 |
| Picture Glasgow Herald |
Mr Sheridan then asked Mrs McFarlane is she had been present at her sister's home when it had been raided by Lothian and Borders police in December 2007. The witness said she had been and was asked to describe what happened. Mrs McFarlane told the court that there had been a total of 10 officers present, four CID and six in, what she described as, "police combat uniform." Mrs McFarlane said her sister gail was in a state of shock while Gabrielle, Mr and Mrs Sheridan's two year old daughter had been "crying and terrified" and "was trying to hide behind the sofa" at this point the witness broke down in tears so Mr Sheridan paused his questioning to allow her a moment to recover.
After that brief pause Mrs McFarlane continued to describe the 2007 police raid, telling the court it lasted for between "seven and eight hours." The witness also stated that at one point she had seen officers searching Gabrielle's "nursery" looking through her "toys and nappies and clothes" Mr Sheridan asked Mrs McFarlane if the police had given her any explanation of why they were serching there and if they had said they were looking for "weapons, drugs, of suitcases full of cash" Mrs McFarlane answered "no" to both questions.
Mr Sheridan then moved on and asked Mrs McFarlane if she had been following the progress of the case and if she knew that it had been claimed that her husband, Andrew McFarlane, had been "unfaithful to her and visited a Manchester sex club." The witness said she had known that and when asked how this had made her feel replied "physically sick." Mr Sheridan then stated that "unfortunately the allegations against your husband have been unspecific and virtually impossible to refute" adding that "a four year investigation and three month trial had only produced one specific date, Friday the 27th of September 2002" (the date the Crown assert that Mr Sheridan, Mr McFarlane and others visited the Cupids club in Manchester) Mr Sheridan then asked the witness if she knew where her husband had been on that date, Mrs McFarlane replied "yes I do."
Mrs McFarlane told the court that she had came home from work at around 9pm that night to find her husband watching golf on television (the Ryder cup) adding that he was a "golf fanatic." Mrs McFarlane also stated that at that time Mr McFarlane was still "recovering from a hip operation." Mr Sheridan then brought into evidence Mrs McFarlane's work rosters and her diary from the month of November 2002, and had copies given to the jury. The rosters appear to show that Mrs McFarlane had worked on a British Airways flight on the 27th of September going off duty at 21.30. Mr Sheridan asked the witness how she could have been home at 9pm when her roster showed her flight had not "cleared" 9.30pm. Mrs McFarlane replied that "after the time we land they add forty five minutes for a "debrief" but that "nobody ever does that" and she had driven straight home. Mr Sheridan asked that he was aware that she no longer worked for British Airways but if she did would "she be in trouble for saying that." Mrs McFarlane laughed and said "I don't think so, maybe" Mrs McFarlane was then shown her roster again and confirmed she had been on duty the next morning at 10.30 am. The court then rose for a brief break.
When the court reconvened Mr Sheridan asked the witness if she was familiar with the name Ian Proctor, Mrs McFarlane stated that Mr Proctor had been her manager at British Airways. Mr Sheridan asked Mrs McFarlane if she was aware that Mr Proctor had been listed as a prosecution witness but that he had never been called, Mrs McFarlane replied "no." Mr Sheridan then asked when Mrs McFarlane had located her roster and diary. Mrs McFarlane told the court that she had seen the date 27th November 2002 mentioned six to seven weeks ago on television and had discussed it with her husband. She had then looked for "proof of what I had done that day," located the roster and diary and passed this to Mr Sheridan's solicitor. Mr Sheridan then put it to Mrs McFarlane that if her husband was with her on the 27th September 2002 "he couldn't have been in a sex club in Manchester." The witness agreed "absolutely not" and stated when asked that she had told the truth in court today.
Mr Sheridan then asked Mrs McFarlane how well she knew her sister Gail Sheridan, to which she replied "more than you." The witness was then asked if her sister had told her about her interrogation by Lothian and Borders police in February 2007 Mrs McFarlane replied that "she had told me how badly she was treated, it was atrocious" Mr Sheridan then asked if Gail Sheridan had ever been trained by the "Provisional IRA or any other terrorist organisation" she said "no, never no." Mr Sheridan concluded by asking Mrs McFarlane if her husband had ever been unfaithful to her, to which she replied "absolutely not" adding she was "certain" that they had spent the evening of the 27th September 2002 together. Mr Sheridan then thanked the witness and returned to his seat in the dock.
Mr Nicholson then rose to cross-examine Mrs McFarlane for the prosecution. He opened by asking the witness how much a miniature bottle of white wine cost on the flights she worked on. She replied it was free on the service she served on and that a passenger would only need to "ask and we would give them it." Mr Nicholson then asked if Gail Sheridan had also worked for British Airways, which the witness confirmed she had until April this year. Mr Nicholson then asked the witness if she was at home on the 23rd September 2002, Mrs McFarlane replied that she "would have to check my roster" Mr Nicholson put it to the witness that the roster and diary only showed when she was working, not if she was at home or not, adding that "the diary and roster do not take us very far do they" as they did not state "Andy at home that day."
Mr Nicholson then returned the Mrs McFarlane's previous statement that one of the reasons she had recalled her husband being home on the 27th September 2002 was that he was watching the Ryder Cup, and asked what she knew about that event. The witness replied that it was a golf tournament between the "American's and European's" and was asked if "she was relying on her husband's information" about it. Mrs McFarlane replied that she "knew what it was" but accepted when asked if it was the "fourball or singles" that she "did not know the details. Mr Nicholson then said "I'm suggesting to you that you have no idea if he [Mr McFarlane] was at home on the 27th September" which the witness denied saying she remembered that night. Mr Nicholson then returned to his seat and Mr Sheridan left the dock to re-examine.
Mr Sheridan asked Mrs McFarlane of she had ever been asked before what she did on the 23rd September 2002, to which she replied no. Mr Sheridan asked her if she had become aware that the 27th September 2002 had been a "significant date" and if she had checked her roster and diary "to aid her memory" the witness replied "yes I did." adding that it was also the "September weekend" and that he husband had "still been in a lot of pain" as the result of a hipboperation. Mr Sheridan asked the witness that when she finished work did she usually go home and Mrs McFarlane replied that BA Cabin staff were not allowed to go to a pub or club in uniform so even if she was going out she always returned home to change into "civvies" Mr Sheridan asked the witness again if she had been truthful, to which Mrs McFarlane replied "I have told the truth, yes" Mr Sheridan then thanked the witness and returned to his seat in the dock. Lord Bracadale also thanked the witness and Mrs McFarlane was allowed to step down from the stand. Mr Sheridan then told the court that Gillian McFarlane was the last witness he would be calling in his defence and that he would now present the "joint minute" in 10 minutes. The court then rose while this was agreed between the two parties. (for a report on subsequent events in court on Friday see Here )
71 comments:
Thanks Peter, those have been fixed.
Best Regards
James
This struck me from Gillian McFarlane's testimony:
"Mr Sheridan then asked Mrs McFarlane is she had been present at her sisters home when it had been raided by Lothian and Borders police in December 1997. The witness said she had and was asked to describe what happened. Mrs McFarlane told the court that there had been a total of 10 officers present, four CID and six in, what she described as, " "police combat uniform."
Mrs McFarlane said he sister was in shock while Gabrielle, Mr and Mrs Sheridan's two year old daughter and been "crying and terrified" and "was trying to hide behind the sofa" at this point the witness broke down in tears so Mr Sheridan paused his questioning to allow her a moment to recover.
After that brief pause Mrs McFarlane continued to describe the 2007 police raid telling the court it lasted for between "seven and eight hours."
The witness also stated that at one point she had seen officers searching Gabrielle's "nursery" looking through her "toys and nappies and clothes".
Mr Sheridan asked the witness if the police had given her any explanation of why they were doing that and if they were looking for
"weapons, drugs of suitcases of cash"
Mrs McFarlane answered no."
------------------------
What could lead to this level of police raid?
I suggest the unsupported testimony given by Ms Scott regarding her gun allegation notes - that she had passed into the police in 2006 - may need looking at again.
TBC
Peter,
What led to this level of a police raid was evidence pointing to the crime currently being tried at the High Court in Glasgow.
Let's just wait for the verdict before we decide if it was proportionate, shall we?
PumpkinEater
@ Peter in Scotland there are 3 levels of Criminal Courts: the District for petty offences (tried without a jury, a "stipendiary" magistrate sits alone on trials), then up a level to the Sheriff Court (most crimes are tried by a Sheriff sitting alone, more serious crimes are tried by a jury), and up another level to the High Court (for the most serious of crimes, all cases tried by a jury).
Peter, the Sheridans were being investigated for the most serious of crimes, that is why they were investigated, had their home searched in such a manner - TS isn't accused of "forgetting" to pay his Poll Tax.
At that stage many people were being investigated. This isnt a nromal way to behave in a perjury investigation, anyone can see that.
Anonymous said...
Peter, the Sheridans were being investigated for the most serious of crimes, that is why they were investigated, had their home searched in such a manner - TS isn't accused of "forgetting" to pay his Poll Tax.
Well see when this trial is over either way there had better be an investigation into the dinghy,s that have been told told in this case,i for one will be seeing my MP to make a complaint against certain people in the public interest
I do not believe that was too much. I think the police were only doing their job and remember TS is all for overthrowing the state so who know what these guys could have faced upon entering his house.
I think that anyone that truely challenges the establishment can expect the type of treatment that TS has received. Julian Assange is another example.
I'm sure the right honourables in Holyrood can rest in peace though, as they are never likely to be on the end of this type of allegation!
I am amazed at the number of people that keep diaries going back many years and can pinpoint an exact event.
To me this case rests on evidence given by those not associated with the Sheridans or other interests such as the NoTW or the SSP.
If they can be believed it all falls into place.
The Police (in Scotland) can't just Search a Domicile willy-nilly, they have to obtain a Search Warrant, and for that they have to convince a (usually a Sheriff) that they have sufficient grounds.
What did the cops actually take from the house that are productions? some diaries ffs and it took ten clowns to do it
To test if Sheridan was guilty of perjury it was simple enough for the police to:
- check out forensically the claims that he was not in Cupids. Do that by mobile tracking, CCTV, credit cards etc They can do this especially with the big budget they had.
- They could have checked not just of Tommy for this information but the large group of people who were supposed to have seen him there and been with him.
- producing forensics on the "minutes".
- thoroughly check out the stories of the Crown witnesses and double check if Sheridan was at any public events at the same time of the alleged sex sessions in Dundee and Manchester.
Instead the police go for this bull in a china shop approach.
Firstly surely it is counter productive for the police to engage in this sort of raid.
That type of operation is usually reserved for gangland figures to harass and disrupt their operations.
The average person saw this as way out of proportion to the NATURE of the crime being investigated.
If they had rejected Ms Scott's allegations about guns (as I presume they did as they left the raid for a more than a year) then this type of raid is designed for another purpose surely.
IMHO I suggest this raid and the other raids, arrests and charges of perjury levelled against those who gave alibis for Tommy in the libel trial had a purpose.
I suggest it is reasonable to consider that the "investiigation" was forved to rely on intimidation of Sheridan supporters and him and his family rather than actual evidence as there was none uncovered.
Remember The Herald and other newspapers received leaks from what they called "force insiders" that the police had CCTV, credit cards, mobile phone tracking etc but that now appears all baloney
NONE was ever produced by the police or the Crown.
So just maybe IMHO these police raids were a combination of hubris by the police; frustration; an attempt at intimidation of Tommys alibis; or (at best) a last desperate attempt to find something that would show guilt that most probably just was not there.
That is for the jury to decide.
Certainly in terms of turning up new evidence nothing significant appears to have been achieved by the whole of this hugely costly police investigation.
In my opinion looking through nappies and taking rattles from a little one is a poor substitute for proper detective work; forensics; and checking out witnesses stories.
Not Lothians Polis finest hour I suggest. IMHO.
Peter, I am not being facetious but why do you keep posting stuff that has already been gone over umpteen times such as this:
"- check out forensically the claims that he was not in Cupids. Do that by mobile tracking, CCTV, credit cards etc They can do this especially with the big budget they had."
I could type a response to this, but I am not going to bother. Or is that the idea, when our keyboards get worn out "Peter" wins.? Nothing personal, just saying.
How exactly do you track where a mobile phone was 8 years ago? You might be able to check what messages were sent to whom and at what times but how likely is it a mobile company will store the details of where all their sim cards are and have been since 2002?
The same principle applies for CCTV - why hasn't Tommy 'forensically' proved he was at the CCA, which is right on Sauchiehall St? Probably because 24 hours of CCTV 365 days a year are unlikely to be kept unless they have evidence of a crime on it etc.
"but how likely is it a mobile company will store the details of where all their sim cards are and have been since 2002?" Answer: they don't. It is really that simply!
Hello anon, for legal reasons I don't think we can discuss your question about the jury, sorry about that
No worries, James.
Hi Keybored Warrior,
Not sure you are quite right.
Mrs McKennas testimony has only just been published on this blog.
I suggest my comment that the lack of forensic evidence is not an old issue but a live issue.
Surely the point of Mrs McKennas evidence is that despite the forces involved in the police raid the lack of forensic evidence that was uncovered in that raid (and indeed the paucity of the forensic evidence overall) is starlky revealed.
That was what Tommy has indicated he thought as well.
Are you saying that the paucity of evidence should just be mentioned once or twice by the defence and swept under the carpet by the Crown.
I suggest it is so stark that the defence be entitled to make it the main highlight of their summation.
After 4 years with nothing much to show for it evidence wise the relevant people in Holyrood may also take an interest.
When the police submit their bill to the taxpayer and try and justify their continued funding this matter will no doubt come up.
So I suggest this one will run and run Keybored warrior - so you may have to get used to it.
Cheers - Peter.
Anonymous said...
How exactly do you track where a mobile phone was 8 years ago? You might be able to check what messages were sent to whom and at what times but how likely is it a mobile company will store the details of where all their sim cards are and have been since 2002?
The same principle applies for CCTV - why hasn't Tommy 'forensically' proved he was at the CCA, which is right on Sauchiehall St? Probably because 24 hours of CCTV 365 days a year are unlikely to be kept unless they have evidence of a crime on it etc.
Dont know about mobile phone tracking Mr.Mulcaire may be of help there.
As for "forensically" proving that T.S. was at CCA how many of the crown witnesses have provided forensic proof of their own statements,in most trials it is the Crown who has the responsibility of proof.
The defendant may also provide their own expert to repute this proof if thought necessary.
I believe also that he has witness statements that place him at the CCA. God help us if we are now in a situation that anyone at some future trial along with alibi witnesses would also be required to provide CCTV or video along side this. I think the wrong lessons are being learned here IMO.
Whatever their socio-economic composition, I shall be the first to say 'the working class has spoken', after the jury's verdict.
So the crown and defence have presented their witnesses.
Conflicting evidence has been offered.
No forensic evidence has been offered by either side in respect of the video tape played.
It will be for the jury to decide, of course, but what have they heard to persuade them beyond reasonable doubt that guilty is the only appropriate verdict?
seek and ye shall find, why is a witness who is connected to the sheridans any less or more viable than evidence from people connected to other witnesses.
who are you referring to?
@ Anonymous
Simple:- basically two sides in this trial. Evidence from witnesses not connected in any way to either side will not have been influenced by any side and is more likely to be truthful.
Someone is lying otherwise there would not be a perjury trial.
I came into this brillo blog pretty much assuming that one side was a bunch of dishonest, grasping chancers intent on fooling the people, whatever it takes.
I still do think that. Nothing's changed. Except about whom I think it.
Am I right in thinking that there was no less evidence of suborning a witness when that part of the indictment was withdrawn than when it was served?
Is is just me or has Mrs G Sheridan been subject to detention, interrogation, career termination and 44 days of trial for tactical reasons by the crown?
What shall I seek? What shall I find?
Peter -
Why is the lack of evidence from a house search relevant when the nub of the alleged perjury is contained in trial records?
I appreciate that TS and AP are both likely to dwell on whether the family were given the 'third degree' or just subject to fairly standard - if robust - police procedures.
But the alleged perjury was not unearthed in a nappy drawer - it was given in evidence before the High Court.
Sam that summarises what I and a lot of people I know think. At first we thought the prosecution had him cold, but as it has went on I've had more questions that answers. How Gail had been treated has made a lot of people very angry, it was great to read she is now free.
Can't say what I'm hoping to happen as Mr Dolman would probably delete it.
I am a shop-keeper and can tell you that my CCTV is kept for 36 hours maximum then the machine re-records.
Anonymous said...
I do not believe that was too much. I think the police were only doing their job and remember TS is all for overthrowing the state so who know what these guys could have faced upon entering his house.
December 18, 2010 3:13 PM
I believe the the greatest terror the police faced could possibily have been a soiled nappy.
Yes indeed the police were only doing their job however some may consider that they could have less heavy handed in conducting this search. I fail to see how the removal of childrens toys and such would help them to investigate an alleged mistruth.
seek and you shall find, yes i can understand that, but in your first post you talked about witnesses not linked to the sheridans. Can you point to any witness who comes into this category of not been linked or influenced?
Jamesie, notwithstanding the gas and gaiters I assume that, like me, yoor fae Wester Hailes?
As we say in my close, I think you make a fair point my dear boy.
At the risk of appearing awkward, might I ask you to shine your wisdom upon a teensy weensy point? If the evidence is to be found in the transcripts, whither the knicker drawer?
Jist askin like.
Anon 10.36 PM said:
"How Gail had been treated has made a lot of people very angry,"
She's not a child. The image that stays with me is of the wife of a leading politician - and practising Christian - apparently too scared, or unwilling, to speak to a police sergeant.
Even to say 'I'm sorry detective sergeant, I've been advised not to answer your questions.'
I'd have though apologies were due on both sides.
Steve
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/12/detective-sergeant-harkness-pt-2.html
"Mr Sheridan then asked the witness if he agreed with the right of silence and if he was aware that Mrs Sheridan's QC, Paul McBride had advised her not to answer any questions at this interview, DS Harkness said he did agree with the "right of silence and that Mrs Sheridan had told him of her QC's advice"
Mrs Sheridan did say I'm not answering any questions due to legal advoice, the police kept her in for five hours anyway.
Five hours does seem excessive, but I believe they also showed her various items of evidence that she had a right to know about.
Without being there, it's hard to say what went on.
Is that the best you can do Steve, no "oh it looks like I was mistaken when I wittered on about Gail not saying anything"?
You are saying now "its hard to say what went on" you were pretty sure at 10.53
Sceptic 11.13 AM
I'll try to raise my game then Sceptic, though I did qualify my original remark with "apparently", which falls short of "pretty sure".
I was referring to the testimony of the sergeant that she did not "engage", where an alternative would have been to repeat that she would not answer questions. According to James:
"DS Harkness also told the court that she was being shown productions that "could be of benefit to her" and that instead she was "focussing on a spot on the wall."
A bit unnerving dont you think?
I could have made it clearer that she did speak earlier in the interview.
"Steve" writes that it was "a bit unnerving" that Gail Sheridan focused on a spot on the wall while beimg questioned for 5 hours by the Police.
It might have been frustrating for the officers involved, it might even have made the angry, but I doubt that a grown man would be "unnerved" by a woman exercising her legal right to maintain silence during a Police interrogation.
"interrogation"?! - don't you mean "interview".
No he means interrogation. Interviewers ask questions, interogaters hold you for five hours, rip your rosary beds from your hands, and accuse you of being trained by the IRA.
No, Notasunworshipper, "interrogators" strap you to a chair, shine bright lights into your eyes, point a gun at your head, water-board you etc. Interviewers seat you in a comfortable room and ask you polite questions in a non-threatening manner as in the case of GS.
Notasunworshipper 1.19 PM said:
I'm sure it was a harrowing experience.
To interrogate means "To examine by questioning formally or officially." (online dictionary)
What you are describing would be an abuse of that procedure, but the last two of your descriptions are inaccurate and exaggerated, perhaps to create an emotive effect.
Police could hold an interview you for up to 6 hrs in Scotland under a section 14 or 15. This allowed them to question the SUSPECT without a solicitor present. This has now changed anyone held is allowed access to a solicitor straightway. Anyone with any sense would not answer any questions during that period until they could get their lawyer there to represent them.
I didn't realise there was a polite non threatening way to ask someone which terrorist organisation had trained them in their response to Police questioning !
Anonymous said...
No, Notasunworshipper, "interrogators" strap you to a chair, shine bright lights into your eyes, point a gun at your head, water-board you etc. Interviewers seat you in a comfortable room and ask you polite questions in a non-threatening manner as in the case of GS.
December 19, 2010 1:29 PM
I would presume that the previous posters like myself have not had experience of interogation or indeed being sat comfortably in a room, IMO the best judge of that would be the person either sat comfortably or under interogation.
It should be noted that whichever method used here was in persuit of an alleged mistruth.
The information relayed in court with regard to Gails comfortable interview/interogation can be clearly seen by many as a tad heavy handed.
Declining to answer questions is a right of all, I understand that the police remind people of their right to silience during the arrest process.
If the right of silence is a fundemental right that can be overturned by heavy handed or browbeating interviewing/interogation techniques although not similar to waterboarding the ends justify the means and rights are swept away.
Anon 1.29... I gather the 10 cops (6 in riot gear) who raided her house immediately before this "interview" were also "polite and non-threatening". Get real. Please.
The failure of the Crown to produce forensic evidence that places ANY of the 5 Glasgow rangers on the ALLEGED marathon sex trip to CUPIDS on 27.09.04 has been noted in all court reports and on this blog.
There are NO credit card records; NO bank records; NO receipts; NO CCTV; NO mobile tracking; NO signatures; presented by the Crown that places ANY of the 5 in Manchester and Wigan that night (or indeed any night).
Defenders of the Crown case consider it is not fair to blame the police or Crown for that lack of evidence due to the passage of time.
I disagree.
That line of argument about time if true about CCTV and mobile tracking (which I doubt - for good reason) does not in any event apply to credit card bills, receipts etc
Due to the lack of forensic proof the next step would be to consider if there is any reliable Crown witness testimony about that trip.
I have checked again all the records in the media court reports and this blog to consider if the evidence provided the Crown witnesses regarding the Cupids stands up.
I will highlight the key concerns of credibility that the defence have raised.
Presumably the judge will allow these to be raised in the defence summation.
TBC:
Hello Peter, could you rephrase that last comment please, I have no problem with the content but it is a little to definitive for me to be comfortable with.
"The failure of the Crown to produce forensic evidence"... please Peter, give us a break.
Crown witnesses testimony of CUPIDS trip continued:
2. Khan & Troll
Khan and Troll claim there was a long return trip from Glasgow to Manchester 0n 27.09.04 with Andy, Gary and Tommy.
In the course of that trip they allege : stop offs at petrol stations; all payments of were cash from envelope held by Tommy (see what they did there!); no payments for anything be anyone else; distribution of large amount of condoms by Khan; a lengthy orgy in Cupids; a lengthy orgy in a sex house in Wigan; back to Glasgow in the early hours.
Troll and Khan claim group a sex orgy with Andy and Tommy at Cupids then onto the same in a sex house Wigan.
Troll claims there was so much sex in the Wigan House that Khan was rendered virtually unconcious by it.
Up to 9 people were having sex together in one room in that Wigan house allegedly.
Problems:
Neither stated that Tommy going out to pick up pizzas with a woman or eating pizza as claimed by the Crown.
Troll and Khan denied on oath (twice) that various offers of payment and advancement from the NOTW were made in return for their stories.
The NOTW have, however, admitted such offers were made to both women for their stories.
Khan has admitted making up stories about people she allegedly had affairs in order to get advancement in the NOTW. Khan refers to this as puffing rather than lying.
Khan admited to puffing up stories about Sheridan as part of her NOTW contract negotiations.
Khan and Troll have given numerous different dates for this trip prior to this trial.
In this trial they have now both fixed on the same date and the same year. They claim to have reached that new date of 27.09.04 independently without any involvement with the NOTW or the Crown.
Both claim the contacts with the NOTW lawyers after the perjury investigation started were not to agree that new date but purely a separate discussion about the NOTW appeal.
When asked to explain her diary entry for 27.09.04 Troll claimed that the reference to "cultural festival" in it was a euphemism for the sex trip. When put to her by the Crown and the defence Troll denied any knowledge that there was any such SSP cultural festival event that night.
It has since been proven by the defence that there was such a SSP cultural festival that night.
That is an outstanding coincidence - no?
A Crown indictment against Gail was that Troll was NOT at the Perth SSP conference. The Crown claimed therefore that Gail had lied when claiming that Troll had patted her (pregnant) tummy at that conference and told her NOTW were falsely trying to link her with an affair with Tommy.
The Crown dropped that charge (and the judge later acquitted all charges) after evidence emerged from another Crown witness that indicated Troll had admitted she WAS at the Perth coference.
Troll admitted to numerous affairs during a short marriage. They were so numerous she could not recall the exact figure when asked.
I suggest that it is reasonable for the defence to ask that the jury consider testimony of Clarke, Trolle and Khan about the Cupids trip to be at least as doubtful and that they are not credible.
That is even before we get to consider of alibis for Sheridan.
Also there is the matter of a considerable difference between the accounts of these 3 Crown witnesses with the other 3 Crown witnesses from Manchester who allegedly were at Cupids that night.
TBC:
"for good reason"... what good reason, Peter? Spit it out!
Peter, you are looking at it from the wrong angle. You should read the Indictment - carefully. Do you see any points that you could (reasonably) consider as we lawyers call "proven"? Because that is what the basis that the Crown will proceed on - Prentice only needs ONE of the charges to stick to "pot" as a lawyer would say, Sheridan.
Peter - We certainly know whose side you are on!
What we have seen over the last 2 months is SSP/the odd non SSP etc member for AP say that TS did it and on the other side Solidarity/SWP/Family/Friends etc say that TS didn't do it.
We will have to see how AP/TS do in their closing comments.
We also have a tape of TS?/an actor/mimic?/Des Maclean? cleary "confessing".
Peter,
You make excellent points.
Don't forget, too, that on a day when Sheridan was supposed to be on an all night trip of sex and madness, his diary shows he was meeting a mystery man called "Cokie".
Admittedly the diary does not reveal exactly who he is or when Sheridan met him, but how can he have been on a cray all nighter of sex after meeting with a guy called "Cokie"?
The anti-Sheridan mob make me mad.
cray should read crazy. Apologies for the error.
Anyway to finish up on Cupids:
The 3 Manchester Witnesses:
These 3, from the reports I read across all media and this blog, appeared to add to the gaiety of the nation no end.
They appeared to have amused the court reporters, the gallery and the jury.
All good fun of course but as a mans liberty and reputation is at stake I feel that the defence may legitimately call into question the credibility of these 3 "witnesses".
If they are credible and honest is their testimony feasible?
Only 2 of these 3 witnesses claimed in the box to be able to identify Sheridan as being in Cupids and at a house or a flat in Wigan.
The first claimed to recognise Tommy from Big Brother.
That witness, it came out in evidence, is a common criminal with a long series of convictions some recent. He admitted to being jailed for a more serious offence. In his explanation of that matter he claimed here he had not done it and had lied (under oath) to cover up for somebody. He denies ever being offered money for his story by the NOTW and that he would never perjure himself despite what he had just admitted to.
The second claimed to recognise Tommy "from the Poll Tax" and also because she had have worked with Tommy's father (but then apologised for that last bit of evidence); and to have gone to pick up pizzas with Tommy.
That lady's account of WHO was in attendance at the house in Wigan differed considerably with that of the the others. The others accounts make no mention of pizza trips.
There was of course a third Crown witness who initially claimed she had seen Sheridan in Cupids and also in the Wigan flat/house. That lady was the wife of the admitted common criminal.
To the reported discomfort of the Crown that lady admitted from the dock that she actually could not identify Sheridan after all. I suggest it is therefore legitimate to disregard her identification testimony.
Interestingly NONE of these 3 Manchester witnesses reported the alleged lengthy 9 swingers orgy involving Tommy that was claimed by Troll and Khan occurred in a room in the Wigan flat/house - a sex session that allegedly left Khan barely conscious.
I feel sure that even the most seasoned swinger on Jame's blog would recall seeing (or indeed hearing trough the wall) an orgy in a flat with an injured Scottish footballer; a Dane; Tommy "from the Poll Tax" Sheridan - MSP and Big Brother contestant; and a "beefy" "asian looking" NOTW sex journalist going bang at it with 5 others.
All perhaps a bit odd and perhaps doubtful this evidence - No?
It is for the jury to decide of course if it is a believable tale.
Peter,
I have been for a pint with men like you before. I quickly move on to spirits.
Peter, a simple question - have you actually listened to the tape?
Mines a double Anon 6.01
Peter, a simple question - have you actually listened to the tape
Yes I have Anon 6.06
?I have watched it almost as much as the Wizard of Oz - just pull back the curtain and you can see clearly what is going on.
Off to the Poker now to give James a rest before tommorows big day.
Cheers
Peter
Another simple question then Peter, (without sounding too much like AP) - what is your opinion about the voice on the tape?
Without sounding too much like the AD myself, Peter don't answer that.
Why ever not?
Hello anon, but Peter's opinion on the voice on the tape has not, as far as I recall, been presented as evidence in the case.
No worries then, James.
Ryder Cups? Singles? Four balls?
We are still talking golf, aren't we?
Anonymous said...
Peter - We certainly know whose side you are on!
What we have seen over the last 2 months is SSP/the odd non SSP etc member for AP say that TS did it and on the other side Solidarity/SWP/Family/Friends etc say that TS didn't do it.
We will have to see how AP/TS do in their closing comments.
December 19, 2010 4:24 PM
Yes indeed this is were we are back to an almost identical line up as the defamation trial.
This is despite hours and hours on investigations/interogations siezure of child possesions and a unknown amount of money spent.
Indeed following all of the above which the jury may also wish to consider we are down to closing speeches of the Crown and defence.
It also clear from some posters this issue whatever the outcome will run and run.
Peter--Crown witness testimony of CUPIDS trip(contd. 2). Thanks for that.Just a bit of light jovial respite. Has brought back to my mind one of my favourite pieces of testimony and there have been some belters. I am talking Anvar Khans account of the (alleged) service station stop for some food.She said "it was clear that he(TS) was besotted by her(Katrine Trolle)".Ts apparently got a veggie burger,as had KT,because "he wanted to share in her vegetarianism".Always thought that somewhat salacious, with more than a hint of the Wicker Man.Still makes me laugh.
Hello Iain,
My old rugby coach was of "the sex weakens legs" variety banning us before games - although considering we were mostly spotty 16 year olds I think he was giving us too much credit.
Not sure what he would have made of one of his players already on the sick and facing hip replacement surgery allegedly having all night return trips to Manchester and two orgies. Doesn't sit quite right with me.
Yes "vegetaranism" when put like that sounds does sound a bit off putting doesn't it - or maybe a euphemism like "cultural festival". I don't hold with it myself but I have a friends who are "vegetarians" and I am broadminded enough to understand it goes on. Each to their own.
We have had few Wicker Man references in this trial already. Britte Ekland is still going - maybe she could take the Scandinavian role.
Veggie burgers testimony - let us see.
Is not this the same Tommy who, as I recall, straight after his impressive hunger strike in George Square rather than starting off lightly with a bit of soup wolfed down a few meat and potato pasties - much to his later discomfort.
Many things do not sit right with me about this supposed orgy trip testimony. The Tommy on the veggie burgers story is one of them.
Was Ms Khan trying to insinuate that Tommy was hoping his change of diet may impress Ms Trolle?
If Ms Trolle did have relations with him in his office, his marital bed and the various other exotic places, that she claims to have done, I would had thought Tommy would have been confident enough to at least venture an order for a box Chicken McNuggets without queering his pitch.
Not an acceptable word Peter, you know that.
Blogger James Doleman said...
Not an acceptable word Peter, you know that.
December 20, 2010 5:27
Sorry James
Whilst the local name for that publication could be construed as a fair comment by a reasonable man in the street I do see your point.
In future I will replace the colloquial description of it with it's legal name "The Sun".
Thanks for your hard work in court.
Coming back from a hard day to moderate posts from all sorts even my obviosly very wise and witty ones must be very wearing.
Cheers,
Peter
Post a Comment