Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Wednesday Afternoon update

After lunch the court heard the conclusion of Ryan Sloan's testimony and two other witnesses. Thomas Montgomery and Andrew McFarlane.

Ryan Sloan told the court about a complaint that was received by him after he had taken a statement from Katrine Trolle. Mr Montgomery testified that he had been with previous Crown witness Gary Clarke on the 27th September 2002 (the date Mr Clark testified he had been at the Cupids club in Manchester withe Mr Sheridan) and Mr McFarlane, who the Crown also claim visited the Cupids club, denied he had ever had any sexual relationship with Katrine Trolle or Anvar Khan.

Full updates to follow.


yulefae said...

Something really up with Trolles evidence,it,s really coming to a head now that she is unbelieveable in my honest opinion

Lawmaker said...

What are you talking about, Yulfae? The "cultural festival"? which as it turns out appears to be nothing more than a traditional Glasgow pub-crawl nowt to do with any political party as has been insinuated, in my opinion?

A Stonished said...

It was the SSPs event, "The People's Festival". It is astonishing that the police just took Trolle's word on this and didnt follow up to even find out if such an event existed or who was at it.

Anonymous said...

Lawmaker said...
What are you talking about, Yulfae? The "cultural festival"? which as it turns out appears to be nothing more than a traditional Glasgow pub-crawl nowt to do with any political party as has been insinuated, in my opinion?

December 15, 2010 7:12 PM

Culture is Culture mate each to their own.

Bunc said...

Where I come from a pub crawl is cultural trip.

Can't Belilieve this Trial is Still On said...

A Stonished - it is NOT an SSP event, it is "The People's PARTY
a weekend of fun, music and culture". It is just a traditional Glasgow Festival organised for the City Council on by their Department of Arts, Culture & Sport, absolutely nothing to do with the SSP. It is advertised on their site because they have felt that it may be of interest to their membership.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone really think that a party with a minuscule membership like the SSP is organising and FUNDING these events? And solely for SSP members to attend?

Whatsy said...

Just as a point of order before the funding/organisation/running of cultural festivals discussion gets out of hand -

Does anyone know for sure who paid for and ran this 2002 Cultural Festival? Provide a source if you can, otherwise subsequent comments on this matter will not be posted.
>Moderation Ends<

Christian Schmidt said...

Hey, what about that Guardian story:

Phone hacking approved by top News of the World executive – new files

Surely, Sheridan has now every right to cross-examine Glenn Mulcaire? By warrant from Bracadale if necessary. And then re-examine Coulson and Detective Phil Williams.

Also, how independent is Scottish police and prosecution from Scotland Yard and the Crown Prosecution Service? Cause if the Guardian story has any legs then in my view Coulson may be guilty big time for lying under oath at the Sheridan trail...

yulefae said...

Just read that Gaurdian article,no wonder that plod was not for answering,as for Coulson he will get get his day

Steve said...


It's certainly an interesting story, but I'd like to know what use it is to the defence, other than as a "red herring" as Ritchie Venton might say.

We may have to wait till the closing speeches, but what relation is being alleged between some NOTW employees having possibly authorised hacking of Sheridan's phone and the allegations of perjury on his and GS's part?

Is it
a) general contamination of crown evidence to an unknowable extent?
b) Or were the alleged intercepted calls used to concoct the tape, with swearwords added by the alleged actor/mimic?
c) something really wild, though maybe not as wild as it likes to make out, that I haven't thought of?

Bunc said...

That Guardian article is explosive stuff for the NOTW folk.

Sadly for TS it actually doesn't strengthen his defence one jot because - let us remind ourselves - the NEWS of the WORLD is being investigated and exposed for illegally hacking into phones and recording REAL CONVERSATIONS and not with faking tales or confessions.

In other words they were prepared to break the law to get REAL STORIES. If they were prepared to make things up then why bother employing the very expensive services of a PI who was operating illegally? It makes no sense.

If anything, to my mind, it tends to support the argument that the NOTW genuinely thought they had the goods on TS and were highly unlikely to have been involved in faking evidence given the lengths they were prepared to go to to obtain REAL evidence.

Legally Challenged said...

Christian Schmidt said...
Hey, what about that Guardian story:

Just read report I would agree that these witnesses should be recalled they were under oath those that had appeared so far and of course Mr.Mulcaire.
I have presumed of course that no-one is above the law in relation to evidence provided in court.

yulefae said...

Bunc,TS,is trying to make the the NOTW corrupt to the point they would get Khan Trolle etc to lie as the jury in the libel thought,im sure his closing speech will clear up alot of the missing links just now

Anonymous said...

Have to agree with you Bunc - the NOTW is busting a gut to give it's readers REAL STORIES!!

Anonymous said...

How much "investigative journalism" does the Guardian do theses day? How much "investigative journalism" are any papers doing these days. Instead of being vilified The NOTW should be APPLAUDED for keeping this fine, important and very necessary bastion of journalism alive.

Bunc said...

Yulfae - if that is what he is trying to do then its backfiring badly for me anyway. I'm increasingly convinced that the NOTW was going out of its way to get REAL dirt and REAL stories on people.
That blows a hole below the waterline in the "its all fabricated" conspiracy theory does it not? -- at least as far as the NOTW is concerned.

Again I ask - where is the logic in suggesting that an organisation prepared to go to so much trouble ( ie even illegally) to get REAL evidence on folk would then simply be prepared to completely fabricate evidence? Why go to the trouble of the illegal tapping etc if your happy just to make it up?

Please address the logic of this issue.

And if there is no logic for the NOTW being behind a fabrication then the supposed fabrication must I guess have been at the hands of the tapes originator - who one must say should if that is to be believed now develop a second career as a professional sound engineer and talent scout.

yulefae said...

Bunc,did you not hear B Bird say how he would spruce up any stories way back in 2004 or earlier

Bunc said...

Yulfae - spruce up is very different from invent and fabricate.
When I spruce up my car it's still my car even though all the crisp packets and sweetie wrappers have been taken out.

Tommy Trial Addict said...

I can see your point Bunc.

As I've said before, I don't actually think the tape is bogus.

At the same time, I think there is a "logical" response to your question.

The CIA, for instance, goes out of its way to get real dirt and real information about people while also happily making stuff up and using its media outlets to propagate carefully constructed lies.

See Daniel Brandt's book: Journalism & the CIA: The Mighty Wurlitzer.

Like the CIA, as the latest Guardian story suggests, the NoTW seems to think it is acceptable to operate outwith the law.

The defence are trying to show that the NoTW have such contempt for the truth and the law that they would quite happily concoct a tape to "do in" someone who has irked them.

I think the tape is real but I hope you can see that there is a logical reason as to why the defence insist it is manufactured.

Bunc said...

@ tommy trial addict
The CIA are involved in this as well? Will the establishment stop at nothing to do down TS?

Christian Schmidt said...

In my view the relevance of the Guardian story is clear:

There has so far been no forensic evidence of the tape, just people stating it's TS or it is not TS (and the tape therefore manufactured). If I get it right then all those who claimed it is TS on the tape are either NOTW staff (current or former) or have a direct financial relationship with the NOTW. If TS can show that NOTW staff have lied and have already used criminal means (i.e. phone hacking) in their deling with Sheridan, then I don't think much weight can be put on their evidence that the tape is real.

If TS can further show that the NOTW's denial that they have a culture of slush funds is not untrue in many cases, then it strengthens his case vis-a-vis all the witnesses he has accused of being paid by the NOTW and who denied it.

Rolo Tomasi said...

When are the defence calling Julian Assange, surely the Tommy S of cyberland?

marvinfaethescheme said...

Your ironic remark is dead on.
It is one thing to raise the spectre of conspiracy, shrouded in cloak and dagger language and padded out with the sinister allusions to “dark arts,” “the state,” etc. It is quite another to test this against theory against evidence, and to think rationally about motive.
Intelligence services and states have participated in all sorts of nasty conspiracies against citizens and organisations, usually to preserve the power of a certain interest-group.
The motive ascribed to the conspiracy alleged to be targeting the accused is that the state (and a media empire, and a group of former friends and colleagues) wants to destroy this individual. A reason cited has been hatred and vengeance, because of the poll tax.
It would be useful to consider the plausibility of this. Firstly, why? The poll tax was abolished in 1992 (18 years and 5 administrations ago.) Mainstream political consensus is that it was a mistake that damaged the credibility of government. Is it plausible that “dark forces” harbour hatred and revenge to embark on a conspiracy so cack-handed that it has ended up in the public glare as the trial of the decade which could ultimately wreck the credibility of the police and the courts?
A connected motive is that the accused poses a present threat to the state. Again is this plausible? Is character assassination the preferred weapon of choice in a modern liberal democracy? In most circumstances where popular and fast growing political movements occur, the threat to the state is neutralised as the leaders enter parliament or power and slowly become detached from the movement, which often slows and dissipates. This can be done “bloodlessly” and “invisibly.” Of course it does not enact vengeance on the individual leader, but it destroys the movement. The standout campaigns led by the accused recently were to ban airguns and automatically jail knife-carriers for 3 years. Does this threaten the state?
Another part of the conspiracy is the involvement of former friends and colleagues. How this fits into a wider state conspiracy is hard to fathom, other than it being a marriage of convenience. The motive the defence ascribes to these witnesses is envy, power and money-lust. The plausibility factor here must consider that if the allegations against the accused are contrived, almost the entire EC embarked on a course which would soon be discovered and disproved and would result in the destruction of their party, thus nullifying any financial or power-gain.
The conspiracy theory must also be tested against the plausibility of alternative motives for the Crown witnesses. One might be that the Crown evidence is true. That admissions were made and recorded. That the accused’s determination to take a legal action based on a lie was felt to damage the integrity of their organisation. It would put the party in the position where a politician keen to promote a family image was in fact an adulterer – a hypocrite.
Alternative motives would also have to be tested re NOTW: one would be the desire to sell papers (though plausibly, at what risk?); another would be to remove a political opponent of that paper’s stance (though why this one particularly); another would be a desire to expose hypocritical politicians and public figures.

Steve said...

Christian Schmidt 12.12 PM
"If I get it right then all those who claimed it is TS on the tape are either NOTW staff (current or former) or have a direct financial relationship with the NOTW."

I don't think you're right about that. Colin Fox and another SSP witness were also asked.

Steve said...

Bunc 11.26 AM

Marvin says:
"the threat to the state is neutralised as the leaders enter parliament or power and slowly become detached from the movement, which often slows and dissipates."

In terms of CIA involvement, their counterinsurgency doctrine has indeed moved on along the lines you suggest, according to General David Petraeus' 2007 formulation available online:

cultural festival said...

cant belive, you are wrong. The event that is discussed has nothing to do with the council, it was an event organised by the SSP. Under oath Alison Kane, SSP treasurer claims to be the organiser.