The first witness on Thursday was Steve Arnott. Mr Arnott told the court that in 2004 he had been the Scottish Socialist Party's (SSP) Regional organiser for the Highlands and Islands and that he had also been a member of the SSP'S executive committee. Mr Arnott told the court that he had not attended the SSP executive of the 9th November 2004 (at which the Crown allege Mr Sheridan made admissions of visiting a "sex club") but had however been at the two subsequent meetings on the 14th and 24th of November. Mr Sheridan, who is conducting his own defence, put it to Mr Arnott that a number of prosecution witnesses had stated that a "minute" containing a record of these alleged admissions, had been presented to the executive meeting of the 24th November. Mr Arnott replied "absolutely not" and when asked if he was sure stated there was "no room for doubt,"
Mr Sheridan then showed Mr Arnott a booklet, which other witnesses have claimed was circulated at the 24th November executive, and asked if he agreed it had been handed out. Mr Arnott replied "not at that meeting" adding that "the first time I saw this was in 2006 in court" (Mr Sheridan had sued the News of the World for defamation in 2006, which led to the present perjury trial) Mr Sheridan asked the witness if the minute had been "moved and seconded" Mr Arnott replied "there was no minute to move"
After asking Mr Arnott about the "internal position" of the SSP in 2003, to which the witness had responded that there were "cliques and factions" Mr Sheridan showed Mr Arnott a section of a videotape which was distributed by the News of the World claiming it showed Mr Sheridan and George McNeilage. After the clip, which was around three minutes long, the witness was then asked if, in his opinion, it was Mr Sheridan's voice on the tape. The witness told the court he had known Mr Sheridan since 1986, 24 years and that he believed the voice on the video was not Mr Sheridan and although it was a "little bit" like him it was a "fabrication."
Mr Sheridan asked the witness what his reasons were for his belief that it was not his voice on the video. Mr Arnott replied there were a number of reasons, stating that the person on the tape was, in his opinion, "doing your public persona" and that in private Mr Sheridan was more"gentle and intellectual." Mr Arnott added that he also thought the amount of swearing in the tape was untypical stating it sounds more like "Cartman from South Park that you." Mr Arnott also said he thought the structure of the tape was "fishy" as it seemed to "tick all the boxes of the points they wanted to prove" Mr Sheridan ended his evidence in chief by asking the witness if he was confident about his answers, Mr Arnott said he was. The Advocate Depute, Alex Prentice QC, then rose to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Prentice asked the witness if he agreed that the voice on the tape "sounded like Tommy Sheridan" to which Mr Arnott replied yes. The Advocate Depute then asked the witness if this made it a "good impression" of him. Mr Arnott replied that "it might fool someone who had only heard him on telly." Mr Prentice then moved on to the 24th November 2004 SSP executive meeting and asked the witness if the events of the 9th November meeting were discussed. Mr Arnott stated that there had been "very little" as the meeting was discussing the "way foward" Mr Prentice then showed the witness the booklet of documents the Crown claim was handed out at the meeting and asked if it contained the documents presented there, the witness read the booklet and stated that the "minute" in the booklet had not been presented and that there was perhaps a financial report missing. The Advocate depute then asked Mr Arnott that if no minute was being presented why the attendees at the meeting had been asked to sign for and return the documents they had received. The witness replied that this was a "unique situation" as the press were "camped outside" the meeting and the party did not want any leaks, especially of the financial report which showed their position as precarious.
Mr Prentice then put it to the witness that in fact the major topic of discussion at the 24th November meeting had been the 9th November meeting and the admissions made there by Mr Sheridan. Mr Arnott replied that was incorrect and the party had "moved on" Mr Prentice asked "the truth is you had been given the minute before or on the 24th November" Mr Arnott replied that was "absolutely not the case" The Advocate Depute then asked "Alan Green told us there were, is he a liar" Mr Arnott responded that he was "afraid" he would have to say he was. With that Mr Prentice ended his cross-examination and Mr Sheridan left the dock to re-examine.
Mr Sheridan showed the witness a statement that had been agreed at the 24th November meeting which stated in part, "Tommy is a valued member of the most dynamic team of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament" and asked if this would have been agreed unanimously by people who were "disgusted" that he had admitted visiting a sex club. The witness replied that if he had thought that was true he "would never have written that." Mr Sheridan asked the witness why he had said Alan Green was a liar. Mr Arnott said that "these people were friends, I broke bread with them" but added that events since 2004 had forced him into the "reluctant conclusion" that they were. Mr Sheridan began to ask the witness about an affidavit that the court has already heard was given to the Sunday Herald newspaper by another executive member Alan McCombes. At this point the Advocate Depute objected saying that as this had not been part of his cross examination it could not be brought up in re-examination. Lord Bracadale, the presiding judge, upheld that objection and Mr Sheridan thanked the witness and returned to his seat in the dock. Lord Bracadle then thanked the witness and allowed him to step down.
36 comments:
Mr Arnott got one of the biggest laughs for a while when he said something along the lines of "Mr Sheridan is the most important post-war socialist in Scotland".
He wasn't playing for those laughs, mind.
I see whatsey is every bit as anti sheridan now as he was when the trial started
Clearly another witness with a different re call of the events following the 9/11 meeting.
IMO He has appeared to have answered question put to him without having to use vitriol.
With regard to the tape not one witness who has stated etheir way it is or is not Tommy has any expertise in that feild IMO.
A number of people have a belief that this tape is a telling piece of evidence there must be a more conclusive means to asses this tape.
again I like to see a balance but this guy claiming things like that about TS seems so cheesy. I wish the defense would just give us their account of the facts without the extra cheese! After all this is what the Judge and Jury weigh up. Not this Smashy and Nicey stuff.
>Moderation<
@paw
Use of the word "liar" stopped that one. If you'd care to rephrase?
>Moderation Ends<
"Mr Prentice asked the witness if he agreed that the voice on the tape "sounded like Tommy Sheridan" to which Mr Arnott replied yes."
I really can't see how this witness could have been more unhelpful to Tommy. Not just the above comment, but crucially he wasn't at the 9/11 meeting, similar to other witnesses Tommy has called. Regardless of what he said about later meetings, I really don't think he was helpful for TS's argument.
Anonymous said...
again I like to see a balance but this guy claiming things like that about TS seems so cheesy. I wish the defense would just give us their account of the facts without the extra cheese! After all this is what the Judge and Jury weigh up. Not this Smashy and Nicey stuff.
December 15, 2010 7:44 PM
I presume you prefer bile to cheese?
Or Nasty and Nastier stuff.
@ Legally Challenged
It is up to the Crown to decide what it wants to do with its case, including whether it preferred a forensic analysis of voice patterns, or lord knows, splice patterns or traces, if there is such a thing. Or, to just play the tape and let it speak for itself, as it were. People, i.e. the jury, can make their own minds up about what, if any, weight to give it.
The Crown is obviously taking a commonsensical view of it, and hoping the jury will do likewise. The jury is the arbiter of fact, and may well discuss whether it is TS on the tape, or Rory Bremner's even-more-gifted cousin, or a synthesised computer generated humanoid simulation, like Hal out of 2001, but with a digital Pollok accent. It is, of course, entirely a matter for them.
Most people can't set the clock on their new fangled video playing machine, never mind get their head around splicing and tracing. You would have to study for years to get a grasp of it... and then there is the next stage, and the next. With a tape the best thing to do is just play it, a tape is perfectly capable of speaking for itself imo.
@ Rolo Tomasi
I would agree. I think we can all end speculation of the genuineness of the tape regarding the fact it exists. Thus neither side are challenging the veracity of it.
TS's argument (the one he has finally decided upon) is that this is an actor impersonating his voice. Therefore there is no need to show the tape is spliced or edited. What he has been trying to do is to provide other witnesses to counter the prosecution in order to say that it doesn't sound like him (clearly to create reasonable doubt). This is the way I see it, but his position on this matter has changed several times I'm still uncertain.
I dont like nasty or nastier either, as Joe Friday says, Just the facts maam!
Instead of painting a picture of himself as a quiet intellectual, why not just get to the facts.
TS is spreading it thicker than butter on hot toast. This does litle to clear up facts and does not in my opinion sway people to think it is him or not on a video.
There is a supporting story with the video to explain why he acts in such a manner and the Jury need to decide if they think it is him or not.
@Anonymous 7:20pm
"I see whatsey is every bit as anti sheridan now as he was when the trial started"
I'm sure you were trying to accuse me of being anti-Sheridan, but you've not really managed it with that enigmatic statement.
However, I have no political or personal preferences for either side. If you view that as anti-Sheridan, that's up to you.
There are contradictions in SA statement regarding the Financial Statement.
Mr Prentice then showed the witness the booklet of documents the Crown claim was handed out at the meeting and asked if it contained the documents presented there, the witness read the booklet and stated that the "minute" in the booklet had not been presented and that there was perhaps a financial report missing. The Advocate depute then asked Mr Arnott that if no minute was being presented why the attendees at the meeting had been asked to sign for and return the documents they had received. The witness replied that this was a "unique situation" as the press were "camped outside" the meeting and the party did not want any leaks, especially of the financial report which showed their position as precarious".
There is truely wonderful software out there that can detect if the tape is spliced or not in seconds. There are a few companies that can correct tapes that have been rcorded over 7 or 8 times, fire damaged etc. They can also do it for hard drives on computers. Why not use a company like that and have it over and done with.
They are hugely expensive but it would end all this poxy speculation.
Yet another defence witness compares the Maybe-Sheridan in the vido to "Cartman from South Park".
Must be very similar, then...
Anon why did the crown not do as you suggest?Correct me if i,m wrong but did the NOTW not claim they had it checked?
@dbz
It's VID-E-O!
and what do you think video is on cotton?
Rolo
Like yourself I to believe that the Jury will make their own views on this piece of evidence.
However I also believe that that task would be easier for them to undertake if a more conclusive analysis had been carried out especially if this is prime piece of evidence.
>Moderation<
@Anonymous
Re: AP & Solidarity
I know you're joking, but let's not go there on the blog, eh? Someone with a sense-of-humour-deficit could take that the wrong way.
And in fact, just has.
>Moderation Ends<
Yulefae
It doesn't matter who notw got to check it its the crowns job to verify it. If as has been speculated this has not been allowed to be presented as evidence for some reason amounts to a monumental screw up.
I believe the defence are firefighting what's front of them. At the end of the trial I suspect the real reason why this didn't come into play will come out. No one will look good as all will be losers.
Where is Andy Macfarlane, is he the Ace up Tommy's sleeve or the Joker?,a card he cannot play.
whatsy.
the truth hurts
That's enough of that, please - in the interests of everyone else's boredom threshold.
True Gent said...
Where is Andy Macfarlane, is he the Ace up Tommy's sleeve or the Joker?,a card he cannot play.
He is in the boax the noo,looks like a good witness
@ yulfae the noo? 8:51pm and the Court is STILL sitting?
James,
You are are a hawk-eyed moderator. I hope you will approve of this.........
There is a mention of this trial on the Guardian website today.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/15/phone-hacking-sienna-miller-evidence
The information in the article adds weight to the allegations that police have gone soft in their investigations into the News of the World over phone tapping.
Also the report in the case against the NotW reported in the Guardian makes one question the veracity of Andy Coulson, who testified when called as a witness by Tommy Sheridan, that he had no knowledge of the phone tapping carried out by Glen Mulcaire or others.
As other have pointed out, how much this actually matters in this case is unclear.
I should have written "Greg Mulcaire"
@paw
Really? Who's he then?
I agree that the tape stands "as it is".
Peter has put up a good argument in previous posts as to why it is incumbent on the Crown to prove the tape is real.
I think he is mistaken on this one, maybe not in a De Jure sort of way but in a De Facto sense.
The tape stands "as is" unless Sheridan can sufficiently undermine it and I don't think he has done enough so far to do so.
Tommy trial addict, that is simply wrong. You could, potentially, say that about any evidence but, thankfully, in Scotland, our courts require the prosecution to prove their evidence and not the other way round.
There was no expert evidence offered for or against the tape. There are approx 18 minutes edited out from the end of the tape, that fact is not disputed (proven) Sheridan is not identified by sight.
What we have is the tape and several witnesses who are familiar with Sheridan stating that it is or isnt his voice. They cancel each other out leaving it down to the jury to decide whether the missing 18 minutes are a reasonable doubt.
That is where we are with the tape.
4.23am.
The conflicting testimonies over Sheridan's voice do not "cancel each other out". That's an overtly simplistic view. The Jury will be asked to consider the evidence of each witness. It may be - since they can actually hear the tape themselves - that they dimiss the testimony of one side.
James, to assuage my curiosity, can you or anyone else in court describe what the 'booklet' or 'documents' looked like in which minutes were allegedly included, anything to get a better idea . Was it a few pages or a bundle, A4/A5/mixed etc.?
many thanks.
anon 9.53 you are correct - they do not cancel each other out.
What it does do is counter the prosecution's strategy on the tape. The only corroboration of McNeilage's story on the tape was a few people saying that they thought it was Tommy's voice.
If the defence had left that uncontested, it would have been a mistake. As soon as the Crown called on people who were colleagues of Sheridan to give an opinion on the voice, the defence were bound to do the same.
So, they dont cancel the Crown Winesses, they counter them, otherwise the jury would have been given ONLY verification of the voice. So it cancels out that advantage - meaning, as you say, the jury have to decide on their own opinion of the voice, armed with the knowledge that various people have various opinions on whether or not it is Tommy.
Yes indeed, Anon 9:53, conflicting testimonies do not "cancel each other out", it comes down to whose testimony the jury "prefers".
@ whatsy. Whover wins all this, the left in Scotland will remain for a significant period of time as useful as a Stoney Bridge.
Anyway, what is all this "Cartman" nonsense? It seems unlikely that a number of people would watch it and all imagine it sounds like the same cartoon character. At least one of them would say "It reminded me of 'Jones the Steam' from 'Ivor The Engine'" or "It was just like listening to a Scots version of Butthead from US-Comedy-Childish Cartoon Sitcom 'Beavis and Butthead', from MTV, m'lud".
It reminds me of how (ex-)members of Militant and SML would always go on about "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" or "perspectives", phrases I never ever heard anyone else use in a political context. The tape machines were in their heads (in that case).
Or, to get back to my original comment, maybe the main main in the NOTW promotion vido was more like 'Scots playwright MacGlashan', without wanting to compare the line on independence of Solidarity and the SSP with that of a comedic extreme nationalist and playwright. Obviously.
Post a Comment