This afternoon the court heard from one of the most anticipated witnesses in the case, Andrew Coulson. Mr Coulson began by giving his address and confirmed that he was presently employed as the Director of Communications at 10 Downing Street. Mr Sheridan asked the witness for details of his duties, Mr Coulson stated that his role was to "oversee the general media function at Downing Street" and that he reported directly to the Prime Minister. Asked by Mr Sheridan if this was a "powerful position" Mr Coulson responded that he would not describe it as a powerful role, it was however an "important one."
Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Coulson about his previous job, and the witness confirmed that he had been the editor of the News of the World (NotW) for four years. Asked why he had left that role Mr Coulson told the court that he had left after one reporter on the paper was convicted of a crime and he had "taken the ultimate responsibility and stepped down." Asked what this crime was the witness stated that it involved "illegal phone hacking" and that he had "no knowledge of it." Mr Coulson confirmed that one of those arrested in the affair was a NotW journalist, Clive Goodman. Mr Sheridan asked the witness if he knew of Mr Goodman's association with Greg Mulcaire. The witness told the court that he had never had any contact with Mr Mulcaire and had not even known his name until Mr Mulcaire had been arrested. Mr Coulson told the court that he had been aware that Mr Mulcaire's company, "9 Consultancy" had been used by the NotW as the witness had once asked a head of a department to reduce the money the paper was paying the company. He insisted however that this was his only knowledge of 9 consultancy and that, in relation to Mr Mulcaire, " I never met him, spoke to him or emailed him."
Mr Sheridan then asked about how much the paper had paid "9 Consultancy" and suggested this would be around £105,000 per annum. Mr Coulson that it was "about that" but added that this was for what he called "legitimate work" adding that the judge in the "Goodman case" had accepted that. Mr Sheridan asked about other payments made to Mr Mulcaire, the witness told the court that there were other payments but these had happened "without my knowledge" Mr Sheridan then asked the witness what crime Mr Goodman and Mr Mulcaire had been convicted of. Mr Coulson told the court they had been convicted of accessing voicemails illegally and that this involved members of the "Royal Household." When Mr Sheridan asked who else had their voicemails "hacked" Mr Coulson responded that it was a "matter of record" Mr Sheridan reponded "it is not a matter of record in this case" and asked the witness to answer the question. Mr Coulson replied that he understood "five other individuals" had been mentioned as having their voicemails intercepted
Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Coulson when exactly he had been editor of the NotW. The witness replied that he was in that role from January 2003 until his resignation in January 2007. Mr Sheridan asked the witness how much he had been paid for that role, which led to an objection from the Advocate Depute, Alex Prentice QC, on the grounds of irrelevancy. The presiding judge, Lord Bracadale upheld this objection and directed the witness not to answer the question.
Mr Sheridan then moved on to what "preparation for today" Mr Coulson had undertaken. The witness replied "not much, this is a busy period" continuing "I am not an expert in law, especially Scottish law. Mr Coulson then added that he had taken legal advice from his solicitors and a QC (Queens Counsel) Mr Sheridan asked if News International were paying the witnesses' legal costs to which Mr Coulson replied "I certainly hope so" explaining that as the case related to his employment with News International they would be expected to meet his legal bills.
Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Coulson if the "News of the World employed people who broke the law." The witness replied that "we did not seek to but it is obvious we did with Clive Goodman" but denied he had employed "convicted criminals." Mr Coulson also told the court that while he was reponsible for full-time staff, he was not responsible for contractors or freelances, this responsibility falling to his heads of department and the journalists concerned. Asked who he reported to, Mr Coulson replied that this was Les Hinton, the chief executive of News International and that he also reported to the "proprietor" who he named as Rupert Murdoch.. Asked how often he spoke to Mr Murdoch the witness replied "not weekly but reasonably regularly" Mr Coulson was then asked about his relationship with Mr Murdoch, to which he responded "I was his employee" adding "we spoke mostly about politics." Mr Sheridan then asked "did News International expect a return from you in Downing Street" to which Mr Coulson responded "Certainly not" Mr Sheridan then said, "Is it not true the your first visitor to Downing Street was Rupert Murdoch. The Advocate depute again rose to object stating that this was "irrelevant to case before the jury" this objection that was upheld by the judge who asked Mr Sheridan to move on.
Mr Sheridan then discussed with the witness the management structure of the News of the World, during which Mr Coulson told the court he did not "micro-manage" the newspaper. Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that an industrial tribunal had ruled in favour of one of his journalists who had claimed he was "bullied" by Mr Coulson and was awarded £800,000. Mr Coulson called this verdict "astonishing" and denied he was any sort of bully. Mr Sheridan then put it to Mr Coulson that his newspaper "printed lies" to which the witness responded "We try not to." Mr Coulson was then asked about is role in the purchase of what, Mr Sheridan described as "the McNeilage tape," Mr Coulson told the court that he had been alerted to the existence of the tape by Bob Bird, Scottish editor of the News of the World and a previous Crown witness. He had then came to Glasgow to view the tape in reference to which he stated to Mr Sheridan "it was you." Mr Sheridan asked the witness if he had seen him in the tape, to which Mr Coulson responded "I heard your voice." as he had compared that to other recordings of Mr Sheridan speaking. Mr Sheridan asked if the witness had heard "private eye recordings of my voice." To this Mr Coulson replied "I don't believe I did."
Mr Sheridan then brought into evidence a report by the House of Commons select committee on culture and media. This had referred to "obfuscation" by News International executives during their inquiry into phone hacking. Mr Coulson denied any suggestion that this statement could have applied to him, telling the court he had given evidence to the committee and that he "could not have been more co-operative." Asked about the NotW's relationship with the police, Mr Coulson said that it could be "difficult" however the NotW exposed "wrongdoing and criminality" and sometimes worked with the police on that. Mr Sheridan asked if the witness if he had heard the phrase "dark arts" and if so what it meant. Mr Coulson said he took the term to mean "investigative work" but that others may take it to mean illegal methods of journalism. Mr Coulson added that his journalists had always been instructed to "work within the law and the PCC [Press Complaints Commission] code." and that this policy was "in their handbooks."
Mr Sheridan then asked the witness about an article in the New York Times which had quoted an ex-NotW journalist Sean Hoare. The Advocate Depute rose again to object on the grounds that this was irrelevant. However on this occasion Lord Bracadale, after hearing Mr Sheridan's explanation, allowed the question. Mr Sheridan asked Mr Coulson if there had been calls for his resignation as Downing Street director of communications after the publication of the New York Times article. Mr Coulson replied that the calls for his resignation had "come from the Labour Party and newspapers that supported the Labour Party." Mr Sheridan asked "is Sean Hoare was in the Labour Party" to which Mr Coulson replied, "er, no" but added that he was not aware that Sean Hoare had called for his resignation. Mr Sheridan put it to Mr Coulson that Mr Hoare had claimed, in the artilce, that he had been told to "employ the dark arts" by Mr Coulson himself. To this Mr Coulson replied that he had "no recollection of doing so."
Lord Bracadale then called today's session to an end. Mr Sheridan's examination of Mr Coulson will continue tommorrow.
52 comments:
No real blood drawn by TS, I thought, but it's early I guess. Coulson does not look pleased to be here, though. Not pleased at all. Not pleased with "Mr Sheridan", not pleased with the bank of hacks smiling at him, not pleased with movement in the public gallery...
There was almost a cheer from the assembled press when TS called Andrew Coulson as the next witness, as he was almost going to call another couple of witnesses but for a problem with a production, and that would probably have taken the afternoon. I doubt there would have been much copy to file in the nationals on Pat Smith, Gordon Morgan and whoever else appeared on the stand.
What with snow, student protests, and wikileaks, it's not been the national media frenzy some might have hoped for.
TS will need to come up with something substantial for this to make it into the news 2 days running I would think.
PS
I don't think I've thanked people for the effort they've put in to producing the blog. Thanks. Your work, unpaid, is appreciated.
andy coulson was looking into the public gallery every time there was a movement of any kind,the most nervous witness i have seen yet
I was in court and there was quite a lot of noise coming from the public gallery. I didn't think he looked nervous. Rosemary Byrne looked nervous yesterday.
Jessica Fletcher P.I. said:
"PS
I don't think I've thanked people for the effort they've put in to producing the blog. Thanks. Your work, unpaid, is appreciated."
You're welcome, Jessica
Magnum P.I.xx
£800,000 - really? - you can bully me some for that!
Andy Coulson has testified he believes in the authenticity of the McNeilage tape. However,assuming there are no forensics to settle the matter, we are left to rely on internal evidence.
It is worth asking therefore, what it would take to fake the tape (essentially an audio tape, as there is no significant video evidence).
First, a 40 minute script must be written which fits what TS might have said, uses his turns of phrase, etc., and above all, does not say anything TS would not have said (eg does TS address friends as “mate”?). Second, an actor must be found who can imitate his accent and manner of speaking convincingly for a full 40 minutes. Neither of these are easy tasks.
Consider also that the script writer and actor must be very familiar with TS in order to achieve the required degree of likeness. It is extremely unlikely, therefore, that there is any script writer or actor in London with the required experience, whom the NOWT, for example, could have hired to make the tape. So we are led to ask if there is anyone in the SSP or otherwise in TS’s and McNeilage’s acquaintance with the required expertise? Indeed, Scotland being like a village, if the tape is a fake it is surprising that no name has emerged of the putative forgers.
From reading this blog, it seems the only comment TS has made criticising the content of the tape is to say that he does not swear as much as the alleged TS in the tape – but many people who swear, swear a lot more than they realize. And the only person he has accused of wanting to act is Rosie Kane.
However, the fact that TS has conducted his own defence may make it easier for those who have been in Court (which does not include me) to reach their own decision whether the person they hear on tape is the same person who has been addressing the Court for weeks past – taking only into account that in Court the language is the Sunday best whereas on the tape the alleged TS is wound up and buttoned down.
Struggling to see the relevance of this evidence to the charges, unless the defence have been studying Kevin Costner in JFK for inspiration.
Defence counsel seems to be making very wide circles round the witness, not landing a single punch. And even if he did land one, the witness is so tangential to the core issue - did TS and GD lie in court - that it is hard to see how it could help mount a relevant defence. Seems like obfuscation to me.
So James how come its ok for you or whatsy to lead witness names before they are called. Is that not a breach of confidentiality or even contempt.
@ Rolo Tomasi
Sorry - should have read "TS and GS", of course.
Not sure what you mean anon, if you are saying that reporting what a witness has said in a public court is a " breach of confidentiality or even contempt." then we may as well all go home.
To be on the safe side it is probably better that you stop reading our reports, just so you are not charged with an offence which you would have to report yourself for.
ATB
J
Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Coulson about his previous job, and the witness confirmed that he had been the editor of the News of the World (NotW) for four years. Asked why he had left that role Mr Coulson told the court that he had left after one reporter on the paper was convicted of a crime and he had "taken the ultimate responsibility and stepped down." Asked what this crime was the witness stated that it involved "illegal phone hacking" and that he had "no knowledge of it." Mr Coulson confirmed that one of those arrested in the affair was a NotW journalist, Clive Goodman.
Does anyone know if the information gleaned by "illegal phone hacking" by Clive Goodman ever appeared or printed by the NotW.
If so why can a very experienced Editor consider that these details would have been provided willingly or by legitimate Journalistic practices ?
No james your naming witnesses before they are called. Witness lists are guarded so how do you get to know who's being called prior to them actually taking the stand. its been mentioned on here and this report refers to 2 females that never got called cos of a tech hitch. coulson was named last wk as coming to join the circus.
it could be construed as contempt placing a witness under pressure by naming them before they give evidence.
if it were a murder case do you think it would be right to name the witnesses who were coming to try convict the pledged murderer publicly before they gave evidence.
think about it.
Hello Anon, I do take all complaints seriously, if you could email me he details of the issue you are concerned with then I'd be happy to look at it.
Best Regards
JD
@ Legally Challenged
Re whether the Goodman illegal scoops ever made the press?
Yes - several did - Goodman was the royal correspondent, and a number of pieces made it to print about stuff going on between Wills and Harry, which could only have come from messages left on one of their-highnesses' mobile phones.
Private Eye has been pretty good on it, and The Guardian has got the bit between its teeth too.
Personally I find Coulson's denials of knowledge implausible, and the "nothing to see here" attitude of the Met disgraceful. Good to see that the story still has legs and that public outrage has forced some reconsideration.
But.... I still don't see the connection with TS and GS: the stories the NOTW printed as a result of phone hacks etc were all TRUE - that was what led the royals to smell a rat. It would be a bizarre defence for TS to say "You hacked my phone and followed me, and as a result of such dodgy practices, that's how you know all those sordid things about me which are,er, completely, er, false."
Nor, as far as I know, has anyone who has complained about being hacked, and there are quite a few, claimed that the NOTW was also into hiring actors to mock up ambiguous supporting evidence.
Why did they pay £200K to GMcN for the tape? Seems a reasonable explanation that they did so because they felt it vindicated their original story, and as a result it would win them their defamation case appeal, thereby saving them well over £200K. And it would sell more newspapers, of course.
You are if course right Rolo, just because someone was once convicted for "hacking a phone" and the same person had Tommy Sheridan's details in his notebook means nothing to all the telephone evidence presented in the case.
I assume you are one of the "hang em high whatever the proof" crowd. Certainly there is nothing in any of your posts to contradict that idea.
Why not, at least, give the defence a chance?
All well and good that coming to court managed to piss off Mr Coulson for a day or two (would he really prefer to be back in Downing Street today, surrounded by protesters?), but what on earth has it got to do with the case? Bob Bird already confirmed Coulson signed off on buying the tape etc., why would you need to ask him about it too?
Unless something big and surprising comes tomorrow, it seems like obfuscation. Essentially a rerun of 2006: "look the NotW are bad people, I'm not bad people, honest!"
Can't imagine Prentice's cross examination will have anything to cover.
With regards to the McNeilage tape.
I don't think you would require an actor to do an actual speaking role given the person on the tape is not in view.
I have some experience in digital audio editing. I actually have experience in old-style audio editing using a razor blade and sticky tape – the good old days when editing things was a hell of a lot harder.
With today's technology, if I had a lot of recorded mobile phone messages from Tommy Sheridan, for instance, then I could easily piece together a lengthy recording that seamlessly manipulates words from different contexts and places them into new sentence structures.
Indeed, people who are really good at this sort of stuff can take parts of a spoken word and merge them with other letters and consonants to create new words.
This bit is harder to do seamlessly but a lot of background noise, for instance, can help cover any audio spikes which have not been smoothed out properly.
I am not saying the McNeilage tape was created in such a way.
I am saying it would be possible to create something similar if you have enough source material, such as mobile phone call recordings, and put a lot of time and effort into it.
An expert given a copy of the tape should quickly be able to determine its veracity.
If TS doesn't call one then the tape is a very powerful piece of evidence for the prosecution.
Given a lot of the conflicting evidence presented, the tape could quite easily be seen as the crux of the Crown case.
If this evidence stands up to scrutiny then Sheridan is in deep trouble.
I just don't get why the Crown didn't do more to establish its veracity in front of the jury at the start.
Have they actually had an expert look at it?
I assume they have, but you never know.
Is it a court-room tactic because they know the audio is not doctored and Sheridan can't challenge it by using an expert to blow holes in it?
But why even let him away with saying it isn't him because he doesn't swear that much?
Why not get a voice expert to confrim it is Tommy voice. Voices leave tell-tale digital fingerprints after all?
Then get a digital audio expert to confirm the audio shows no signs of being manipulated.
This part of the case leaves me baffled.
@Anonymous 10:59pm
"how come its ok for you or whatsy to lead witness names before they are called. Is that not a breach of confidentiality or even contempt."
An example would be helpful. I'm fully aware that I'm not a legal expert - but if you could quote where I or James have mis-spoken, please do and it will be corrected. Appearing in a "HMA Vs Me" court case is really not high on my to-do list.
With regard to the issue of contempt and naming witnesses expected to appear I think it is important to sometimes differentiate between what the law says and how it operates.
A media lawyer will tell a newspaper of the RISKS of being taken to court – not just whether something you print is in contempt of court or not.
Newspapers print stuff that is in contempt of court all the time. They rarely get pulled up for it as it is usually pretty minor stuff and the RISK of being prosecuted are negligible.
Naming witnesses ahead of a forthcoming murder trial would no doubt land an editor in he dock – that's why they don't do it.
However, I have not read anything on this website that, in my opinion, would persuade a media lawyer that James faces even a moderate risk of being prosecuted.
If there are examples of a contempt of court which present a real RISK of prosecution then I am sure James will be desperate for someone to tell him so that he can remove it immediately.
first time poster and I would echo an above comment praising the work put into this blog, very good and informative.
One point above about if TS proved phone hacking it would only expose himself. Not really. The stories were not all true.
The NOTW had to pay out a sum around one million pounds to some ex-Football Association chief (Davies, I think) after hacking into his phone and getting the wrong end of a story. They accused him of an affair based on dubious readings of his phone recordings. He won but the payout involved a secrecy clause. It is one of cases of hacking where the NOTW have paid huge sums, which was what alerted the guardian and the US paper to the story.
The trusty Met averted its eyes and went back to hiding evidence of phone hacking.
So if TS did catch Coulson out admitting a phone hack then he would have him for law breaking, have the NOTW at a disadvantage and could still argue that the evidence they used from the hack was something quite innocent as in the case of FA Davies.
Also the extent of the hacking appears to be massive. I suppose TS wants to show that coulson was in charge of a criminal conspiracy so how can you trust evidence from such people?
Maybe TS will have one of those Hollywood court moments tomorrow where he forces coulson into making a self-incriminating mistake.
@ Sceptic
The defence is getting its chance, with all witnesses so far up to and including Coulson. I was just commenting on how little mileage they were getting out of him, and how little relevance his evidence seems to have to the charges of whether GS and TS lied in court.
Re conspiracy theories and the tape - if there is an alternative version of how it came to be, then why in the name of the wee man would the NOTW recruit George McNeilage of all people to front up the story of how it was made? He is a fairly feisty character, hates Murdoch, NOTW etc, and I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when some Newscorp lackey had to put the bribery offer to him for the first time, not knowing his possible reaction. See his performance on Newsnight Scotland in 2006 for evidence of how he is a serious man who does not take the meeja at face value.
anon,
re your point coulson was named in court as being called.
i have tried to post 1 or 2 names that ave been mentioned in court yet jamesie boy is banning them and a technical issue that ts was having that was mentioned in open court.
not been able to get in this wk with the bad weather but is ts changing the way he speaks to coulson liked he did before with mcneilage or bird.
Any truth in the rumour that TS will be calling Heinrich Himmler to answer questions regarding his role at the head of the Secret State Police(Gestapo)
Thanks Rolo for your information regarding allegatons of "illegal phone tapping"
My thread of logic however would take me more in the direction laid out by Tommy trial addict.
If agencies employed by the NotW can produce copy based on phone intercerpts it is quite possible that they could piece together an audio stream based on information gleaned by bugging devices IMO.
@ littlekeefer
Not sure I follow your point on how proving the NOTW were up to illegal stuff benefits TS - his case is not against the NOTW or anyone else for telling lies about him (that was 2006): he is the accused in a criminal case, where the charges in simple terms are that he (and GS) lied in court. No one from the NOTW was or has been presented as a direct witness to the alleged confession at the SSP meeting, nor the alleged visits to Cupids. Bird and Coulson are very very remote from the crux of the issue. I would argue that if anything, citing Coulson is a bad move, as it gave him the chance to repeat the view that the voice on the tape belongs to the accused.
I'm also perplexed as to how you know the details of the Davies/FA case and whether the stories were true - it was as you say an out of court settlement with a confidentiality clause, and no evidence was ever led in court nor liability admitted.
By saying that that the voice on the tape is pieced together audio intercepts of TS is that not tantamount to saying that the voice on the tape IS TS? Where would the "actor" theory fit into this? The explanations being offered to explain away the tape are like the shifting sands of the Sahara Desert.
Several people are questioning the reason for TS calling Andy Coulson as a witness. But surely if it can be shown that the NotW articles were untrue, it follows that Sheridan did not lie during the defamation case - end of perjury charge. And one way of trying to prove that the stories were untrue is to show that the NotW would print anything, true or false, that would implicate Sheridan. So the more illegal, underhand stuff that can be brought out about the NotW, the less credible they and their stories might seem to the jury, and so the more credible Sheridan's defence might sound.
Rolo Tomasi said " Bird and Coulson are very very remote from the crux of the issue."
It seems to me that as this whole thing was started by the NotW, Bob Bird and Andy Coulson are actually at the crux of the issue.
If TS's case is that the NOTW are making it all up, why would they bother to tap his phone?
Hello Rolo
Re conspiracy theories and the tape - if there is an alternative version of how it came to be, then why in the name of the wee man would the NOTW recruit George McNeilage of all people to front up the story of how it was made? He is a fairly feisty character, hates Murdoch, NOTW etc, and I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when some Newscorp lackey had to put the bribery offer to him for the first time, not knowing his possible reaction. See his performance on Newsnight Scotland in 2006 for evidence of how he is a serious man who does not take the meeja at face value.
It is my understanding that there was no need for a Newscorp lackey to offer any sort of bribe, is it not the case that thr bold George instead set out his own price after seeking contact with said lackey?
He might hate Murdoch but likes his money, even more so when he shells out £200,000 to him.
James,
Anon 10.59's post perhaps misses the point.
It is fairly standard practice for parties to inform the court how they are intending to run their witness list so as to help the court manage time.If TS has said in open court that next on his list are Bugs Bunny, Joe Bloggs and Lord Lucan and you report exactly that I don't see what the problem is.
Keep the reports coming - excellent work,
Sahara said...
By saying that that the voice on the tape is pieced together audio intercepts of TS is that not tantamount to saying that the voice on the tape IS TS? Where would the "actor" theory fit into this? The explanations being offered to explain away the tape are like the shifting sands of the Sahara Desert.
The attempts so far to verify the tape by a number of parties has been it sounds like T.S is it not.
The tape has been discribed as a concoction also the person on the video is indistinct,it could be T.S or actor?
The audio on tape too is not best quality, there have also been a number of post on this tape to this blog questioning its varacity.
So without conclusive evidence on the tape it does lend itself to speculation IMO.
However I do not think it would require the sifting the sand in the Sahara,a technical analysis would have proved beyond doubt the tapes varacity if only the Crown or Notw with all the expertise behind them had done so we could leave the Sahara untouched.
Aren't most of the actors and luvvies who were previously in the SSP great supporters of Tommy?
As was said way back, whoever the alleged actor/voice on the video is, a glittering career in satire and a starring role in the dramatisation of this trial await him, because he is a 'dead ringer'.
How many old hams are on Tommy's list of supporters and how many are still 'acting' for the SSP?
Step forward please Mr Allegedly Sheridan.
The "spliced together" theory makes no sense at all. I do digital audio editing and I can tell you that there is more to it than simply taking snippets and mashing them together.
The audio quality of something recorded by phone would for example be very very different from that recorded on a video camera - different bit rate.
There is also the problem of the differing stresses used in different parts of speech at different times by a speaker and recorded on different equipment - different syllables and words wouldnt sound natural if you tried to piece them together from bits taken. Its not just about audio spikes although they woudl be "tells" as well - as would differing background his spectrums. Constructing something like this would leave you with something that sounded more like Professor Stephen Hawkins digitised voice - and even for his voice ythey will be using audio snippets recored specifically for the purpose on high grade equipment with little background noise and using pre-prepared word lists to make sure they ahve all the syllable types they need.
The spliced theory is a croc of s**t - in my opinion of course - your mileage may differ.
Also if it was spliced together why would there be any need to edit out sections as is being suggested? Did their powers to splice something together suddenly desert them at the end of the tape? Did the tea bell ring and they couldn't be bothered doing those bits cos they were going off shift?
Complete nonsense.
If it was an actor - did he forget his lines? Why not just say - hey lets do a take 2?
This theory doesnt make any sense either. Did they run out of money to pay the actor to do a take 2? Not according to TS theories about the NOTW finance it would seem.
Why even admit there was an end section which had been taped over? No one could have proved there ever was an end section anyway.
And the bits in the middle which are being referred to as "edited" are, to my understanding, simply indistinct as opposed to edited out completely - is that not the case?
The tape is very very difficult to explain away. Posing fancifull theories which are illogical isn't the same as raising reasonable doubt.
In my opinion the reason that the NotW tap phones allegedly? is to find out what scandalous activities people in the public eye are up to. The information gleaned serves to generate a "lead" which they then go on to investigate further and gain conclusive evidence of illegal/untoward behaviour by setting up meetings with hidden cameras, tape recorders, fake shieks etc. You could say that going to all this bother is a lot more hassle than simply "making something up".
Have a read of this.
Concatenative speech synthesis
and a more general basic outline of concatenative speech synthesis and its limitations
Concatenative speech synthesis 2
@ Avid Reader: there's a big difference between 'illegal' (journalist methods) and 'untrue' newspaper reports though, wouldn't you say?
Besides, most of TS's case regarding the NotW stories has been to say "you don't have enough evidence for what you reported - just the words of the various women involved" (paraphrasing quite broadly of course)
(the other witnesses in the case - eg. bystanders at the club, people's flatmates, ssp members, etc., weren't a part of the original newspaper reports of course).
Indeed TS has referred in x-examination to Anvar Khan being encouraged to make a recorded phone call to trap Sheridan, which she decided against. Surely if the NotW were phone tapping Sheridan they would have used some recorded phone calls at some stage? Bringing in the phone tapping story makes no sense at all, it is pure obfuscation.
rolo
re the davies case
google it or read the guardian's time line on the hacking story, it's in there with a lot of detail. You may dispute the account saying that how can anyone know but it hasn't been contradicted.
As for why coulson in the dock i agree with one of the above. If TS proves Coulson to be a liar then he can use that to convince the jury that there original story was lies and he wouldn't dream of lying himself.
Bunc. re Concatenative speech synthesis
My God, you guys really are spending time on this! I looked at the link briefly and got the gist of it. It's very interesting. Might return to it later.
Anonymous 3.31.
My point about illegal methods and untrue stories wasn't that they are the same, but that the two together might persuade a jury that an organisation that uses illegal or underhand methods might also be happy to print false stories.
Quite a few of the other witnesses you mention seemed to give pretty unconvincing or inconsistent evidence, and if I remember correctly it was suggested some might have been paid by the NotW.
Finally, would the NotW producing recorded phone calls in court not have indicated that they had been phone tapping? Where else would they get them from?
Avid Reader, you said:
Quite a few of the other witnesses you mention seemed to give pretty unconvincing or inconsistent evidence, and if I remember correctly it was suggested some might have been paid by the NotW.
And quite a few didn't and weren't, so why appear in a perjury trial?
@ Avid Reader
But would they not have used them in their reporting of the case? My point is, if they used phone taps on Sheridan, it clearly didn't come to anything - else we would know about it already. So TS bringing it up is just trying to distract the jury/anyone reading reports of the case from the matter at hand, and focus on how the NotW are *bad* people. Which is a pretty weak defence.
I don't see much point in you bringing the WHOLE of the prosecution case into the discussion, that's not what the thread is about. As to my opinion, I don't think the inconsistent evidence amounts to very much - events were over 6 years ago (sometimes 9), and - to my mind - for example, political witnesses such as Fox tried to say as little as possible without properly lying, as they were still in same party as Sheridan and didn't want to do him in. That's without even mentioning the tape, the phone records etc (from 2006 case), and - mot important of all - the absolute lack of a coherent narrative to the defence case.
(James feel free to edit this if I've pushed the boundaries at all - so long as it's published and people don't find me rude by not replying!)
re The "splice" theory suggested by some here;
Here is a link to a remixed speech by President Bush which the mixer has clearly taken great trouble over.
They have had the advantage in making this re-mix that;
1) the audio all comes from the same recording of the same speech
2) the audio quality is fairly good
3) jumps can be disguised somewhat by the background clapping and noise.
4) the speech was about the same subjects that the remix is covering and the remix process largely consists of taking reasonably lengthy series of words and re-ordering them. There are occassional shorter re-orderings.
5) Bushes tone doesnt vary greatly - his delivery of lines is fairly standard in this type of speech an dthe result aimed at is the same type of delivery ie no change of type from "speech" to "informal" or "angry" etc.
On first listening its reasonably convincing.
However listen to it more carefully - you will detect changes in the audio at certain points where the remix has happened. Its clear from listening to it carefully that it has been re-mixed - and thats only on listening to it.
The person that did this has clearly gone to a good deal of trouble and has some skill in this. Nevertheless even with these advantages its still clear that this is a remix.
Bush Speech re-mix
This is a lot better example, Bunc, whoever has done this has got this down to a T. It is IMPSSOIBLE to spot the joins here. Dave Cameron:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quKdpAyc7TM
From the concatenative article: "Prosodics and emotional content
A recent study reported in the journal "Speech Communication" by Amy Drahota and colleagues at the University of Portsmouth, UK, reported that listeners to voice recordings could determine, at better than chance levels, whether or not the speaker was smiling.[31] It was suggested that identification of the vocal features which signal emotional content may be used to help make synthesized speech sound more natural." Now, how does that work, the old "smiling on the 'phone".
Anonymous 8.02pmsaid
"I don't see much point in you bringing the WHOLE of the prosecution case into the discussion, that's not what the thread is about."
i wasn't aware I had done that.
I take your point about the phone tapping. It will be interesting to see if anything definite comes from that line of questioning.
re witnesses you said "And quite a few didn't and weren't, so why appear in a perjury trial?" I suppose because they are sent citations and have to. I can't imagine many of them volunteered for this.
A Cited witness can be jailed for not answering a Citation.
@ Avid Reader
Apols, the earlier anon post wasn't me (too late to go back on being anon now, for this thread). By "bringing the whole case into it" I was meaning you mentioning apparent inconsistencies (that I went on to address), and NoTW payments (some witnesses were paid (some a lot, some not so much e.g. costs of them staying in a hotel to attend court), but many were not - and all their stories match up, broadly speaking. Besides being paid doesn't make one a liar. Remember if the defence are to be believed almost ALL those witnesses have PERJURED themselves.
Disagree with you Bunc.
I don't think the tape is a concoction, bye the way, but I made clear it is possible to create something similar that would pass as valid to a casual listener's ear.
The examples you give are amateurish. People playing about with editing software.
Check out
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm
That was 11 years ago. Things have moved on a lot since them.
With the latest audio software I can assure you I can make a pretty seamless recording using different voice sources that would convince the casual listener – particularly if you throw in a lot of background noise to help mask any obvious anomalies.
The guy from Los Alamos could have been asked to examine the tape and give evidence. He has done it in other other cases.
http://soundevidence.com/
This guy's expertise includes "determining whether recordings have been altered and speaker identification"
As I said, if Sheridan does not cast doubt on this tape then the defence case is holed below the water line, in my opinion.
Sheridan's refusal to can't get an expert in is understandable for obvious reasons.
I just don't understand why the Crown didn't call one.
Can you offer an explanation as to why they didn't.
I am genuinely baffled. Surely it wasn't over the cost of using an expert as the case has cost millions anyway.
If an expert had been called we could all have perhaps have saved ourselves a lot of time.
I am genuinely baffled.
Anonymous 12.44am said
"Remember if the defence are to be believed almost ALL those witnesses have PERJURED themselves."
And if the prosecution witnesses are telling the truth, it stands to reason that the defence witnesses are lying.
(Unless collective amnesia has set in on one side.)
So it will be very interesting, given the high profile of this case, and the money spent on it, to see if more trials follow on from this one. Or will it all just be forgotten?
Avid, the high court is full of people who lie, every trial has a winning side and a losing side and by definition someone must have been telling porkies.
If this trial is a precedent then every not guilty verdict would lead to the police ending up in court, every guilty verdict would lead to all the defence witnesses being charged.
@Avid Reader:
Indeed. My point was regarding the payments though - whatever reason any witness on either side might have for committing perjury, I have to express my incredulity that many people would do so for some nights in a hotel while attending court.
Regarding the earlier part of our discussion, I think we can agree that the whole Coulson testimony didn't amount to anything (unless something happens with future NotW witnesses TS plans to call, of course).
With regard to your final point, perhaps one of the law-types following the blog can answer whether they think it is likely more trials will follow from people perjuring themselves in this case (as of course at least SOME witnesses have already done)? I would suspect it would not be considered in the public interest, and the cases of each individual witness would not be strong enough (remember there were more 'pro-sheridan' witnesses charged with perjury before, which i presume got dropped well before the current trial)
Post a Comment