Tuesday, December 21, 2010

The Crown Summing Up, The "McNeilage Tape"

Report by Whatsy


Mr Prentice first displayed the evidence bags containing the camera, the cables and the micro-cassette pertaining to the McNeilage Tape, and mentioned that although Mr McNeilage had testified that there had been an altercation at the end that he had taped over, the one thing that was unchallenged was that the tape was a film of an event. The challenge, as MR Prentice understood it, was that the man in the film talking to Mr McNeilage was not Tommy Sheridan.

Mr Prentice suggested to the jury that although they might not think it honourable of Mr McNeilage, “a lifelong pal” of Tommy Sheridan, to record a conversation, that doesn't change the fact that it was done.


Mr Prentice listed a number of Crown witnesses who had testified that they thought the voice on the tape was Mr Sheridan's – George McNeilage, Carolyn Leckie, William Moore, Colin Fox, Alan McCombes, and that although Andrew Coulson and Bob Bird had identified the voice as Mr Sheridan, the jury should be cautious with their evidence as they have an interest in it being Mr Sheridan.

Mr Prentice quoted defence witness June Hill saying it was “not even remotely like Tommy Sheridan”.

Mr Prentice then suggested to the jury that there is another way of assessing the tape, the fleeting glimpse of the man alleged to be Mr Sheridan in the tape, but that even Carolyn Leckie placed nothing on this, as it was the voice that was the most important.

Mr Prentice then moved on to the timing of the recording, recalling Mr McNeilage's testimony that Mr Sheridan sent him a text, then phoned him before the meeting to say he was five minutes away. Mr Prentice then quoted evidence from Mr Sheridan's mobile phone records that showed a text message being sent on 18 November 2004 at 18:43:34 and a phone call to the phone Mr McNeilage testified as his, although it had been registered to someone else.

Mr Prentice examined the defence proposition that the film was actually made in 2006, and recalled the evidence of William Moore who, although at one point had said the film was made in 2006, if the jury looked closely at Mr Moore's evidence he had also stated he had seen the tape in 2004, as also mentioned in Mr Moore's statement to the police. Mr Prentice also pointed to the denial by “Tommy” on the tape of the Fiona McGuire story, then to the next call Mr Sheridan made on his phone at 20:44:17. Mr Prentice put it to the jury that the News of the World would have got “incredibly lucky” to fit the film into this gap between Mr Sheridan's use of his phone, and that while it may be suggested to them that the NoW had combed through Mr Sheridan's phone records for such a gap, this had not been suggested to any witnesses.

Mr Prentice then recalled the testimony of the witness who had been standing next to Mr Sheridan when he participated in a television interview, with the witness saying that the voice on the tape was not Mr Sheridan, but that when the recording of the interview had been played in court, Mr Sheridan had suggested during that interview that it was his voice, spliced with some other voice.

The McNeilage tape was then played to the court on the Audio-Visual system, with Mr Prentice stopping the tape at certain points to comment on the contents:

Firstly, Mr Prentice asked the jury to consider the initial detail Mr McCombes would need to know if he or Mr Baldessara had scripted the tape, as had been alleged by the defence, although this suggestion had not been put to Mr Baldessara when in the witness box.

At a point in the tape where “T” makes reference to Alan McCombes “shagging” Carolyn Leckie behind his wife's back, Mr Prentice asked whether this was detail that Mr McCombes would include when writing the script for the tape.

At a point where a PCS strike, Rose Gentle and a Baird Memorial event are mentioned, Mr Prentice asked why this would be included in a scripted film.

At the point where “T” shows a text from Mr McCombes to Ms Leckie suggesting Tommy was going to join the Independents, which that had apparently been sent accidentally to the phone of “T”, Mr Prentice again asked why this had been included in the film if it was scripted by Mr McCombes.

At the point where “T” is heard saying about Fiona McGuire “I've never even met the lassie”, Mr Prentice asked the jury why, if the News of the World was behind the tape, would they include this on the film when it “rubbished their headline story” regarding Ms McGuire and Mr Sheridan.

At the point where “T” is heard describing Katrinne Trolle as “a diamond” and “fucking solid” an that she would not tell anyone about the Cupid's visit, Mr Prentice put it to the jury that that was exactly how it had turned out and that Ms Trolle had not admitted anything to the News of the World.

At the point where “T” discusses speaking to Lynn and Carol, presumably Mr Sheridan's sisters, about leaving his wife, Mr Prentice asked the jury why this should be included in the film as it could be denied by the people concerned, as it had indeed been done in their testimony. If the alleged conspiracy against Mr Sheridan was true, why include such detail?

At the point where “T” mentions talking to a journalist on the way to the train station, Mr Prentice suggested this was exactly what had happened, as mentioned during the journalist Paul Sinclair's testimony.

The tape was then stopped, and Mr Prentice suggested to the jury that if the News of the World really had created the tape, it was of pretty poor quality, and that if, as alleged by the defence, the recording had to be stopped because the actor playing “T” had stood up, why not do a second take?

Mr Prentice put it to the jury that the tape was the “genuine article”, and that although £200,000 was a lot of money, that was not a reason to conclude that it had been concocted.

The Advocate Depute then moved to the conclusion of his summing up, which will be the subject of our next report.

20 comments:

Bunc said...

Why not do a second take? A point that I have made here a number of times. Prentice seems to have made very telling points about details in the tape and the illogicality of the suggestion that it is scripted in some way.

Anonymous said...

Excellent stuff, Whatsy. Well done!

Tom Regan said...

@ Bunc and second takes...

On first glance, using mere logic and common sense, what you say is quite attractive.

But you are clearly, like it has been alleged of AP too, not a student of conspiracies. You have to make it look a bit imperfect to make it more credible. In fact, the more incredible the story, the more credible it is.

Why do it right, with a damning and unsinkable forgery that would knock the case into a cocked hat, when you can present something altogether less conclusive, that allows the defence to poke holes in it? (You can apply this to most other bits of the Crown case too.)

In fact, to go further: if you were to go the whole hog, and present something that just about beggared belief, then that actually means it is, hang on, yes - really really believable. Black is white, up is down.

I may need to do a second take on this contribution....

Anonymous said...

I always thought that a criminal case had to be proved "beyond reasonablee doubt"?

Anonymous said...

good work kere guys your hands must be numb with all of this.

Lefty Trainspotter said...

so the evidence it's a fake is the lack of evidence it's a fake.

John said...

"so the evidence it's a fake is the lack of evidence it's a fake."

So the evidence that the tape is 'real' is that it's of "pretty poor quality" & surely if it was faked they'd have done a better job of it? That's absolute nonsense.

By that reasoning, surely if Tony Blair & George Bush had been lieing about Iraq having "WMD" they would have done a better job of it.

Lefty Trainspotter said...

that depends on your definition of "real".

i was merely pointing out the absurd nature of the dismissal above. Using the logic of that post it would be impossible to ever disprove a faking.

If there's evidence of a conpiracy it exists
If there's no evidence of a conspiracy it's a really powerful conspiracy

Peter said...

On the tape:

I suggest in terms of reasonable doubt the main difficulty with the tape for the Crown is still that Sheridan does not appear to be identified (visually) in it.

Well not beyond reasonable doubt as his face is not shown - only fleetingly, in shadow and not in full profile.

I suggest a reasonable person may therefore decide that on balance they cannot be sure it is actually Sheridan (in the picture).

So surely it comes down to the voice.

The Crown perhaps importantly does not say, as far as I can see in the accounts, that it is Sheridan's voice beyond reasonable doubt.

It also provides no expert testimony on voice analysis to demonstrate it is very likely to be him - that may be due to the high level of ambient noise on the tape or for other reason that we legally may not be entitled to know of.

The Crown appears therefore to rely on the little personal details contained in the recording to "prove" it is likely to be genuine.

But surely unless there is certainty (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the voice is Sheridan then is not all the rest of this matter is irrelevant?

Firstly those little personal details, according to the defence, would be available to the creators of the tape (through the libel trial and possible bugging) - but that is perhaps a red herring.

Put it this way if you are NOT sure it is his voice how can the Crown convince you it is by these little details about baby scans etc.

Alternatively if you think the voice is his then the calculation is then to decide if you sure beyond a reasonable doubt that it is.

You may hope that someone would help you with that assessment of his voice - but there is much disputed evidence about identification of his voice from people from either side who know him well.

And as I say no "expert" evidence either.

The tape recording also appears to have a lot of ambient noise which may make precise identification difficult.

It therefore appears to be a very difficult task to give to a jury.

Considering the high bar of certainty that needs to be reached I suggest a very difficult job indeed.

But that high bar of "beyond reasonable doubt" on voice identification is the one that needs to be reached before any conviction (at least on this bit of tape evidence) can be safe. No?

I don't envy the jury in their task.

Peter said...

On the tape:

I suggest in terms of reasonable doubt the main difficulty with the tape for the Crown is still that Sheridan does not appear to be identified (visually) in it.

Well not beyond reasonable doubt as his face is not shown - only fleetingly, in shadow and not in full profile.

I suggest a reasonable person may therefore decide that on balance they cannot be sure it is actually Sheridan (in the picture).

So surely it comes down to the voice.

The Crown perhaps importantly does not say, as far as I can see in the accounts, that it is Sheridan's voice beyond reasonable doubt.

It also provides no expert testimony on voice analysis to demonstrate it is very likely to be him - that may be due to the high level of ambient noise on the tape or for other reason that we legally may not be entitled to know of.

The Crown appears therefore to rely on the little personal details contained in the recording to "prove" it is likely to be genuine.

But surely unless there is certainty (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the voice is Sheridan then is not all the rest of this matter is irrelevant?

Firstly those little personal details, according to the defence, would be available to the creators of the tape (through the libel trial and possible bugging) - but that is perhaps a red herring.

Put it this way if you are NOT sure it is his voice how can the Crown convince you it is by these little details about baby scans etc.

Alternatively if you think the voice is his then the calculation is then to decide if you sure beyond a reasonable doubt that it is.

You may hope that someone would help you with that assessment of his voice - but there is much disputed evidence about identification of his voice from people from either side who know him well.

And as I say no "expert" evidence either.

The tape recording also appears to have a lot of ambient noise which may make precise identification difficult.

It therefore appears to be a very difficult task to give to a jury.

Considering the high bar of certainty that needs to be reached I suggest a very difficult job indeed.

But that high bar of "beyond reasonable doubt" on voice identification is the one that needs to be reached before any conviction (at least on this bit of tape evidence) can be safe. No?

I don't envy the jury in their task.

Anonymous said...

@Peter
How come so many of your posts get published?

James Doleman said...

Hello anon, if you are trying to allege bias in the comments policy I can tell you that many of Peter's comments are not published.

I am tempted ,but will not say what I would suggest you do if you have a problem with the policy of the site.

Best Regards

James

Tom Regan said...

@ Conspiracies

Just think of that great historical figure Kaizer Soze - the devil's greatest trick is to convince us he doesn't exist at all. Oh yes.

Anonymous said...

Interesting point (not mentioned in the "mainstream" media!) that TS choose to address the jury from the dock rather than the lectern. I wonder what his reason for this was.

Anonymous said...

James,

I'd have hoped to read some of what AP said about T Montgomery.

Any chance?

Thanks for your efforts.

Peter said...

@Peter
How come so many of your posts get published?

December 21, 2010 5:18 PM
Blogger James Doleman said...

Hello anon, if you are trying to allege bias in the comments policy I can tell you that many of Peter's comments are not published.

I am tempted ,but will not say what I would suggest you do if you have a problem with the policy of the site.

Best Regards

James

December 21, 2010 5:25 PM

Yes Anon James is correct - most of my best stuff appears to have ended up on the cutting room floor.

I reckon it is probably about 60-40 in my favour which is a lot of unpublished posts. So he is fair and balanced.

My missus is abroad at the moment but is back at the end of the week so you will probably see a drop off of activity then ! Also me mum taught me to type and as I have a high level of interest and know the parties on both sides I have difficulty resisting this blog.

Why not choose pick a user name and make a (relevant) comment yourself - this blog is going to be a fantastic historical record - so join in. I am doing a prize for the best user name.

Cheers,

Peter

Anonymous said...

@ James Doleman
Really well he must submit an awful lot.

James Doleman said...

I'd say "anonymous" is by far our most prolific commentator.

Whatsy said...

Have to back up Peter here with his 60:40 ratio - that seems about right.

Bear in mind that when James (or sometimes I) do a bit of post moderation, we have to read each post before allowing or binning it. That's a lot of reading, especially of Peter's thoughts.

Some of the posts that don't make it are real eye-openers! And some, nobody should have to read.

Iain Mc said...

I'd just like to echo the comments about what a fantastic job the team has done with their hard work on this blog.

Especially when compared to the rather sketchy and poor coverage in the press - and especially with regard to the unenviable task of moderating the comments (although I woud be intrigued to read them I can well understand why you wouldn't post them after the trial concludes).

Bit late in the day for suggestions, and perhaps a bit cheeky from an avid lurker but perhaps defaulting the 'Anonymous' username to 'Anonymous Coward' (like I think it does on The Register?) might have encouraged at least some of them to put some kind of name to their remarks, to assist in the following of the lively debates? :)