Raphie. The prosecution also brought forward witnesses who did not appear at the civil trial.
Lack of forensic evidence to establish the veracity of the tape + conflicting eyewitness testimony and witness contamination by the NOTW = reasonable doubt, in my view. Unless the prosecutor has a rabbit to pull out of his hat at the last minute.
The people in the SSP who refused all political discussion of this case since 2006-7 and insisted a conviction of Sheridan would clear the field for them to triumphantly resume their position at the head of the socialist struggle in Scotland will need a rethink. There will be no such clear vindication of either side IMO.
Jeezo,Left Bankers just done it again.For the umteenth time ,2006 was a Civil defamation hearing and was not,i repeat NOT a libel trial.Why do some people find it beyond their grasp to comprehend this?
is defamation not roughly the scots law equivalent to libel? or is there some significant difference that's making you so upset, iain?
2.52,
I think Iain's point is that the action in 2006 was not a trial and referring to it as such is misleading.
"Clive"
leftbanker, at the defamation proof in 2006 the allegation was that Sheridan had visited cupids on an unspecified day in November 2002, it is only during this trial that we have had a specific date - 27th September 2002. This date coincided with an SSP event, so it is only now that Brown would be able to place himself with Sheridan at the relevant date.
@ Perry Freemason - at the civil trial there was no need to mention a specific date, as if I recall correctly there was no specific date mention in the newspaper article and when you think about it a specific date is the last thing a NotW "reader" would be interested in in my opinion.
This dates stuff is all well and good, but at the initial defamation case it was TS's testimony that he had never attended Cupids, not that he had not attended it on a specific date.
That is desperate stuff "Clive" the Crown has been very clear about the date of the alleged visit, and has presented telephone evidence, diary entries and witness testimony to that effect.
I don't believe they can now turn round and say "or perhaps it was the next weekend" without their whole case becoming a laughing stock.
We now have a date for the alleged event that has emerged from a massive police investigation. If Sheridan can prove he wasnt at cupids on that date, the Crown case about the cupids visit falls.
I was very surprised when the Crown actually opted for a date, especially as it was two months earlier than the allegation in 2006 which said November 2002.
The witnesses who claim to have been at cupids also stated that it was in November but came here to say that they were now certain that it was 27 September.
A vague date of "November 2002" was quite difficult for Sheridan to counter" Putting a date to the event that coincided with an SSP event that was in Sheridans diary means that those people who were at the SSP event can alibi him.
Itis not a matter of becoming a laughing stock, the Crown now have to prove he attended on that date or the charge of attending cupids cannot stand.
Howvere, the charge of confessing to going to cupids in that year might still be proveable if the jury belives the eveidence for that allegation.
It would be weakened by the collapse of the allegation of the visit though.
We have three witnesses only who gave eveidence of this date, two of them have changed their evidence re te date from 2006 and one has changed from police statements where he denied being there at all.
We have one witness, so far, who contradicts this evidence. As this witnesses evidence is not weakened from having previously asserted a different version of events, it wouldnt take much more to convince a jury that the cupids visit cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion.
I'm not saying that, Sceptic. You misunderstand.
(a) that at a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Scottish Socialist Party held on 9 November 2004 at 70 Stanley Street, Glasgow you had not admitted you had attended Cupid’s Healthclub, 13-17 Sutherland Street, Swinton, Manchester known as Cupid’s on two occasions in 1996 and 2002 and that you had not admitted that you attended there with Anvar Begum Khan c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh;
I think this refers to more than one visit.
If the dates look "shaky" I would expect the Crown to just delete references to the dates from the Indictment. And in my opinion the evidence of the one witness that we have heard so far is insufficient to cast doubt on the Crown case, in my opinion.
At the end of the day AP doesn't have to prove that TS visited Sheridans on a specific date, just proving that fact that TS was there will be sufficient to secure a conviction in my opinion. The dates are an irrelevance an may not even appear on the Indictment that is put to the Jury for consideration, in my opinion.
In my opinion it is TS that is trying to narrow an alleged SPECIFIC visit down to an alleged SPECIFIC date and then attempting to throw "reasonable doubt" on the particular date in my opinion.
So who verifies the first date?
Pick a date ! Change a date ! Change a date several times ! Any date will do ! In fact a date doesn`t matter ! What UTTER tripe! This alone, in my opinion ,makes a nonsense of the Prosecution`s case. Has Mr Sheridan to be expected to account for every minute, of every hour, of every day of every year ? Of course Alan Brown didn`t come forward at the Defamation trial because if I`m not mistaken , the Cupid`s `visit` supposedly took place at a different date - therefore the fact that Alan Brown did not give this evidence at the Defamation trial, only adds to his credibility as a witness.
Perry Freemason,
you are totally incorrect. The Crown need not prove he was there on a specific date, nor need they prove that he was there at all, They need to prove that he told the EC that he had visited in 1996 and 2002.
Which brings us back to the scores of witnesses we've heard from and the video.
"Clive"
Clive it didn't think your comments could get any more desperate but you have managed it. So you think the crown "don't have to prove" he visited cupids, well firstly that's one of the charges so they do and secondly are you suggesting tommy S confessed to something he never did?
Truly desperate. P
Snowy Day, in my opinion it appears that TS is obfuscating things (maybe he hasn't read the Indictment properly!). Having re-read it, it appears that "Clive" is correct. Looks like we have been lead astray by opening a discussion about "dates", as they say - it pays to read the Indictment.
Anon, if the date is incorrect it means all of the Crown witnesses who have testified to the date (Anvar Khan, Katrine Trolle the Cumberbirches) are all wrong.
If they are wrong about that what else, the jury may ask, are they wrong about.
Actaully on rereading my post there is no problem with it based on your allegations. It seems to be an attempt to block a debunking of the flimsy logic and arguments put forward here by TS supporters. You are indeed desperate, RIP.
Left banker, if you rephrase your comments to fit the rules there is not a problem, everyone else on both sides of the debate usually manages it, yet you seem unable or unwilling to try.
You are of course free to tell anyone anything you wish, however I'd say the guidlines are pretty simple.
I would ask you however not to end a message to me with "RIP" that could be misinterpreted.
@ Sceptic what about Elizabeth Quinn, the couple in Aberdeen and the tape? Are they all wrong?
@ Sceptic So all the Crown witnesses that have testified are liars? No a shred of truth amongst anything that that has been said by them? And the tape is a "concoction" And the all the Defence witnesses that we have heard from are all beyond reproach. Is that your position?
I'd say no such thing anon that is for the jury to decide.
Yes, it IS for the Jury to decide and let us hope that they don't get hood-winked into making the wrong decision. There is a lot at stake for a lot of parties here. Everyone is all adamant that they are telling the truth, but they can't all be ergo someone must be a liar. Can you spot the liar(s)?
Now that Prentice has led evidence that he has the specific date that the group of vive people allegedly visited cupids and those who testify to being there say it is the correct and only date the Crown have tied the allegation to a specific date.
It doesnt change the charge about confessions or admissions at meetings or elsehwre, but the actual charge of visiting the club relies on proving that date now.
It doesnt matter whether some SSP supporters here would like it to not true, that is what Prentice has done.
To be fair it is probably not his fault. He is working with what he has been given from the police investigation. They tied the diary enrty to a specific date and rentic would have been assuming that they had dome their research.
When Prentice brought this up with Trolle, they scoffed at the idea of an cultural event taking place. It was only after Sheridan cross examined Trolle and showed the court an actual potential reason for the diary entry the Prentice then brought it up with Allison Kane.
Kane had been recalled after Sheridan had dropped his QC. When she was first in court, Prentice didnt question her about the cultural festival as he had no idea it existed and that he had to prove it.
If the police had known that there was a cultural event, they would have witness statements from those who attended and Prentice would have brought that to court.
We dont know what other witnesses we will see on this issue. But as it stands the three witnesses who have given the date were not very strong and it looks like Sheridan is attempting to prove that he was where his diary said he was.
If he is succesful, we will still have the charges of confessing to going to cupids, that will be weakened, but technically it doesnt make a difference to those charges.
We wll also still have the charges of having extra-marital affairs.
I have my opinion anon but I, unlike you, was planning to wait and hear the defence case before making up my mind.
Call me old fashioned if you like but I like to hear both sides of the story.
Don't assume that anyone has "made their mind up". I won't even begin to deliberate until after I have heard ALL the evidence.
". I won't even begin to deliberate until after I have heard ALL the evidence."
If you are the same anon your previous comment was
" Can you spot the liar(s)?"
Perry,
you are wrong, on more than one count.
First, regardless of what Prentice has said about a date, that is not on the indictment and does not change the indictment.
Second, Mr Sheridan is not "charged" with having extra marital affairs. Having extra marital affairs is not a crime in Scotland. He is charged with lying in court.
"Clive"
Anonymous ` it appears that TS is obfuscating things `
It was two of the Crown witnesses who gave evidence on the date, not TS. We even had a bank statement for an airline ticket of Anvar Kahn`s trip to Glasgow , to be `collected` for the Cupid`s trip.If their evidence is thrown into doubt then I consider it must totally undermine the Crown`s case. The Prosecution WANTED to pin down the date he `visited.` The jury were being presented with a particular date. If this date falls , it is a real blow for the Crown case. People should not be sent to prison on unspecified vagaries As for the suggestion that the date doesn`t matter, it is whether or not he `confessed`, I feel that is really clutching at straws.
Snowy Day,
whether you feel it's clutching at straws or not is irrelevant. The indictment is perfectly clear.
"Clive"
I bet the crown wished they had you handling the case Clive.
I put it to you Ladies and gentlemen of the jury that us actually proving any of this happening and all of our witnesses saying when it happened, is utterly irrelevent, Indeed it may not have happened at all but the key point is lets convict him anyway.
Bound to be a winner that argument
Sceptic,
please don't put words in my mouth. Obviously the Crown is putting forward evidence that it believes supports the charges on the indictment. I am simply clarifying what the charges are. What questions the Jury will have to answer, if you like.
I did not say that the evidence was irrlevant. But I would re-assert that Snowy Day's feelings about clutching at straws are irrelevant.
"Clive"
lol that's really very funny sceptic.
"Clive" - what charges the Crown puts to the Jury will have "Sufficiency in Law" to Convict. Also, each point on the Indictment put to the Jury must be corroborated. It's the decision of the Jury if they prefer the evidence put to them by the Crown or Defence. But to say that a "clutching at straws" argument will be put to the jury is simply not true.
Anon is correct about Advocate Deputes having to work with whatever he is fed to them by the Police; the Police can filter, pick and choose what information they supply to the Crown. The Police will know a lot more than an Advocate Depute knows and no-one really knows for sure what the Poilce know.
Clive, of course you are right on the extra-marital affairs, I should have said charges relating to his denial of extra-marital affairs, but I thought that it went without saying. In effect it is really the same thing, if he did have the affairs then he is guilty of perjury when denying it, if he didnt have the affairs he isnt. Technically, the Crown have to prove that he had affairs in order for Sheridan to be guilty of perjury on those counts.
However, you are wrong on the date issue. The Crowns evidence to prove the charge of visiting cupids with the group of people named is that it happened on that date. If they cannot prove that it happened on that date then that charge falls.
I may be wrong, but I would bet that Prentice thought that his evidence wouldnt countered. It was the Allison Kane evidence that made me think this. If he had known that there actually had been a culutural event on thst date, he would have asked Kane - and maybe others - about it when he first examined them.
Sorry ,the Prosecution is becoming a haystack of straws and they`re still struggling to clutch one !
On the question of the date and Cupids the indictment is in fact very specific about that, Viz
"(M) that on 27 September 2002 you did attend said Cupid’s in Manchester with said Andrew McFarlane, Gary Clark, Anvar Begum Khan and Katrine Trolle and that you had visited.
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/12/updated-indictment.html
The indictment does indeed state a date and it also impinges on the charges Gail Sheridan faces.
"that you had recorded in your diary that you had travelled to Miami on Tuesday 20 November 2001 and you were in Miami on the weekend of 24 and 25 November 2001 and that said Thomas Sheridan had recorded in his diary that you were away between 21 and 28 November 2001;
that you were in Miami on 24 and 25 November 2001 and you did thus not spend every weekend in November 2001 with said Thomas Sheridan"
Unless I am mistaken the original defamation hearing focused on November 2001. GS said her husband could not have been at Cupids on any weekend in November 2001 as he was with her.
Gail Sheridan is now being charged with lying about where she was in November 2001 while the Cupid's visit is now explicitly dated to September 2002.
It appears she is accused of lying about month and a year when the Cupid's visit didn't take place.
Very interesting.
To say the date of the Cupid's visit doesn't matter is odd in my opinion.
The date has been specified in the indictment and TS now has a different witness who claims to have been with him on the night in question – Friday 27, 2002.
This particular charge on the indictment will come down to whether the jury believe Brown or Clark, Trolle, and Khan.
Clark is the only one with any credibility in my book and he was on the bevvy.
If Sheridan can produce another witness to corroborate his claim that he was in Glasgow on the evening of Friday 27 2002 then reasonable bout could well come into play on this specific part of the indictment.
Hello again "Clive" you have just, for some reason, made a very serious allegation of criminal actvities on my part. I'm not sure what the basis for them is, and I will be taking advice on the matter. In the meantime we will not be accepting any comments from you on the site.
@Naming Names - Re your citations from Archbold: Er, I'm afraid it is a court practice manual for England & Wales, not Scotland. We have a different legal system up here, what has its own rules and stuff and that.
Archbold has as much relevance to our courts as Tommy's new party does to....(fill in as preferred)
What kind of criminal activities, James? Can you give us a clue?
For obvious reasons anon I'm afraid not.
I hope that you don't go calling in the cops or running to the bourgeois courts James. We've all had our fill of them.
If Murdoch prints "Clive"s allegations in the NotW you may have to consider taking out what is called a Defamation Action. It is the best course of action to take in such circumstances. You may even win substantial compensation.
I don't think I'll be suing anyone anon, or running to anyone other anon. However it is a concern when people make allegations like that so I will talk to people about it.
Anyway with that in mind if we could leave it there I'd be grateful.
Clarence: Yes appreciate that, but the basic rules of advocacy (leading questions, commment dressed up as question etc) must be much the same even when on a mission to Planet Sheridan?
Post a Comment