Mr Sheridan began the second day of his summation by reminding the members of the jury that yesterday he had ended while discussing Carol Alan. He reminded the jury of Mrs Alan's testimony when she had stated that when you answered the phone you "just knew" who it was if you knew the person well. Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to consider that "my voice is regularly mimicked" giving the example of Des Mclean, a Scottish comedian who regularly impersonates Mr Sheridan. Mr Sheridan asked the jury to recall the testimony of witnesses who had told them they believed the voice on the tape was that of a "mimic," suggesting that this evidence "raised a reasonable doubt."
Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to recall the evidence of Thomas Montgomery, adding that this was testimony that was "suggested I would not want you to remember." Mr Sheridan asked the jury to recall that the Advocate Depute had referred to Mr Montgomery as a "complete liar," stating "well I don't think there is a basis for that allegation." Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to consider that the Advocate depute had "in no shape or form asked you to consider" Mr Montgomery's " testimony on the video." Mr Sheridan then put to the jury Mr Montgomery's job, as a training manager in a call centre meant "he worked with voices every day." Mr Sheridan then asked the asked the jury to "reflect on the answer" Mr Montgomery had given to the Advocate Depute when he had asked "what is it about the voice" that had convinced him that it was not that of Mr Sheridan. Mr Montgomery had answered "the tone, the pitch and the pace," Mr Sheridan then stated "the Advocate Depute quickly moved on."
Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to recall that the Advocate Depute had "made fun" of Mr Montgomery's statement that he had a "eureka moment." Mr Sheridan said to the jury "that's fine" and said that the jury could reflect on if that was the "best expression to use." Mr Sheridan then stated to the jury "you may consider" that Mr Montgomery had not came to the witness box with "prepared quips" as had, in Mr Sheridan's words, "so many witnesses from the SSP" Mr Sheridan then put to the jury that Mr Montgomery "had not had that kind of preparation."
Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to consider what was it the Advocate Depute had stated Mr Montgomery had "lied about," suggesting to the jury that "when people are in a stressful situation they do or say things that they regret." Mr Sheridan told the jury that "you will remember the clarification" and asked the jury to "bear that in mind" adding that the main part of Mr Montgomery's testimony, that he had been with Gary Clark on the 26th November 2002, had not been challenged."
Mr Sheridan then asked the jury if they "remembered the testimony" of Gary Clark, asking them to consider that Mr Clark had stated he was at a "low time in his life" and had "turned to alcohol" and "antidepressants" Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to recall that he had put it to Gary Clark during his testimony that it was "difficult to remember what happened or rely on your memory?" Mr Sheridan told the jury, "he agreed." Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to recall that Mr Clark had been, in the words of Mr Sheridan, "put under pressure by the News of the World" who he stated had told Mr Clark "if he did not "cooperate" with the paper "they would paint you as my wing pilot for the last ten years." Mr Sheridan then added that Gary Clark had been interviewed by the police, "not once, not two times, not three times but eight times." once at "5.45am" Mr Sheridan asked the jury "you may wish to reflect" that the police had interviewed Gary Clark eight times but "had never been to the lochside hotel to check my diary entry."
Mr Sheridan then moved on and asked the jury to consider that "this case revolves around dates." Mr Sheridan stated that he had been accused of visiting the Cupids club in Manchester on the 27th September 2002. Mr Sheridan then invited the jury to consider the testimony of Alan Brown. Mr Sheridan then reminded the jury that Mr Brown had told the court he had met Mr Sheridan on the night in question and that they had then driven back to Mr Brown's home town of Hamilton. Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to recall that when the Advocate Depute had asked Mr Brown "if he was sure the meeting he had with me was on Friday 27th of September" and asked the jury to reflect on Mr Brown's answer which was that he was "absolutely sure" Mr Sheridan asked the jury to note that "this answer was not challenged by the Advocate Depute." Mr Sheridan then asked the jury "why Mr Brown would lie" and put it to the jury that "if they considered Alan Brown to be a "credible and reliable witness" that his testimony would make it "easy to conclude that there was reasonable doubt I was not at Cupids on the 27th September 2002" adding that the jury might like to consider the questions "why would Alan Brown lie?" and "Why didn't the Advocate Depute suggest he was lying."
Mr Sheridan then moved on to discuss other witnesses in the case, which will be the subject of our next report.
No comments:
Post a Comment