We are posting live updates and analysis from the perjury trial of Her Majesty's Advocate versus Thomas Sheridan and Gail Sheridan.
Looks like this won't be ending on Friday then...Hope it's nothing too serious.
will this case ever end:)
Anonymous said... will this case ever end:)Yes the debates however will continue for many.
anon 1:26Thank you that has cheered up a rather boring Monday!:)
Anonymous said...will this case ever end:)No.
ALLEGED CUPIDS TRIP:Can we take the opportunity of the break at court to discuss the feasibility of the alleged Cupids (Salford) and Wigan sex marathon again. a) Trolles Diary Entry:Trolle says the reference she made in her diary to a Cultural Festival was just a funny euphemism for the marathon sex trip she says took place that day and she mocked the idea that there was a festival that day.But whats this ..... there actually was an SSP Cultural Festival on that very day! Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh very very, dear!Any explanations for that one Clive, Bunc, Lefty Trainspotter et al. Suggest you look back at the testimony before you do.b) The Indictment: Can we also sort out whether Sheridan allegedly lying about the sex trip on that date is actually a charge on the indictment - as that is denied by some.c) The Time-line:The defence have already said Sheridan was in Glasgow / Hamilton that night so presumably they seek to imply that Sheridan could not be in two places at once. That seems a reasonable submission as a point of physics never mind a point of law. The clash of the alleged sex jamboree with the Cultural Festival has been raised.Firstly the Cultural Festival is not of course an alleged event as it is now agreed by the Crown it occurred.It is also conceded by the Crown that it occurred on the same date as the alleged sex trip to Cupids in Salford and Wigan.So what appears to many now to be the central issue in this case emerges. Could Sheridan have been at both?If you look at the time line I produced that was based on the Crowns evidence it is iluuminating.Consider also the fact that the cultural festival was on that date; the alibi Sheridan has been given by Brown; and the number of pick ups then I suggest it shows that Sheridan may not feasibly have been able to do what is alleged by the Crown witnesses in the time allowed. Even if all the alleged pick ups of the passengers were in the vicinity of central Glasgow, which we do not know, it seems reasonably doubtful at best. No?Maybe if Sheridan was on the Ir'n Bru that night and had lent KIT from David Hasselsoff (or Herbie for the real oldies) he could have done it but that is a matter for the jury to decide. I have my doubts. Wadda y'all think.
Clive - You said that the date of the alleged Cupis trip is not relevant to the case as it was not on the indictment. I quote:---------Start Quote:"Clive" said... Perry, you are wrong, on more than one count. First, regardless of what Prentice has said about a date, that is not on the indictment and does not change the indictment. End Quote.---------------Clive a variety of posters have now placed in the record the text of the indictment for you. James had previously put the whole indictment on the site before. Having now read those documents please agree that the date of the alleged Cupis trip: a) is on the indictment b) that you were wrong to say it was notIf you agree (a) we can then move on and have an informed discussion. If you agree (a)and (b) we will be impressed by your humility and will in return be magnaminous. Reaches for Roget's thesaurus again.Thanks,Peter
@ Peter Political Parties don't have "Cultural Festivals", they have Conferences. And cultural doesn't really jive with a far-left wing party, and a festival is something that the bourgeois have in the summer time. In my opinion you are clutching at straws.
"that on 27 September 2002 you did attend said Cupid's in Manchester with said Andrew McFarlane, Gary Clark, Anvar Begum Khan and Katrine Trolle and that you had visited a club for swingers" - if you read that properly Peter (I take it that you are not a lawyer) you will see that the allegation is stated in such a way that it covers all bases. They are really quite crafty lawyers in the way that they word things.
Peter is there a link for Trolle's testimony re the Cultural Fest/diary entry? I've searched up and down google but can find nothing.
If you use the Google search box at the right hand side of the blog you should be able to find it dex
Anonymous said... @ Peter Political Parties don't have "Cultural Festivals", they have Conferences. And cultural doesn't really jive with a far-left wing party, and a festival is something that the bourgeois have in the summer time. In my opinion you are clutching at straws. December 6, 2010 2:12 PMHeh Anon,At risk of an Irony bypass I am sure but I will bite anyway. Ever heard of Liberty Hall, Ken Loach, Picasso etc etc.?I am far left (lapsed) and I will have you know I have so much culture it is difficult to put my hat on some days - and as Clive knows I dont like to talk about my book lerning ....but ....just this weekend for example I watched The Diving Bell and The Butterfly & King Kong back to back NB:The 1970s version (Jessica Lange eats Angelina Jolie for breakfast (in my dreams)). I also played a cash game whilst reading a good English translation of Gert Hoffmans classic novel on the clash between memory and truth The Film Explainer*. I reccomend it to all the video enthusiasts on here. And all this whilst keeping this blog comments section going and working on some discrimination submissions for a union member whislt listening to Mahlers 5th on the IPod. I agree that the Cultural Festival may not have been so eclectic but that is what it was called and that was what was in Trolles diary.I originally thought it showed a wicked sense of humour by her when she called the sex trip a Cultural Festival - now we know there was actually a Cultural Festival on that day the laughing has stopped. The Crown and Ms Trolle and her supporters here have a bit of explaining to do!Cheers,Peter
The Crown and Ms Trolle have no explaining to do.Ms Kane has already testified that Mr Sheridan was not at the cultural festival on Friday.And the jury has not passed a verdict.There are issues around Mr Brown's testimony that I would suggest he might require to further explain.
@Peter Re your timeline, esp "The defence have already said Sheridan was in Glasgow / Hamilton that night so presumably they seek to imply that Sheridan could not be in two places at once. "Where have the defence asserted this?The timeline is implausible if you take every witness's testimony at face value, but as this is a perjury trial, that would be unwise. Some might be, you know, a little less than honest and accurate.
Mr Brown has testified and been cross-examined "Clive" It appears that the only person in the world who thinks that the witness has anything to "further explain" is you.
Peter - if you are that culturally inclined you should give Fyodor Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment a (re)-read, it takes as it's theme the powerful notion of redemption through suffering and displays psychological insight well ahead of it's time.
The bottom line for me in all this is that you don't have to be rich to tell the truth so the class war excuses are an irrelevance.And the truth is on the side of the poor, given that exploitation does happen.As to who is lying, I have my views, but I'm quite happy to wait - it's a question of character and corroboration. They could always abandon trial by jury for trial by combat and throw custard pies at each other though - or maybe snowballs would be better to judge by James's court photo.
Above point Peter made. The lady can't remember her name, but the one that organised the festival/conference/Piss up call it what you will. Already stated TS was not there on the Friday night or Saturday morning but did turn up Later on Sat afternoon. She also mentioned how strange it was as he had been so supportive of her setting the event up and had promised to be there.TS bringing a guy from Hamilton saying he was in Lanarkshire is a bit weird. Even in traffic he could have made it from Hamilton to Glasgow town centre by train/bus or car within an hour or so.So why did nobody else see the guy at the event?
Crime and Punishment: A dark and disturbing study of a young intellectual towards crime by sever penury.Rasholnikov, a former student who is morbidly self-obsessed murders an old woman money-lender with a borrowed hatchet in a desperate attempt to free himself from poverty. From the opening pages Dostoyevsky attaches us unflinchingly to his intense mysterious anti-hero, creating a web of tension which is increasingly claustrophobic. Crime and guilt - it's traumatic and inevitable successor - are the central themes running through the novel and the notions of "justifiable" murder and worldly retribution are depicted with a deft and razor-sharp precision. Crime and Punishment both haunts and disturbs, yet as the critic John Jones wrote, it is "the most accessible and exciting novel in the world".
I believe you are referring to Alison Kane who did testify that Mr Sheridan was not at the cultural event on the Friday night.In a totally unconnected note Ms Kane also testified that Katrine Trolle had not been at the Perth conference of the SSP so providing corroboration of a charge of perjury against Gail Sheridan. That charge has now been dropped.
Am i barred
Anon wrote "So why did nobody else see the guy at the event?"I don't think the prosecition asked any of its witnesses, most probably because they don't know he was going to give say he saw Tommy that night.
ITHE DEFENCE is not going to say anytging otherwise. Of course its interesting to hear 1 person give him an alibi yet there were 6 or 7 witnesses who say he was there in cupids/wigan .What about troll at his bro in laws and in aberdeen/dundee. Is he going to bring other witnesses to counter those parts. Troll seemed the most believable she had no political aspirations and would have the least to gain from a let's do him in plot.Thing that gets me is why waste 2 days of your aloted time to quiz coulson. He ain't going to say ts was not at the alleged events.John great blog but is was disappointed you never posted my take of frank the bank robber on Saturday.
@keith79: "I don't think the prosecition asked any of its witnesses, most probably because they don't know he was going to give say he saw Tommy that night."Interesting question from a legal point of view. If the prosecution had lots of witnesses at the same event that could testify to Mr Brown's presence or otherwise, but were not asked about this at the time of their evidence in chief, can they be recalled by the Crown after or during the defence case?
All Coulson is going to do I suspect is give evidence around "NotW illegal phone-tapping" allegations.
Whatsy saidkeith79: "I don't think the prosecition asked any of its witnesses, most probably because they don't know he was going to give say he saw Tommy that night."Interesting question from a legal point of view. If the prosecution had lots of witnesses at the same event that could testify to Mr Brown's presence or otherwise, but were not asked about this at the time of their evidence in chief, can they be recalled by the Crown after or during the defence case?It was my understanding that all witnesses would have been interviewed by the investigation team prior to this trial to check out statements etc.
It was said on this blog that Mr Brown was slated to be a Crown witness but was never called, is that correct?
Whatsy said... @Peter Re your timeline, esp "The defence have already said Sheridan was in Glasgow / Hamilton that night so presumably they seek to imply that Sheridan could not be in two places at once. " Where have the defence asserted this? The timeline is implausible if you take every witness's testimony at face value, but as this is a perjury trial, that would be unwise. Some might be, you know, a little less than honest and accurate. December 6, 2010 3:11 PMWhatsy,Are you being a bit tricky with me lad/girl....get up earlier mate. (Friendly banter alert James)Errr unless I missed something Sheridan called a witness of good character, a Mr Brown, who said Sheridan was with Sheridan in Hamilton and Glasgow on very likeley the same night as the NOTW witnesses say he was knobbing around and eating pizza in Wigan and Salford. Mr Prentice who is is doing a sterling job (for the defence) succeeded in moving Mr Brown in his testimony from a likelihood he was with Sheridan that night to testimony that it was a certainty.Sheridan is the accused and the defence Whatsy - do you not think if Sheridan thought that Mr Brown was not correct about them being together that night he would have put him right.So yes i say the defence is asserting that Mr Brown is accurate and that Trolle and Khan are wrong.Sheridan could not therefore have been in Salford sex club and the Wigan sex house. You will recall that Mr Sheridan has already denied being in both when bracing the Crown witnesses and also in the libel trial.Mr Brown was on the Crown list so presumably someone in the Crown office / police felt he was not a wrong un.Strange therefore that the Crown did not call him. After Trolle and Khans evidence changing the date to the date of the Cultural Festival Brown could have told the court that he was with Sheridan.All over then really and we could all have had the early bath. Maybe that was the reason he was dropped by the Crown.Of course I don't like the idea of the Crown not bringing in witnesses of good character who can exonorate the accused with an alibi. Is that what you are suggesting - cynical you.I am sure some of the legal minds on here here will point out the duty of all formal advocates to the court as officers of the court. If alibi evidence exists then the Crown should not rely on poor old Tommy to uncover it.Thankfully Sheridan has done so here. Otherwise we would all be thinking the NOTW witnesses were unopposed in their accounts of that night. Cheers P.
@ Peter it's not really a case of Trolle and Khan being "wrong", they would have to be LYING and after being sworn on Oath to boot; there could be a criminal charge in there somewhere.
@ So why did no-one else see Brown at this event (at least according to the evidence so far)?
No-one else had been asked anon, also he was not at the event but outside it.
Good point, Spectic. He wasn't at the event, so what was he doing outside it, I really don't understand. It just sounds a bit too convenient in my opinion.
"sounds a bit too convenient"You mean a guy arranging to meet another guy is somehow suspicious?You do have an overactive imagination anon, or a pre-determined view of the evidence.
Peter said..."By the way I would call Big Georgie many things mate but never, ever an intellectual leave that to me old NUS mucker Nicky - sorry Dr. Nicky."As Nick was at Glasgow Uni he was never in NUS.
3.43 Recalling witnessesYes this is possible on application by either side. It is less likely to be allowed if mention of TS's presence (SSP Ocktoberfest: a joy-filled jamboree to rival $ashtonbury?) on the Friday is to be found in any Defence Statement by TS or GS or in any police interview by TS. Otherwise, if this is seen as a fresh piece of evidence by Brown, the Crown would in my view be entitled to apply to recall witnesses or apply to produce rebuttal evidence because the Defence might be seen as trying to 'ambush' the Prosecution with something that has not previously been mentioned or put to any Prosecution witnesses.It cetainly seems to me that it emerged out of left field and took AP by surprise because he did not take the usual Prosecution line of questioning for an alleged alibi witness via a series of 'cognitive' questions; answers to which can be compared with any other Defence alibi witness and their recollections.
Mr Sheridan's claimed attendence at the event was led in cross-examination.Herehttp://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/10/katrine-trolle-tommy-sheridan-cross.htmlAnd here"Mr Sheridan has strongly denied attending the Cupids club on any occasion and has put it to one witness (Katrine Trolle) that he will be presenting evidence that would confirm he was attending an SSP cultural festival on the 28th of November 2002 (the date of the alleged visit) "So sorry Jamsie that can not be called new evidence or something that "ambushed" the prosecutionNice try though!
A musicalApologies to Connie FrancisRose Kane & Carolyn Leckie:"Lipstick on your collarTold the tale on you-ooLipstick on your collarSaid you were untrueBet your bottom dollarYou and me are throughCoz, lipstick on your collarTold the tale on you."TS"There was no lipstick on my collarI've always been true-ooMcQuire is telling porkiesAnd I'm gonnae sueAnvar's is nae trouble She's a good girl tooI was playing scrabble, Gail,On a sunbed with you."SSP Executive"But you said you went to CupidsIn two thousand and two-ooAnd in nineteen ninety-sixAnd we all heard you-ooDon't you dare deny itOr you're really throughBarbara's got some minutes, mind,That tell the tale on you."TS"The minutes wereny signed offSo they areny true-ooKatrina Trolle is lyingThe rotten Danish coo-ooThe McNeilage tape's a phoneyThe language is too blueThe jury believes meNot the News of the Screws."AP"But this time will be differentThe Crown is gonnae get youWe've got some new evidenceChecked out the dates too-ooTime you changed your plea, pal,Before you're really screwedAnd Mrs Quinn and CumberbirchTell the tale on you."TSTo be continued...
Steve,Err did you not accuse me a few million posts back of being too frivolous about this farce. What you on lad* Like the Connie song - wasn't too keen on the TV series - seemed all a bit contrived and too carefully scripted to me. A great soundtrack though which was well edited to fit the pictures.Connies the business though. Notables are:"Stupid Cupid""Who's Sorry Now"and the one Big Georgie allegedly sings whilst counting the NOTW cash and reading the tape believers posts ...."Everbodys Somebodys Fool"
Well I won't back down, no I won't back downYou could stand me up at the gates of hellBut I won't back downGonna stand my ground, won't be turned aroundAnd I'll keep this world from draggin' me downGonna stand my ground and I won't back downHey baby, there ain't no easy way outHey I will stand my groundAnd I won't back downWell I know what's right, I got just one lifeIn a world that keeps on pushin' me aroundBut I'll stand my ground and I won't back downHey baby there ain't no easy way outHey I will stand my groundAnd I won't back down
Big Wullie,You are right superficially about NUS (by the way we are talking students here not sailors) but wrong I am afraid. That is OK it looks like it's your first post. People are often wrongly correcting me; then they hold a silly grudge when I point out there mistake; and then they seem to go all moody threaten James which seems a bit unfair. Back to my point, although as you are right NUS Scotland organised on a national basis, Militant organised on an all state basis. Correct? Can you recall Militant student caucuses were often also organised on a national basis often in dodgy venues in Manchester and London? If you can then a bit like the sixties you probably weren't there. I remember a few of the Scottish lads for their singing and fondness of the Irn Bru.All coming back to you now ... give the old head a shake ...yes I can see you are with me.If I knew old Nicky was going to do some well for hi'self I would have brought him some if the Irn Bru that Steve* has obviously been on today.CheersPeter
I guess who gets to sing 'Who's sorry now' is the point I was making. I guess we all choose our fates though.
Can,y seem to get a post why???????
How many defense witnesses????
@Sceptic ""Mr Sheridan has strongly denied attending the Cupids club on any occasion and has put it to one witness (Katrine Trolle) that he will be presenting evidence that would confirm he was attending an SSP cultural festival on the 28th of November 2002 (the date of the alleged visit) "but that witness was called and said he was outside the event, not at it.
Peter, your bathtub theories are getting more convoluted. I realise that you dearly want to believe the alibi provided for TS by Allan Brown, but it appears that there are no other witnesses (so far) to back up this alibi. The jury are therefore faced with a choice. They can choose to believe the alibi evidence of ONE witness (Brown) against the testimony of several (Trolle, Khan, Clark) who claim to have shared the car trip, as well as the testimony of the workers and customers of Cupids who have testified to seeing the Sheridan Party there and others who claim to have taken part in the 'sex marathon' with Tommy and his friends.The weight of evidence, for and against a particular contention, may come into play here.
Hmm, there really are some sick bastards involved in this.(comedy slide trombone)
Eraserhead, for goodness sake the defence has had one day of evidence, the prosecution had six weeks.At least we know you for one have already made your mind up.
Critical-eye said... Hugh Kerr's comments about tensions in the party are a pretty weak defence. All parties have personality clashes, usually exacerbated in political parties by ideological issues. The United Left seems to have been such an ideological faction. What TS needs to show is not just faction, but a plot: and not just a plot to remove him, but a conspicary to lie. But if the NOTW story gave rise to an opportunity to remove him, it did not generate any need for a collective lie that TS confessed at the SSP meeting after story appeared. After he had resigned, why would the members lie about what he had said?----------Two good points Critical Eye but you are not (cough) following through with your thinking:a) You say Sheridan needs to show a plot not just animosity. Indeed and that was a weak point in the libel case but not in this trial. The plotting as opposed to animosity was exposed during the Crown witness stage. At least 4 key matters can be put forward as evidence of plotting as you call it. b) you say there was no need for a collective lie as Sheridans opponents could have got rid of him without one just on the basis of the NOTW stories and once he was gone there was no need to lie. Errr there was. If you read the Scottish Socialist Voice Truth article written by ???? after the trial that reason is clearly explained - but obviously the author, whoever he is, does not describe it as a collective lie.
Sceptic, I think you'll find that in recent posts here I have stated that I favour a Not Guilty outcome to this trial as the fairest result.Whether or not I have made up my mind as to which evidence to believe and which witnesses may or may not have been telling the truth is another mattter altogether and quite separate from this court case, which imho has served to further obscure the truth rather than clarify it.
Eraserhead said... December 6, 2010 7:42 PMIn the sense that we are waiting for more witnesses to appear as Jon Cleese may say you have won todays award for stating the bleeding obvious Eraserhead. Yes it is early days and there is "just" one alibi so far for Sheridan. Is that alibi enough compared to the people who say he was in Manchester and Wigan on a sex trip. Put it this way ....Brown - No drink, no drugs, no payments, no offers of payments, no police pressure, no criminal record. So the jury may reasonably say one honest guy in the hand is worth 6 suspect witnesses in bush. That is a matter as you say for them to weigh up.May I say that if I was the Crown and I was seeking witnesses to put a guy in a certain spot on a certain night I would choose 1 Brown over the 6 Crown witnesses.Unfortunately for the Crown from the testimony so far recorded in the media all of the sex trip witnesses the following categories are relevant - some more than once.a) have been paid by the NOTW b) have given evidence on oath twice that they were NOT made offers of payments only for the NOTW to confirm they HAD been.c) claim to know Sheridan as they worked with his Sheridan's father - only to go on to admit that they had not worked with him and then apologise for saying that they had.d) an admitted common criminal with a string of convictions for aquisitive crime - some very recent.e) an admitted heavy abuser of drinks and drugs particularly on the night in question.f) had been pressurised by the polis by repeated early morning visits to their home.g) were not able to identify Sheridan from the witness box.h)changed the dates of the incidentAlso as the defence makes clear a number of them only appeared after the libel trial in which it was made clear that the NOTW had deep pockets. Prentice may say that he had to work with what he had but ...jeeez louise.By contrast what did the Crown put on Brown to damage his credibility - nothing. As we keep on repeating it is for the jury to weigh up character when it comes to testimony but as the Crown have not undermined Brown then he stands in good stead in terms of character - unless they find a way to recall him and then we could look at him again.
Is this trial on tommorow??
again I may just be pointing out irrelevant points. But in the TS defense which includes the NotW paying everyone off why has TS not asked for the finacial accounts of the paper and questioned their accounts department. He might produce this in his defense but as yet has not. That is hard physical evidence to support his claim. But would also take a lot of time for him and the prosecution to get through.I have seen that a few have been paid McNeilage and the other 2 with the big expenses etc.But according to TS they are all pretty much on the payroll of the paper and it's parent company right to the top as TS said.Legally they are required to show the paper trail and it cannot be covered up or it throw the entire group into trouble when they are audited and it would breach SOX regulations as Murdoch's parent company is floated in the US stock exchange as well.But am I the only one that finds it hard to believe the paper with their budget of 2 million per year would spend so much on one daft wee case.Finacially speaking they would have been better to pay out for the first case and get it over with.As a finance manager, I think their finance managers at the paper would have stepped in and said let this go now we are not floating this boat anymore.I can't see how it would be fiancially viable for them to pursue this to the extent that TS has implied. Certainly not in newspaper sales anyway.Trolle/Flat mate and her ex-boyfriend. KhanThe SSPThe best menThe friendsThe lecturer from Caledonian UniThe people from the club down in Englandand pretty much every witness the prosecution have.If you tally that up along with all the other expenses so far, it seems pretty far fetched that they would go to this expense.Remember he is saying that they have been paid to commit the very crime he is charged with. So it would require serious cash from the paper to make this work. I don't think any of them are going to do that for 5 or 10 grand. It would need to be serious cash and those kind of cash deposits leave a hell of a big trail.
@PeterHad lots of Militant Student Caucuses/Cadre Schools/Conferences in loads of places, but don't get your point.Glasgow Uni has never been a member of NUS and its students are not members of the NUS - therefore Nick was never a member of NUS.If you meant you knew him from your student days, then fair enough. Just pointing out the NUS thing because I wouldn't want people to think you're wrong.
Peter excellant summary,as for Anon this is a drop in the ocean to the nowt,and it,s not the case they could have paid out they think there the f-c-ing government
Point being Yulfae it would leave a trail which they would be allowed to check for and conclusivly prove the point he is making! He would also be able to check the financial status of all he thinks are on the paper payroll.
Anonymous said... Point being Yulfae it would leave a trail which they would be allowed to check for and conclusivly prove the point he is making! He would also be able to check the financial status of all he thinks are on the paper payroll.December 6, 2010 10:53 PMIs it not the case that the NotW costs had been requested by the defence, and these were provided although with redactions?Iam sure that I read on this blog that the NotW witnesses had slipped from memory some issues regarding these costs.
Anonymous said... Point being Yulfae it would leave a trail which they would be allowed to check for and conclusivly prove the point he is making! He would also be able to check the financial status of all he thinks are on the paper payroll. December 6, 2010 10:53 PMAnon - with respect I am not sure you have been following this matter. Why not choose a user name. Try Honest Account(ant).I have posted before that the size of the NOTW slush fund is a matter of controversy. Firstly in this trial the NOTW official accounts were redacted. But a more significant problem was considered of the HofC investigation regarding unofficial payments. It emerged that the true extent of the slush fund and the payments to police insiders, potential witnesses, buggers etc was hidden by the use of aliases, false account headings and offshore accounts. The higher ups such as Coulson denied knowledge of this but a couple of staff were jailed. The HofC found it unlikely that the higher ups did not also know but could not prove it. What is without doubt, as Coulson admits himself, things went very badly wrong in his tenure as editor and he resigned.So you may find that your gentlemans approach to company finance is not matched by what Tommy describes as a pack of wolves.Bob Bird confirmed Coulson was in charge of the slush fund in this case. The defence case is that the NOTW report directly to Murdoch as does the Sun on major editorial matters. The other papers eg Times, Sunday Times etc have more editorial independence. That is backed up by media commentators. The defence claim especially after his libel win Sheridan was target number one for Murdoch and the slush fund kicked in. Coulson is on notice that since the New York Times investigation he may get recalled to the House about the slush fund.MPs and national commentators feel that in light of the NYT investigation he MAY have been in Contempt of Parliament but the new Met Police inquiry into the NOTW has slowed that down.Coulson will be on oath here.Questions about the slush fund and the alleged payments to criminals that the HofC and the NYT revealed have already been raised with Bob Bird et al.I will not comment if Coulson will be asked anything similar(nods to James).So we may get more of an idea about the true size of the slush fund shortly or we may not. We may never know the true size as the HofC never got to the bottom of it either.
Disclosure of NoW payments. Yes TS could have applied for a full list of payments to witnesses in the defamation and criminal trials. Indeed,he has a very experienced solicitor in Mr Anwar who is far from being a stranger to such applications. And many, many months pre-trial to make such an application. If he hasn't applied by now it will ahrdly be because of an oversight by his solicitor.Love the way the musical's developing! Keep it up ye bards - Glasgow Empire awaits!Sceptic: You helpfully quote:-"Mr Sheridan has strongly denied attending the Cupids club on any occasion and has put it to one witness (Katrine Trolle) that he will be presenting evidence that would confirm he was attending an SSP cultural festival on the 28th of November 2002 (the date of the alleged visit) "The key date above being the 28th when the day in issue is Friday 27th. Which he hasn't mentioned above. Hands up anyone who thinks we will hear from this promised Defence witness who contradicts Brown.......
Anon 9.11 pmAs for what sum of money it takes to make things up I suppose it depends.I cannot think off hand of a sum that would make me betray my best man and his wife to jail, destroy their family and have the state drag their young child from their arms. I suggest there isn't one really is there - at least not one for human beings with "real feelings". There is some evidence that the going rate in Glasgow to do that is £250,000.00 but that some will take £200,000.00 at a push.Remember also the defence has claimed here that certain people have effectively been guaranteed immunity by powerful interests as the aim is to get Sheridan.Then there is the defence concern with the police.For example Tommy raised why it was that Gail was abused by the police for 5 hours and is facing serious charges whilst Ms Trolle, who the police admit gave wrong evidence in the libel trial, got the gentle touch with coffee and muffins and was let off. The police also say that McGuires, also major NOTW witness, accounts simply cannot be believed but the defence feel she also got the gentle touch - certainly she was not charged. Whether the defence is right and people are immune remains to be seen of course. So remember the defence case is that is not all about huge sums of NOTW money - although that is of course a major part of the defence case to date.
Jamesie Cotter –"Mr Sheridan has strongly denied attending the Cupids club on any occasion and has put it to one witness (Katrine Trolle) that he will be presenting evidence that would confirm he was attending an SSP cultural festival on the 28th of November 2002 (the date of the alleged visit) "Where is this quote from?http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/10/katrine-trolle-tommy-sheridan-cross.htmlstates:"Mr Sheridan then moved on to the evidence from Ms Trolle's own diary that was shown to the jury yesterday. She stated then, and confirmed now, that the entry for the 28,29,and 30 September written "cultural festival" was to cover up from her husband the visit to the Cupids club. Mr Sheridan then put it to her that the court would be hearing evidence that there was a "cultural festival" organised by the SSP on these dates and showed his own diary for that weekend."Where is this "on the 28th of November 2002 (the date of the alleged visit) " coming from?A perjury trial and we can''t even agree on the dates of the evidence which is clearly documented.I may be wrong and the quote you refer to is elsewhere in the evidence led but I can't find it.Or it may be that, like the infamous SSP meeting, people see and hear things they want to while ignoring the facts.I pity the jury.
I find it incredible that none of you realise it is not a gentlemens approach to finance but plain hard facts.A first year accountancy student could find such payments, you can try to hide your slush fund, amend it change it cover it up with false payments, but the auditors will always find where it has gone.Instead of getting so defensive try thinking things through. It would seem more that TS is running his defence by shouting your a liar at everybody.This would have at least given a solid basis and unless you have been involved in corruption/embeslement cases you really wont know what to ask and look for. His solicitor is not going to be an so called expert in every type of criminal case especially in a city like Glasgow where the majority of criminal cases are not for finacial wrong doing in organisations of that size, he is obviously there for reasons other than to get TS off.Instead óf chest thumping lets get the guy some facts so he can strengthen his defense. There is little factual evidence for the prosecution apart from the supposed minutes so if he can bring in some facts he can achieve the reasonable doubt needed to win.
Tommy Trial addict, it's just as likely that I made a mistake writing the date down that day. I'll check my notes later.
7.31 'His solicitor is not going to be an so called expert in every type of criminal case especially in a city like Glasgow where the majority of criminal cases are not for finacial wrong doing in organisations of that size, he is obviously there for reasons other than to get TS off.'If you can think of a higher-profile defence solicitor - with experience of complex trials - than Mr Anwar operating in Scotland I am sure the vast-majority of our unjustly persecuted and abused criminal community would be delighted to have his/her phone number. An application for disclosure of financial records would not, I suggest, be in any way beyond the skills of the versatile Mr Anwar.
The court has been shown a document from News International titled "Sheridan trial costs" this document is however heavily redacted.
As i have previously posted,why is this trial even happening? A legal first for Scotland that criminal proceedings have arisen from a civil court matter and an inordinate amount of money and resources has been invested.What is so in the public interest and of such profound importance to the legal establishment? At worst ,if guilty Sheridans crime would be lying about extra marital activities. We are surely not comparing him to Fred West or Peter Tobin.But then again ,there are more than a few on this blog who probably do,if not even worse.In reply to up4it,Alan Brown is up against 6 or 7 crown witnesses.Is that game over then? Apart from further defence witnesses yet to be called, lets examine the Cupids testimonies. I wont elaborate further on the many problems re.KT & AKs evidence.That is well documented already. Lets start with Gary Clarke. Certainly seems to be a credible witness. However his evidence is far from credible IMHO.Next Pamela Tucker,who recognised TS because she had worked with his dad.That solved the mystery,it was him and not Tommy in the club.Sorted.But this was a crock for which she apologised. Yet a police statement says she recognised him from his Poll Tax activities.The London riots/Battle of Trafalgar was in March 1993.What amazing recall after anything up to 17 years,when Sheridan(like most of us) would have looked much differently. Then there is the small matter of "Robbie",(George Wallace,5 ft 6, blond hair,blue eyes). According to Ms Tucker,she had gone to Cupids with him,but they had a row and he had gone home,and she had entered the place alone.Now look at Tony Cumberbirch evidence." I was approached by "Robbie" as a favour to score out someones name from the signing in book(because it was their real name).So accordingly "Robbie" was inside Cupids. Little wonder this guy wasnt called as a Crown witness.Just twigged what the "Cokie" stuff was. It was the Hokey Cokey,"in,out,in,out,shake it all about! Mr C also recognised Sheridan from watching him in an episode of Big Brother.I checked Google.TS first entered the show on 4 Jan 2009. So depending on year of his alleged visit he could identify from seeing him 7 or 8 years previously.Amazing recall once again.More embarrasingly for the Crown,his wife(who apparently watched the same episode with him) fails to identify TS and says she couldnt the others in the party either! I think she also referred to them as being "Scottish".Could be wrong but dont think A Khan is. And i know for a fact that K Trolle is Danish.To conclude, better one reliable,credible witness than however many unreliable ones. But of course that will be for the jury to decide. On balance i disagree with references to the Crowns submissions "having more holes than a string vest". I would humbly suggest that there is more holes than in a North Sea trawlers fishing net. Of course that is just my personal opinion.
Hello anon, if we could avoid discussing that as it was the subject of a debate that happened outside the presence of the jury.
I didn't realise that. Sorry, James.
Not a problem anon, I forget myself sometimes what happened when the jury was there and what not.
@Peter - e) an admitted heavy abuser of drinks and drugs particularly on the night in question.I'm sure you meant on the ALLEGED night in question. Otherwise you'd be saying the night in question really happened, which would never do.Instead, Mr Clark would have to be falsely testifying against Mr Sheridan, but simultaneously undermining that testimony by admitting to taking lots of drink and medicinal drugs on the fictitious night in question. Oh, haud on, that doesn't really work either, does it?Maybe he's being secretly paid by NotW, but due to loyalty to TS, he's cleverly undermined the story by adding in the drink & drugs?That's not really sounding great either, is it? It really is awfy hard to work out Mr Clark's motivation for testifying against his old friend, isn't it?
Aye, Wee Jock. It's like a mu'der inquiry. The first thing we look for is a motive. What motivates these witnesses? Why are they doing what they do that they must?
Regarding the redacted evidence presented so far - mostly from NoW evidence - there is an explanation of this in the Kenneth Lang testimony: http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/11/kenneth-lang-testimony.html#moreIn short, the commissioner sees all the evidence then decides what portions should be redacted.
iainwhat you've written is the usual pro tommy guff that gets spouted by swp esque robots who are incapable of looking at everything that has been raised and are choosing their evidence very selectively.for a start the only 'pro tommy' person in attendance at the EC has already said that he wouldn't accuse the others in attendance of lying, this seems rather like damage limitation IMO.also IMO the video is probably the most signifcant piece of evidence, and you dont even attempt to provide an explanation for that, possibly because it's inconvenient to your argument?on one hand you have claimed that someone would have to have an amazing abilility to recall on the grounds that they recognise someone they once met at a sex club when they go on to appear on Celebrity Big Brother (which by the way shows how low Tommy will go) yet you also claim the evidence that they're lying is included in the fact that they failed to recollect after 8 years that one person in the party was Danish...you havent mentioned the whole diary entry thing (again, i wonder why not) and you havent mentioned your view on if its conceivable that Tommys best men may have conspired with the majority of people in attendance at the meeting, and with the NOTW, and with a bunch of swingers, and with lifelong friends of Tommy, and with the entire legal establishment, and with rupert murdock, and with Khans neighbours, and everyone else, hmmmmmmm could it be because when you selectively put it like that then it all seems a tad far fetched?forget the hero worship, you suggest that the very worst that Tommy could have done is cover up an extra marital affair, this isn't really true is it? if the allegation are true then he has also instigated a defamation trial based on stories that were substantially true and has lied and in doing so destroyed the SSP. that's all possible, and i guess it's up to the Jury to decide if it's true or notJames, if there's anything i need to to this (like allegadlys) then please either feel free to do so, or let me know
iain.. anvar khan is very much scottish, she has only recently moved to london.
cant let Former ssp tirade go unchallenged.Firsly, i have never thought that TS was "the Daniel O Donnel" of Scottish politics,far less that he could walk on water. On the other hand i was never a Tommy hater unlike yourself methinks.I have listened to all these allegations for years and have my own thoughts and opinions. I,and you can ask any of the numerous people who know me(because unlike yourself and countless others,use my real name) have pronounced his innocence at any time.My position has always been ,and remains that hes innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt by hard corroborating evidence. If such materialises,then he is bang to rights and i will accept it.So my position is very clear,open and honest.To return,my comments referred to the Cupid witnesses in case you missed that. You totally misrepresent me by accusing me of saying they lied. Didnt.I said their evidence was not reliable,not the same thing at all.Again read what i actually said.You again raise the McNeillage tape. The authenticity of this or otherwise is yet to be conclusively established.Had the video been of the calibre of eg.John Higgins, Sara Ferguson or the Pakistani cricketers which were blazoned all over the TV it would be game over.Sadly and inconveniontly for you ,thats not the case. The clincher in my opinion would have been the Crown production of the authenticated ,dated Cupids ledger with sheridans authenticated signature therein. Instead no such exhibit exists. What we have instead is Tony Cumberbirchs testimony that he was asked to erase "someones "name,presumably TS as it was their "real name". Now given people could sign in as "Mork &Mindy or whatever,who would know whose name was real or not? As i recall,this "real name" was signed in by someone else(so there goes the authenticated signature).Its an obvious deduction ,that if this is to be believed,then someone else in the party(was it 4 or was it 5)signed Sheridan in using his real name whist signing themself in under a pseudonym.The plot thickens, but then it is the Pantomime season after all.Frivolity aside, i think i have a far more inquisitive and open mind than yourself,but of course that is only my opinion.
@ iain brown - I bet there is a lot more "iain brown" in the UK than there is "former ssp".
"Had the video been of the calibre of eg.John Higgins, Sara Ferguson or the Pakistani cricketers which were blazoned all over the TV it would be game over." - I really don't think so, we would still be arguing the toss whether or not is was genuine or some sort of "concoction".
Hello Jessica Fletcher P.I. sorry couldn't post that as that whole subject was the subject of a long legal argument that took place outside the jury's presence.
Anonymous(yet again)3:32pm has done it again.Dont wish to say much more than its a classic case of the Latin ,QED(think thats quad,errat,demonstratum).In other words they have just proven my point.Doubtless the irony of this will likewise escape them.
Wullie McGartland said... @Peter Had lots of Militant Student Caucuses/Cadre Schools/Conferences in loads of places, but don't get your point. Glasgow Uni has never been a member of NUS and its students are not members of the NUS - therefore Nick was never a member of NUS. If you meant you knew him from your student days, then fair enough. Just pointing out the NUS thing because I wouldn't want people to think you're wrong. December 6, 2010 9:15 PMHeh Wullie,Your saying he never managed to turn around that blackleg student union Wullie - I wouldn't have brought that up mate - sore point with him no doubt ..... many others failed as well though so no harm. Blackpool NUS Conference late 80s and early 90s mmmmm yes must have been someone else - unless he was just walking his doug. I am sure he was a member of the NUS in spirit (cough). Blackpool though I can't leave it alone mate. Are you sure? I think he could have been there even if his union was not affiliated if he was working with us on FELS selling the paper etc. Are you sure he didn't hop a ride with you lot in Paisley or freeload with West of Scotland NUS. Check it out and let me know for my memoirs.As you say could just have been when he went to the Militant student caucuses.Any well done to the lad on the frontpages after all this time and I note his new title - good to see he is not shy about it. Why should he be? Modesty is overrated these days. Say it proud.The bible thing was just one of those mistakes anyone can make and his students shouldn't bring it up on the Prof. If he up in front of the beak again he will get it right next time no doubt. All the nasty stuff aside you have got to admit that was just a bit funny. Are you a Marxist? It's not a trick question lad come on answer the question. Yes. What you swearing on the bible for then ....lol.Take care on the ice Wullie. Peter.
Aye, Glasgow Uni have never been daft enough to be a member of the NUS, in fact it was Glasgow Uni that led the opposition against Jim Murphy and his Loans not Grants campaign.
It was a Jim Murphy NUS campaign that brought in to system of student loans - this was a gross act of treachery. Glasgow fought vociferously against the NUS Loans not Grants proposals.
Anonymous former ssp said... iain what you've written is the usual pro tommy guff that gets spouted by swp esque robots who are incapable of looking at everything that has been raised and are choosing their evidence very selectively.Oi former SSP,I think roughly the same as Iain so I object to being called SWP(esque) To mangle Alan Partridge - stop getting your trots wrong. Anyway I am glad your back can I ask you the following 3 questions and to show I am not trying to trip you up I say why I want to know:1)Do you consider that is actually Tommy PICTURED in the video? If so why? The reason I ask is that I have watched it a number of times and I cannot actually see his face. As I recall the NOTW said his distinctive hairy hands were a dead give away. Is that what you think as well. Or is it the voiceover and the content of the discussion that convinces you rather than the picture? The reason I ask that is that if it is not the pictures but just the soundtrack that convinces you then what would you have thought if the Crown just produced a voice recording?2)Do you consider that Sheridan actually had the affairs with Trolle, Khan and McGuire? If so which - or do you think all three? The reason I ask is that the United Left minutes do not state he had affairs with these 3 women but that he allegedly confessing going to Cupids twice.So which of the women do you think are telling the truth.3)Why do you think Ms Tucker said to the police and the Crown in her formal statement before the trial and said to Mr Prentice when on oath that she was certain it was Tommy in Cupids as she had worked with his father?Genuine enquiry.Thanks,Peter
I am a bit confused are we talking about the 27th or 28th?
@PeterRe: "3)Why do you think Ms Tucker said to the police and the Crown in her formal statement before the trial and said to Mr Prentice when on oath that she was certain it was Tommy in Cupids as she had worked with his father?"I feel I need to help you a little on one otherwise excellent point you make - that Ms Tucker recognised Mr Sheridan because of maybe having known his father. While Ms Tucker certainly got a bit confused and embarrassed on this point under cross-examination, she had already stated during evidence in chief that she knew Tommy Sheridan from what he had done during the Poll Tax. The witness also had a Scottish accent, so I had no problem assuming that she would have been able to identify Mr Sheridan at the alleged Cupid's visit. Of course maybe she never went to the club and maybe Mr Sheridan never went to the club, and maybe it's Ms Tucker who is lying, as well as being a bit confused about whether she had ever worked with the defendant's father.Anyway, here's the relevant report, if I may for once be of assistance to you: http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/11/pamela-stella-tucker.html On a further point, I don't know if any witnesses will be called to testify whether Mr Sheridan snr. ever worked or lived in Corkerhill, but so far we only have the defendant's word for it. It seemed like an odd way to challenge a witness regarding her contact with someone else who was not present, but I guess if Alex Prentice QC & Lord Bracadale allowed it, it must be OK. I'm sure with your legal knowledge and frequently demonstrated grasp of the facts in this case, you will be able to enlighten me on this point.I await your reply, although I'd really appreciate a brief one, otherwise I'll not be able to make an impression on the reading list you have so kindly provided us all with.
Whatsy: 9.01I await your reply, although I'd really appreciate a brief one, otherwise I'll not be able to make an impression on the reading list you have so kindly provided us all with.---------Whatsy tut tut,You mean you haven't started on it yet Dr Nicky will be marking you down at bible class on Sunday mate.Here it is again for you:Books:A Trial By JuryThe History ManThe Film ExplainerÀ la recherche du temps perdu (or "In Search of Lost Time" if you wish)Movies:The Diving Bell & The ButterflyKing Kong 1970s In the Name of the Father (Not Tommy Sheridans father of course as I never worked with him I know Tommy from the Poll Tax etc etc blah, blah)Music:Mahlers 5thArt:"When Did You Last See Tommy Sheridans Father" by William Frederick YeamesMain Hall Walker Art Gallery Liverpool
Thanks Peter - if there are many more delays in HMA V Sheridan & Sheridan this week, we may need a separate post so that everyone can debate these to pass the time.You've got both sides of a very unbalanced scale covered there with A La Recherche & The Diving Bell, haven't you? For the latter, the book can probably be read faster than the film can be watched!
so no one spotted my earlier deliberate mistake. Sorry my memories playing tricks. The London Poll Tax riots were in 1990, not 1993 which makes Ms Tuckers ID recall of TS even more amazing.Apols.
@ iain brown - how many times has the Poll Tax Riot footage been played on the TV? Often.
Post a Comment