The second witness of the morning was James (Jim) Monaghan. Mr Monaghan told the court that he had been a member of the Scottish Socialist Party from 2001 to 2006 and when asked by Mr Sheridan, who is conducting his own defence, stated that he had been following the case through the "newspapers and the internet. Mr Sheridan asked Mr Monaghan if anything had "caught his eye" and the witness responded "quite a bit." Asked to explain Mr Monaghan stated that when he had read that previous Crown witness Alison Kane had said that Mr Sheridan had not attended the SSP's "people's festival" on the 27th September 2002 (the date the prosecution claim Mr Sheridan was at the Cupids club) he "knew that to be a lie."
Mr Monaghan went on to tell the court that on the night in question he, and a friend Mark Gilroy, had travelled from their home in Cumnock to leaflet the event for a meeting they were holding a few days later, a "Keir Hardie Memorial lecture." When they were at the Centre for Contemporary Art (CCA) they had seen and spoken to Mr Sheridan to remind him he was to speak at their event. Asked by Mr Sheridan how he could be so sure about an event eight years ago, Mr Monaghan replied that he had checked the SSP's website and that the only event held in the CCA that weekend was on Friday the 27th of September and he had confirmed this recollection with Mr Gilroy.
Mr Sheridan then asked the witness what time he recollected he had met him. Mr Monaghan replied that it was around 9.00 pm and could have been no later that 9.30 as he and Mr Gilroy had caught the last train back to Cumnock which left at 10.00pm. Mr Sheridan then produced his diary for 2002, which he told the court had been siezed in a police raid on his home in December 2007. Mr Monaghan was shown an entry for the 1st October 2002 which read "Keir Hardie Memorial commemoration, attend" and agreed that this was the date of the meeting he had organised. The witness also told the court that Mr Sheridan had attended and indeed been the "main speaker" at the meeting. The court then took a short break.
When court reconvened Mr Sheridan asked Mr Monaghan if, in the years following 2002, he had "heard me speak" The witness replied that he had "quite a lot." Mr Sheridan then played to the court a section of a tape, distributed by the News of the World, that is alleged to show Mr Sheridan making damaging admissions (the so called "McNeilage tape") Mr Sheridan asked Mr Monaghan if he had been aware of the tapes existence. The witness replied that on the Saturday night before the tape was released there had been posts going round the internet by "SSP members" saying that a story was about to break and "Sheridan is done for" Mr Sheridan then played a section of the video and, after the 3-4 minute clip was played, asked Mr Monaghan if he "believed that was my voice" The witness replied "I don't think it is."
Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Monaghan why he thought it was not his voice on the tape. The witness replied that there were a "number of things" that the voice on the tape was "stop start" and that the volume of swearing "sticks out" adding that that the conversation was "too convenient" and, in his opinion the voice was that of an "impersonator" Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Monaghan about his familiarity with his voice. The witness responded that he had been appointed as Mr Sheridan's press officer in 2006 and worked as a researcher in the Scottish Parliament and therefore had spoken to the accused "on a daily basis."
Mr Sheridan ended his evidence in chief by asking Mr Monaghan about a conversation they had in October 2006 about a previous Crown witness Jack Ferguson (a report on Mr Ferguson's evidence can be found Here ) Mr Monaghan told the court that during a car journey Mr Sheridan had played him a voicemail that had been left on his mobile phone, which had on it a "disgraceful message" that "wished you mum would die of cancer." The witness told the court he had phoned Mr Ferguson on his own phone about this message and that Mr Ferguson had "laughed it off" saying that "someone else had got a hold of his phone" and had then "hung up" At this point a clearly emotional and upset Mr Sheridan ended his questions and returned to his seat in the dock.
For the first time in the case the Advocate Depute, Alec Prentice QC, did not conduct the cross-examination on behalf of the Crown, instead Mr David Nicolson came to the lectern. Report to follow.
48 comments:
Emotion should play not part in the jury's verdict.
who is Mr Nicholson? It's not Jack flown in from LA is it?
Anonymous said...
Emotion should play not part in the jury's verdict
Explain,take it you heard what was said in evidence,are you talking about the comment made in the phone call about TS,s Mother?
Yulfae, a court case is supposed to be decided on FACTS, not by being swayed by emotion, feeling sympathy for the Parties etc.
There is no train station in Cumnock !
lol "instead Mr Tarantino came to the lectern would have been more apropos in my opinion.
where is cumnock again?
"There is no train station in Cumnock !" - oops!
@ Anon 9:03, but a bus runs to Cumnock from Glasgae, same difference.
David Nicholson, QC. He's the guy in the wig on the Crown side.
I was pleased he got an outing, as he's been very visible throughout the trial, staring open-mouthed at TS when he's been at the lectern doing something DN found not to his liking.
the case is missing a bit of Hollywood though!
With all due respect Travel Centre, a bus and a train are hardly the same mode of transport... one runs on rails, the other on the road.
> Moderation <
@Cumnock Guy
Sorry - may seem trivial, but that speculation as to how the witness traveled home was not mentioned in court, so can't be posted.
> Moderation Ends <
@Travel Centre "but a bus runs to Cumnock from Glasgae, same difference."
Well no, it's not is it?
A train, a bus. They're not the same thing.
If you couldn't get the train to Cumnock because there is no station there you would never say that.
You would say that you got the bus to Cumnock.
how about hovercrafts? do they count?
A train to Ayr bus to Cumnock either way the guy had to travel from Glasgow to get home.
That is a disgusting message to leave anyone.
Anon's point obtains though. The accused in this case must be under enormous pressure, therefore emotion is not unexpected.
However there have been a number of highly emotive moments some of which have involved tears on the part of both the accused.
Among them: the accused's earlier reference to this phone call; references to his "stunning wife" who he has known since he was "thirteen"; an accusation that the life of an unborn child was threatened; his co-accused sobbing whilst alleged extra-marital sex occurred in the marital bed; a suggestion that a deeply religious co-accused was accused of being a terrorist by police because of her religion and was denied the succour of rosary beads; an alleged "dawn" raid on a home with drawers being rifled and a child's "christmas antlers" being confiscated by detectives.
If substantiated and genuine, individual incidents could indeed be emotional.
A trial is about conveying a convincing and authentic narrative. Readers' are wary of over-written narratives though.
There are possibly alternative emotional experiences though which are not included in the narrative seen every day in court: witnesses who have faced serious accusations from the accused,private lives held up to public gaze and whose credibility someone has tried to shred.
If those witnesses are telling the truth (and it is for the jury to decide) then the emotional impact may indeed be much worse. However it does not form part of the drama in court.
That's why, for the purposes of objectivity and even-handedness, emotion should not replace reason and fairness.
"Asked by Mr Sheridan how he could be so sure about an event eight years ago, Mr Monahan replied that he had checked the SSP's website and that the only event held in the CCA that weekend was on Friday the 27th of September and he had confirmed this recollection with Mr Gilroy."
Having noticed many major revamps in the SSP website over the years, I would be hugely surprised if it still held details of any events from 2002. Perhaps some of the Sheridan supporters/those with any credulity towards the defence case can show us otherwise?
PS. Did anyone ask Mr Monaghan when he joined the SSP? Was it established if he was in fact an SSP member in 2002?
"Among them: the accused's earlier reference to this phone call; references to his "stunning wife" who he has known since he was "thirteen"; an accusation that the life of an unborn child was threatened; his co-accused sobbing whilst alleged extra-marital sex occurred in the marital bed; a suggestion that a deeply religious co-accused was accused of being a terrorist by police because of her religion and was denied the succour of rosary beads; an alleged "dawn" raid on a home with drawers being rifled and a child's "christmas antlers" being confiscated by detectives."
So, in LAW can a NOT GUILTY verdict be returned on the above "FACTS"? Eh!
There is a train to Auchinleck, which adjoins Cumnock, and that is usually the mode of transport that Cumnock people choose to use after 6pm as there are no direct buses at night. People are usually then picked up by car or taxi for the less than one mile journey to the centre of Cumnock.
Whatsy said...
David Nicholson, QC. He's the guy in the wig on the Crown side.
I want to know how he got to where he is,or was AP using him to call someone a liar?Then AP got the bottle to follow suit,getting desperate in my opinion
Hi mods, I've just realised my previous question has been addressed on another thread, so don't bother to publish it.
PS. What's all the train station stuff about?
PPS. @Whatsy 9.47pm - they won't have mentioned making comments though. I don't know the law well enough to know if that makes any difference.
The train the witness is talking about is the 10pm train to Carlise which stops at Auchlinleck which is about a mile from Cumnock. the witness probably got a lift home from the train station.
What's all the train station stuff about?
Some people think Tommy is being railroaded, some think he should get on his bus.
He certainly seem to get about TS. Have we not had a witness saying he was in Hamilton as well. Maybe MSPs have a private chopper to get about.
Chumpette said...
Having noticed many major revamps in the SSP website over the years, I would be hugely surprised if it still held details of any events from 2002. Perhaps some of the Sheridan supporters/those with any credulity towards the defence case can show us otherwise?
The SSP Website has a search function or archieves which can be used to find out,havent visited that site for a while so I presume this will be there.
In regards to the video. The defence's argument is that the tape is a made up one with an actor being Tommy and scripted by Alam McCombes and filmed by George Mcneilage. Is this right?
Also the defence is it can't be Tommy because there are too many sweary words.
But given that Alan has known Tommy for 24 years and a strong ally (until then) and worked very closely with him even writing a book with him and was the party policy officer and George has known him 30 plus years - why would they write a script with so many profanities?
The defence witnesses are saying "but you don't swear" but why did Alan and George get that so wrong? And who is the actor - has the defence not found the actor - is there not a single idea who it could be? Or is it spliced as Tommy had suggested in 2006 and if it is where did they get the f's and c's from?
According to your notes James:
"Mr Sheridan asked the witness what time he recollected he had met him? Mr Monahan replied that it was around 9pm and could have been no later that 9.30pm".
Mr Monahan must have seen Mr Brown
"Mr Brown told the court that he had arranged to meet Mr Sheridan on the Friday night of that weekend. He stated he had met Mr Sheridan outside the CCA in Glasgow around 9.30pm"
I'm surprised Mr Monahan and Mr Brown did not mention that they had met.
(yet another) Anon wrote:
Emotion should play not part in the jury's verdict.
Unless of course they want to find the accused guilty?
usually any mimicry actor that is that good normally achieves top spot at the LONDON PALLAIDIOM / COMMAND PERFORMANCE AC.
Interesting, Alan Brown, Jim Monahan.
Actually, although Monaghan agreed when Sheridan asked about arrangements travelling up and down to Cumnock, he actually said in court, that he had caught the last train to Auchinleck. But I am surprised that it has become an issue even if that point had been missed.
@Kojak, I missed the dates. Is the defence line that there was an event in a pub but Sheridan stood outside on a late November night for at least half an hour to chat to two folk he had arranged to meet there rather than inside?
@Lefty Trainspotter
Re: "Is the defence line that there was an event in a pub but Sheridan stood outside on a late November night for at least half an hour to chat to two folk he had arranged to meet there rather than inside? "
No. Monaghan says he saw Sheridan inside the CCA earlier, went back to the pub for a couple of pints, then returned to the CCA, where he encountered Sheridan in the foyer around 9:15pm. Talked briefly, introduced TS & JM's pal, then left to go home.
Aye, that's right LeftyTrainspotter, TS never went into the venue/pub.
Yulefae said at 21.47:
"Whatsy said...
David Nicholson, QC. He's the guy in the wig on the Crown side.
I want to know how he got to where he is,or was AP using him to call someone a liar?Then AP got the bottle to follow suit,getting desperate in my opinion"
David Nicolson (sp, please note and not silk) is AP's junior.
It is very common practice for senior and junior to 'tag team' through a trial.I would read nothing into this.
@Say It Ain't So Joe
Sorry - I'm not the best with the legal stuff. So wig does not equal QC? Aargh, of course not, as Prentice is not bewigged, yet is definitely a QC.
Oops.
How on earth could that message about hoping someone's mum dies of cancer, be "a joke"!?
Has anybody here made jokes like that to their friends?
It's really really shocking that these defence witnesses are just allowed to come up and make potentially very untrue and unfair claims about witnesses, such as Mr Monaghan's comments about Mr Ferguson. Mr Sheridan did not ask Mr Ferguson whether he "hung up" on Mr Monaghan so he did not have the chance to potentially refute this claim. He also did not ask if he had "laughed it off", which entirely contradicts the sentiments Mr Ferguson conveyed in court. Likewise other defence witnesses have come up and said things about Gary Clark, Barbara Scott, Colin Fox etc all of which they'll never get the chance to refute. I understand how court procedure works and that defence witnesses come last, but given that Mr Sheridan was provided with the full list of potential crown witnesses and their police statements, it's just ridiculous that he's allowed to add on defence witnesses he never had on his lists before who are just allowed to come up at the last minute and say anything they want which the crown is unlikely to be in any position to refute. All this refusing to talk to the police rubbish is very telling. Whether you think these defence witnesses are telling the truth or not, that's not a particularly fair way to go about conducting a trial as nuanced and involving so many people's lives as this
Well anonymous, someone has to go last. And it is generally a principle of law that it is better to let a guilty person go free than send an innocent one to jail, which is why the burden of proof is so high - so it makes sense to allow the defence to call witnesses second - at a time when they will have heard the charges and so will be allowed to rebut them.
Whether Jack Ferguson laughed off the cancer phone call or not has no bearing on the trial - just on the character of Jack Ferguson.
anon said "it's just ridiculous that he's allowed to add on defence witnesses he never had on his lists before who are just allowed to come up at the last minute and say anything they want which the crown is unlikely to be in any position to refute. All this refusing to talk to the police rubbish is very telling."
None of that is true, this is normal practice. The defence learn what they have to refute from the prosecutions case as it is laid out. Witnesses have to be added for the defence to answer points made by the prosecution.
It is also normal for witnesses to be allowed to decline an offer to give a statement to police.
What is 'telling' about this, is that the crown, given the extent of their investigation, are having to do this. If they are going to make an accusation, they should have fully checked on it. It looks like they accepted certain people's word and didnt try to establish it during the investigation, and are now scurrying about trying to get witness statements, too late.
"given that Alan has known Tommy... even writing a book with him"
Not according to Alan McCombes & Frances Curran, who once told me that "the only part of that book Tommy Sheridan wrote was his name". Not that I'd trust either of them further than I could throw them these days.
On the "hope your ma dies of cancer" statement.
Jack has agreed that it was said.
Jack says it was not him and that someone picked up his phone in the pub.
I suggest that it is reasonable for the ddefence to contend that this person must:
a) know Sheridan to know the dispute was and his mums health problem.
b) be a bitter opponent of Sheridan.
c) know that Sheridan's mum had cancer.
d) be a coward as he did not leave his name.
e) even though possibly drunk still be in enough control of his faculties to find the Sheridan number on the mobile, make a call to it and leave a message on a mobile
In my opinion the defence is within its rights to conclude that person was most likely a political aquaintance of Jack or a friend who was aware of the dispute.
That just a random bloke who has picked up the mobile phone in a pub made that call is fanciful.
Has the the SSP investigated this matter and asked Jack who it was?
If the guilty person was or is still an SSP member what has the SSP done about this matter?
Or what do they intend to do about this matter?
In normal non-political circumstances the guilty lad would get a slap unless he apologised profusely (and probably even then).
I think if he is a normal human he would probably be better for that and if he was a man would take his medicine in that sense.
In he is in the SSP then in political terms an apology from the lad who did it and a period of suspension would be appropriate to a normal party within the labour movement.
If the SSP wishes to bring itself back into the norms of the movement it is important that the guilty lad, McNeilage (secret taping of other party members for money) and McCoombes (secret affadavit to Herald about party members) are investigated, are allowed to present their defence and be dealt with appropriately.
The Shrink said... "How on earth could that message about hoping someone's mum dies of cancer, be "a joke"!?" Anonymous said... "Mr Sheridan did not ask Mr Ferguson whether he "hung up" on Mr Monaghan so he did not have the chance to potentially refute this claim. He also did not ask if he had "laughed it off"". Exactly (a previous comment I wrote about this was rejected. Probably because I was a bit too specific in some terms) Is it not quite possible that TS knew he was going to ask Mr Monaghan about this? If so why not ask Mr Ferguson about it? He had him on the stand, and had a perfect opportunity to grill him about these specifics. But yet he chose not to? That's a little strange, don't you think? So we're left only with Mr Monaghan's version of this. Who was "Mr Sheridan's press officer in 2006 and worked as a researcher in the Scottish Parliament" after the split I presume? (edited by JD)
"that's not a particularly fair way to go about conducting a trial"
If Sheridan was breaking the rules of the trial, I'm sure the judge or the prosecution would object. And I really don't think the SSP, News of the World, & other prosecution witnesses are in any position to complain about what is & isn't "fair" beyond that. Secretly taping or faking a tape (either way) of another party member (ANY other member) & selling it to NotW isn't fair. In fact, it's an absolute disgrace & should be grounds for expulsion from any principled Socialist organisation, but apparently the SSP think its acceptable.
This is potetially earth shaterrimg stuff in this case/
http://m.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/15/phone-hacking-sienna-miller-evidence?cat=media&type=article
Jessica,
I see your point.
Tommy did raise some issues on this attack on his mother with Jack.
Maybe he should have raised the issues you raise with Jack directly.
As I understand it Jack was very upset and ashamed by the incident as he should be.
My reading is that Tommy having made his point that his mum had survived the cancer was content to let Jack off - very lightly in my view.
Also Tommy was upset with Jack and is representing himself so I suggest it was best for Tommy and for Jack that it ended where it did.
Would you not agree that the vile attack on his mother partly makes the defence case about factions as it occurred even before the libel trial.
Do you think the SSP at least should look into this matter (but be a bit more thorough than the Met)
I think it it is doing it's reputation no good at all to leave it unresolved.
Sincere apologies(especially from young people) to his mum go a long way I am sure.
Post a Comment