The court has heard from three witnesses today. Brett Harper, a former SSP member from Aberdeen who testified that Mr Sheridan stayed in Aberdeen on the night of the 11th October, a night the prosecution have alleged the accused spent with Katrine Trolle. Mike Gonzales, an SSP executive member who denied that minutes of the disputed 9th November 2004 meeting had ever been presented or approved and Detective Chief inspector Phil Williams, of the Metropolitan Police, who led the investigation in "phone hacking" at the News of the World.
The defence also called Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator who pled guilty to "hacking" mobile phone voicemail messages on behalf of Clive Goodman, the Royal Correspondent of the News of the World. When called however there was "no reply" as Mr Mulcaire was not in court.
Full reports to follow.
21 comments:
Hello Danny G, sorry but you must be aware by now that we do not publish allegations not heard in court or supposed information about potential witnesses that have not appeared.
Please try not to post things like that, it's a waste of my time and your time.
ok James i understand. It just seems such a logical line of enqiry which appears to me is being omited and/or obscured by political/conspiracy meanderings.
Thanks for all your good work.
Quick question - I've spent some days at the TS trial and will come again so the qustion is -has it been busy...I'm quite old and don't want to stand in a Q.
What does 'no reply' mean.
Does it mean he didn't turn up, but gave no reason.
@ puzzled - just means that the usher called into the witness room "call glen muculaire" and nothing happened, so the presumption is that he wasn't present in court.
To reply to Allan Cook: I'm probably younger than you are, but I have had some problems with my back recently so I have been reluctant to stand in a queue for long myself. There has been the odd day in the past when they had difficulty fitting everybody in, and I remember one time when George McNeilage was giving evidence when I was one of a handful of people turned away. However recently there has been a few spare seats, so I can't promise anything but you should get in without queueing, there are a few seats near court no. 4. As somebody said, you seem to get the big crowds the day after some juicy piece of new evidence.
I would expect the court to be pretty busy when the verdict is delivered, you might have to get in early for that.
Another amazing (non) report from BBC Reporting Scotland. The only witness they mentioned was Brett Harper and the only part of his testimony they felt necessary to mention was why he thought Tommy had been fitted up by the state.
I haven't been in court, and just wanted to say thanks for this excellent blog James, it's been indispensible for keeping up with proceedings - very impressive. It's amazing to think of the number of witnesses whose evidence hasn't been reported in the mainstream media, or even mentioned. I've followed the case quite closely and can't help feeling sad about the fact that, regardless of the verdict, the whole sorry business has struck a deathblow to the left's involvement in Scottish mainstream politics, for now anyway. I was proud that Scotland had voted Socialists into our parliament, and it's a bit of a tragedy it's turned out like this. Especially if it was over one guy trying to cover up some indiscretions. But the latter is obviously for the jury to decide.
justaglasgowguy - the BBC (and the rest of the mainstream media) appear to have already made their mind up (as does the general public). The media are being particularly careful particularly the Sun ("sharing" a reporter with the Record?!) to not fall foul of Contempt of Court so they are just tip-toeing along until the Verdict. But whatever way this goes expect a few double-page spreads. I would wager that the NotW has some "juicy umpteen in a bed exclusives" ready to run in the event of a guilty verdict, but that is for the jury to decide.
I wonder if Murdoch's decision to put NotW on-line behind a pay-wall has got anything to do with trial.
Nobody much talking about Gail ... I guess that she has a game plan win or lose - just curios if anybody has a view
From justaglasgowguy
'Another amazing (non) report from BBC Reporting Scotland. The only witness they mentioned was Brett Harper and the only part of his testimony they felt necessary to mention was why he thought Tommy had been fitted up by the state.'
Interesting, all I heard about was the evidence by some Chief Inspector Williams? Must have missed the above!
Yes , again curious if you are called as a witness and you don't show up are in contempt?
Interested Observer
''the whole sorry business has struck a deathblow to the left's involvement in Scottish mainstream politics, for now, anyway''
I'm not so sure, look what Glasgow City Council has getting away with for decades and the sheep still vote Labour back in every year. So there may be hope yet never mind how ridiculed the far left have been by this and the previous trial.
Anonymous said
"I would wager that the NotW has some "juicy umpteen in a bed exclusives" ready to run in the event of a guilty verdict, but that is for the jury to decide."
Perhaps they plan to run such a juicy story in the event of a Not Guilty, in the hope that TS will sue them again and give them a chance for a re-match!
I have read and watched a lot of the evidence and I keep waiting to see the phyicial evidence like phone calls text messages E-mails or even a photo where Tommy has set up meetings with the woman his is supposed to have had affairs with. In this day and age you cannot conduct an affair without a method of contact. In this case there appears to be no independent evidence of arrangements to meet with the ladies. (trust me I know)
Ian, with regards to phone calls etc you might do well to consult press reports from the civil case in 2006 if possible (I'm afraid James wasn't around then). Also keep in mind many of the allegations occurred many years ago now, beyond when many organisations would keep records. (e.g. i doubt glasgow city chambers cctv goes back 8 or 9 years!)
We have had a full 4 years of a massive police investigation since 2006. The lack of physical, forensic evidence is staggering, there is little here except hearsay and circumstantial evidence such as notes in diaries etc.
This whole trial is now about whether the jury believe the tape to be genuine or not, IMHO.
Hi Campbell ... Did you attend court on Friday? Was it busy if you did?
Perry Freemason 11.54 AM
Notes in diaries are physical evidence, though I agree there could have been more.
The majority SSP evidence is not hearsay on what was said by TS at the 9/11 meeting, which is what one charge relates to, but direct testimony, though it is hearsay as to whether what was said was true.
And there has been a lot of purported eyewitness testimony (e.g. Trolle, Khan, Clarke, Quinn, Dundee couple). You may disbelieve some or all of it, but it is not hearsay.
Post a Comment