The first witness on Tuesday morning was Charotte Ahmed. Ms Ahmed told the court that she lived in Glasgow and taught chemistry in a secondary school in the city, a job she had done for 20 years. Mr Sheridan, who is conducting his own defence, asked Ms Ahmed if she had originally been a Crown witness, Ms Ahmed told the court she had been cited by the Crown but had not been called to testify.
Mr Sheridan then asked Ms Ahmed about her "political background" Ms Ahmed told the court that she had been a "socialist for a long, long time," had been a member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and had joined the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) along with other SWP members in 2001. Ms Ahmed also confirmed that she had been elected as a member of the Executive Committee of the SSP.
Mr Sheridan asked Ms Ahmed if she had attended the SSP executive meeting of 24 November 2004, which she had, and asked the witness if she had been presented with a minute of the 9 November Executive (at which the Crown allege Mr Sheridan admitted attending a "sex club") Ms Ahmed told the court she had not and that "no minutes were presented." Mr Sheridan asked the witness if she had been presented with any documents at that meeting. Ms Ahmed said she had been given a "bundle of papers" but there was "nothing I would describe as a minute."
Mr Sheridan then showed the witness a booklet, which the Crown claim was given to attendees at the 24th November meeting and asked the witness to read the minute contained within. Ms Ahmed stated "this is not like any minute or any proposed minute of any meeting I've been at" Asked to describe the differences the witness told the court that a "normal" minute contained an agenda and a list of decisions made and perhaps a financial report, it did not "quote people"
Mr Sheridan then asked Ms Ahmed if she could describe the "state of the SSP in 2004." The witness told the court that after the election of 6 MSPs in 2003 the party should have been "growing and making a big impact" but "a divided leadership had not taken the fullest advantage" Ms Ahmed added that she had personally believed that the party should have been recruiting more members from a wider range of people, but that "a section of the leadership did not want to do that."
Mr Sheridan finally asked the witness if they were "friends" Ms Ahmed said they were not. Asked if she would lie for him the Ms Ahmed replied that she had a professional career and a trade union position and would not. Mr Sheridan then returned to his seat and the Advocate Depute, Alex Prentice QC, rose to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Prentice asked Ms Ahmed to explain to the court "what was unusual about the minute shown to you" The witness replied that it was structured wrongly and there were "long passages of people speaking, that is not what a minute is." Mr Prentice asked if the minute was unusual because there was "personal information in the document" Ms Ahmed responded that "could describe it"
The Advocate Depute then asked the witness about the documents she had recieved at the 24 November meeting, which she describes as "a bundle in a cardboard folder" asked what it contained Ms Ahmed replied that there were various photocopied resolutions and a financial report but she had only read the first two or three of them. Mr Prentice then asked that as the witness had not read all of the documents there "could have been a minute" Ms Ahmed replied "no it would have had to be approved" but accepted the Advocate Depute's contention that it was "possible" that there "could have been a minute there but you didn't see it"
Mr Prentice asked Ms Ahmed what issues she had raised at the 24 November executive meeting and asked if the 9 November meeting had been discussed, Ms Ahmed said she could "not remember precisely" but did not believe so. Mr Prentice put it to the witness that what had been discussed was the draft minute, Ms Ahmed said "no" and Mr Prentice returned to his seat. Mr Sheridan then briefly re-examined the witness and asked her to look at the booklet that the Crown claim was given to attendees at the 24 November executive. Ms Ahmed did and Mr Sheridan asked her to look at the first three documents and asked if one of them was the disputed minute. Ms Ahmed confirmed it was the second document. Mr Sheridan then put it to the witness that if even if she had only looked at the first three pages of the document she would still have seen the "minute," Ms Ahmed confirmed that she would have. Mr Sheridan then ended by asking Ms Ahmed if "this was the paper you were given" Ms Ahmed said "no" and, with that, Mr Sheridan returned to his seat and the witness was allowed to step down.
23 comments:
Just by reading these couple of witnesses that TS has produced, they all seem to be very well coached in exactly the same way and none of them apart from the Latin prof talked to the police.
I know they do not have to give anything to the police but surely if they wanted to help TS they would have been glad to give a statement even as simple as It was not him. You can always ask the police to get out you are free to do so, if they push for more you can report them.
I feel they were coached to keep quiet and so that TS could get a story for them all to follow.
5 hours police interview that seems a bit much.
Good work reporting guys!
Hello anon, could you rephrase? "coached' is not term I am happy with being used.
Thanks
J
A bit of a 'no-win' conundrum here: if witnesses say things that slightly contradict, we point out thye differences as a sign of unreliability - if the witnesses agree on the details, they are accused of being coached!!!
Why is AP's cross-examination so short? He has a host of witnesses on each side giving their recollections of a meeting. To guard against collective 'singing from the same hymn sheet' an advocate should surely ask cognitive questions which deal with subjects unlikely to have been fully covered by any 'coaching' from others keen to establish the appearance or non-appearance of the disputed minutes.
For example: a map of the seating arrangements, windows, curtains, lighting and door/s. How many copies of the bundle were given out? What clothes was TS/others wearing? Who left the room first? Who came back in? Who raised their voice? etc, etc?
A coached witness will hedge their bets, seem less certain and even vague on collateral subjects.
I know our Learned Bloggers do their utmost to record the salient points but I may not be the only one to detect a shallowness to the cross-examination.
This video interview of who framed roger rabbit puts another spin on it. The defendant to me has been saying in questioning it isn't him yet this interview suggests otherwise?
Hypothetically let's ask why no evidence was led on confirming the mcneilage tape. Normal process would have been to obtain a sample of Mr Sheridan's voice and compare it with the tape by using computer voice analysis.
Hypothetically there would be no way that this wasnt done. It's to obvious. So why wasn't evidence led?
@ Anon 9:14, could be that AP thinks he has got this trial "in the bag" and just wants to move things along as speedily as possible.
"could be that AP thinks he has got this trial "in the bag"
He must be at a different trial then.
Could it be there is some fault in the comparitor tape or in the way it was gathered? Did they use something from tv or radio? Can't see how that would keep it out the trial.
Double jeopardy is getting debated in the Scottish parliament this week. If its not proven you can bet the establishment will be looking to have another go at tommy and fail if DJ gets the vote.
Another thing that's odd is why the defence never got the tape analysed and present an expert to show its false.
" but we can still speculate."
With respect anon, not about things of that nature on this particular site
Best Regards
James
@ Anon 9.32
Except the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
It's for the Crown to prove it's genuine.
(why not chose a user name when you reply - it's OK no-one will knock on your front door if you do :-))
No, Sir Brian Hine, the Crown do not have to prove that an exhibit/production is "genuine". Say the exhibit/production in question was a hammer, would you expect the Crown to send it for metallurgical tests to prove that it was "genuine", the tape is just that a "production" and if the defence want to raise any objections about it they ate perfectly entitled to.
If tape was led by the prosecution with am expert would it not be prudent for the defence to counter it with their own expert discredited it?
So if they went to the trouble of getting it analysed to discredit it why not play that card anyway?
Sir b h for you my honourable friend how does my choice of name sound.
Also you don't know what "forensic examination" the tape has been submitted to before being submitted for evidence, all this nonsense about "proving" the tape is "genuine" is in my opinion just a smokescreen.
Well then, knock knock, we can then reasonably assume in my opinion that the defence has conceded the "genuineness" of the tape as an exhibit/production.
Going by recent evidence it appears that the defence's contention is not that the recording is false (ie its physical creation and existence) but that it contains actors, not the accused.
Why they contend this is a matter for private speculation. But it may explain why no expert testimony has been called.
It is possible that the Crown believes the tape to be self-evidently authentic. If so then it might be seen as unnecessary to call expert witnesses to prove what it regards as plain and obvious. And counter-productive (Crown cites a renowned expert, defence finds another who has different conclusion: this would muddy the Crown's case and perhaps be seen as lending credence to what the Crown may regard as a spurious defence.)
As to the point re innocent until proven guilty - of course, that's true in the broad context of the charges; however it does not follow that the Crown has to provide scientific or forensic proof of the veracity of this particular piece of evidence. It can be "proven" or otherwise in the context of its relationship to other evidence.
Lady muck, I like that you sound classy yet down to earth. Could be that the comparison has been excluded on some technical issue that prevents it from being put forward.
James please don't treat this as speculating I would like to think we are debating the curiosities of this anomaly.
Kindest regards
Knock knock
As we are discussing conspiracies, has it ever occured to anyone that if elements of the "state" were really out to wound socialism in Scotland, they would actually quite like a not guilty verdict?
No resolution and people at each other's throats for a generation over trivia, what could be better?
Of course, much of the "state" is probably OK with "socialism" - more moolah in their budgets and no responsibility after all...
"Lady Muck said...
No, Sir Brian Hine, the Crown do not have to prove that an exhibit/production is "genuine". Say the exhibit/production in question was a hammer, would you expect the Crown to send it for metallurgical tests to prove that it was "genuine", the tape is just that a "production" and if the defence want to raise any objections about it they ate perfectly entitled to."
Sorry Lady Muck, there are always facts in a case that are not in dispute - in most cases, both sides would agree that a hammer was a hammer, in the same way that both sides agree that the tape is a tape. Whether the tape is genuine is a matter requiring proof, and the Crown needs to prove their claims.
With all due respect, Lord Muck and may I take the liberty of quoting Anon 10:04 (above) "... it does not follow the Crown has to provide scientific or forensic proof of the veracity of this particular piece of evidence.It can be "proven" or otherwise in the context of its relationship to other evidence."
Lady Muck.
Not sure I agree with your suggestion. If the 'hammer' was cited as being say a murder weapon, then the Crown would need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that this exhibit was connected to the accused.
The tape - as far as I understand it and I've not seen it - seems to show someone, allegedly Mr Sheridan, 'confessing' that he did perjure himself.
No-one is denying it's a tape, nor are they denying that someone is saying something. It is who is saying it what has not been proven. And that will be for the jury to determine.
And to Knock Knock - a most excellent username. Thank you.
@lady Muck 10.04 wrote
"Well then, knock knock, we can then reasonably assume in my opinion that the defence has conceded the "genuineness" of the tape as an exhibit/production."
We agree it's a tape - a video - that it is a genuine video, using an electronic video recording device. So in that sense yes it is genuine...
But if you're suggesting that the words and people are genuine, then why is Mr Sheridan calling witnesses to testify that it is not him in the tape?
sie brian, i take it your now german, lol
and lady muck thank you for explaining this curiosity so well. we'll see the outcome soon enough.
Post a Comment