With today's news that a senior News of the World executive has been suspended following an allegation of "phone hacking" (see Here ) I've had a few emails asking me about the evidence presented during the Tommy Sheridan trial on that issue. Regular readers will be aware that the issue of the possible illegal interception of voicemail messages played a large role in the defence case, with four witnesses being questioned about it. Rather than people having to search through the site for that evidence we have decided to create a single post on that subject.
The first witness to be asked about the issue was Bob Bird, the Scottish editor of the News of the World. The relevant part of his testimony is from around paragraph five in This Report This was the first time the court was shown a document containing Mr Sheridan's personal and telephone details that was later confirmed to have been siezed after a police raid on the home of Glen Mulcaire, a private invesigator who later pleaded guilty, along with the News of the World's then royal editor Clive Goodman, of illegally accessing the voicemail of a member of the Royal Household. Mr Bird denied any knowledge of how Mr Sheridan's details came to be in Mr Mulcaire's notebook
The next witness questioned about alleged "phone hacking" at the News of the World was Douglas Wight , a journalist at the newspaper. A report on that section of Mr Wight's evidence can be found Here.
There was also lengthy testimony from Andrew Coulson, News of the World editor between 2003 until 2007, and now communications director at 10 Downing Street. Mr Coulson's testimony was the subject of three reports which can be found Here, Here, and Here
Finally the court heard from Detective Chief Superintendent Phill Williams of the Metropolitan police and the Officer in charge of "Operation Caryatid" the investigation that led to the conviction of Mr Mulcaire and Mr Goodman. DCS Williams was questioned in great detail by Mr Sheridan, who was conducting his own defence, on the police investigation. Reports on that can be found Here and Here
The defence also called Glen Mulcaire as a witness, Mr Mulcaire's solicitors sent a medical certificate to court which stated he was unfit to testify due to "depression" the jury therefore did not hear his evidence.
I hope readers find the above links useful, if anyone has any further queries please leave a comment or email us at sheridantrial@gmail.com
42 comments:
If someone had TS's mobile pin number, would that enable them to route a phonecall to third parties, which would then show-up as a phonecalls on TS's phonecall history?
i.e. could they route a number of calls through his phone a few minutes after an alleged tape had been recorded?
I'm afraid I'm not technical enough to know these things.
I couldn't say OYE, however that possibility was never raised in court.
I really can't see how this means Mr s never went to Cupids or not be found guilty. Does it just mean Mr s gets to share a cell with a notw reporter.
Jezo councils, health boards and just about any public body can request to see your call logs , who you sent emails to and what web pages you've looked at. Thats worse than someone listening to you getting a message from the wife sayin she's going to be late home from the bingo.
Open your eyes - you are in the realms of fantasy given the current state of mobile hacking. If you want to have a more realistic estimate of what is currently possible by way of mobile hacking then simply read some of the stories about it that have appeared over the past few days.
Dreaming up ever more elaborate and fantastical theories about supposed conspiratorial activities against TS simply makes his defenders sound silly.
Been trawling the net looking at hacking stories. Most illegal activities done through cheap pay as you go unregistered phones which are disposed of after a short time.
If your phone has its bluetooth switched on everything on it can be accessed.
It is quite easy to make calls through another phone
http://www.wonderhowto.com/how-to-hack-cell-phone-make-free-phone-calls-218649/
And if the Russians dont like you they will dial you up and send a guided missile down the signal and blow you up.
lots more stuff out there.
Bunc,
The tape could be genuine - it could be fake.
You are accusing others of having fantastic theories but you believe the tape is genuine beyond reasonable - it is oddd to many people that you can be so certain.
The intriguing details of family life referred to during the conversation between an elusive figure and George McNeilage in the NOTW video needed to come from somewhere.
The Crown propose a (much disputed) theory that it is Sheridan in the video talking about his family life.
The NOTW/Crown claim it was just unlucky coincidence that Crown witness McNeilage failed to film Sheridan's face in the video.
Just as apparently it was unlucky coincidence that the NOTW and police emails to Crown witnesses have also gone missing and are apparently unrecoverable. Mmmmm.
When supporters of the defence claim that the random titbits of family information in the video could have simply been obtained by the bugging of phones etc it is not an outlandish claim.
What is clear (in my opinion) is that titbits of family information are thrown into the conversation for no logical reason - other than to convince some credulous people the tape is genuine as only Sheridan would know those details.
If the tape is a concoction based on a script (with improv and cuing) it makes perfect sense that the titbits would be inserted.
A tape that just had a bare confession (Scooby Doo like) of course would not be believed by even those credulous souls.
The NOTW have been found guilty of phone hacking the Royals for such titbits.
The Guardian have detailed that Sienna Miller is suing the NOTW for recording such titbits.
Mulcaire had the details of Sheridans telephone in his records.
Mulcaire has a record of acccessing confidential information illegally including access to various mobile phone company databases.
With that background what is fantastic about the theory that:
a) Sheridans phone calls were tapped
b) records of the times his calls were known to people like Mulcaire.
c) that those times and titbots of information could be used by the creators of the video to make the video appear more believable.
I still don't regard the video as believable for various reasons outlined before.
I could see what they were at though to try and achieve credibility for it.
Your theory could be right and it could be genuine but many people disagree with you.
Maybe you give your top 5 reasons why you consider it genuine - beyond a reasonable doubt or otherwise.
Cheers,
Peter
To answer Open your eyes questions, no they could not do that, with merely the pin for voicemails. They would have to have access to the service providers servers to do this, the only thing it could show is that he called his own voice mail service. That is not going to prove anything. People check their vocie mail every day. I check my own 10 or 12 times a day because of missed calls. So there is nothing to gain of this line of theory. What they have probably tried to do is listen to his vocie mails to see if there is anything in that they could use. But records for just calling your own answering service would prove nothing.
This must have relevance to the TS appeal.
I believe the News of the World is "fragrant" is it not?
Anon 8.19am and Bunc,
The details of times of telephone calls were available.
Remember Mulcaire was jailed for illegally accessing personal phone account records not just voicemails messages - he pleaded guilty.
If the video is a fake it was an important for the creators to find a period of time when Sheridan was not on the telephone to others.
It would undermine the video fatally if he was shown to be on the telephone during that time.
So the first question is (IF the video is faked up) could the record of Sheridan's telephone calls be accessed by the video makers and their associates?
Yes they could.
Mulcaire and his cohorts are on formal record as having illegally accessed not just voicemail messages but the actual accounts of mobile phone customers.
They would not only get a targets accounts but the details of their family, secretary, personal assistants, clients etc
One method utilsed was that they would pretend to work in another part of the mobile phone company and use various ruses to obtain information about customer accounts. Illicit payments were another method.
The dates and times of phonecalls and who was called WOULD therefore be available - not just the actual voicemail messages.
You need to put yourself in the mind of people who organise such scams for a living.
If the tape is a fake/concoction the little details in the video conversation and the times of the phonecalls fall right into the range of information we know that the NOTW agents and others have access to.
Do you disagree with that?
Other than the titbits of personal information (which could have been obtained by tapping) and the times of the calls (which could as outlined above also have been obtained) what convinces you this odd (IMHO) little production is genuine beyond reasonable doubt.
Picures are powerful.
If the videomakers had just produced a soundtrack would anyone believe it beyond reasonable doubt.
They needed pictures.
Is it just a coincidence that THE ALLEGED Sheridan's face is not pictured AT ALL in this tape.
With the deletions made by McNeilage would have been around (50 minutes?). Why is Sheridan's face not pictured.
Is the fact that you cannot actually visually identify him not room for reasonable doubt?
If not why do you believe it is him? Just because of the hairy hands and the wedding ring?
If, in that famous footage in Canada, the Sasquatch was shown with wedding ring on would you have believed it?
point well made Peter:
"With that background what is fantastic about the theory that:
a) Sheridans phone calls were tapped
b) records of the times his calls were known to people like Mulcaire.
c) that those times and titbots of information could be used by the creators of the video to make the video appear more believable."
with the resources available to the NOTW, this would be easy. Moreover, given that it's possible to send emails which look like they've come from someone else, is it outside the bounds of possibility it's possible to make it look like phone calls have been made?
by the way, does anyone know if the youths who it was claimed 'escorted Bob Bird, to McNeilage house' were ever produced?
and don't you think that the whole business re claims that Bob Bird stripped down to his boxers was just added colour for headline grabbing given it may have been the NOTW behind it?
re making calls from someone else's phone - a 30 second search on google produced this
http://www.wonderhowto.com/how-to-hack-cell-phone-make-free-phone-calls-218649/
haven't tried to do it though!
Peter , my top reasons for believing it is genuine? Here's a few;
1) The jury heard TS voice in the courtroom for weeks and saw the tape a nu mber of times - clearly by their verdict they must have concluded the tape was genuine.
2) The possible theories about how a false tape was constructed are fantastical compared to the more straightforward explanation that it is genuine.
3) No evidence was brought forward of the NOTW making up evidence. The NOTW is in trouble precisely for pursuing dodgy means of obtaining GENUINE evidence.
4) the tape is consistent in terms of the behaviour that TS is admitting with the admission he made on the police interview tape shown by the BBC - that he HAS in FACT and by HIS OWN ADMISSION been involved in group sex.
I could go on but that seems strong to me and leaves me with no reasonable doubt at all.
As to phone hacking it should be noted that the method of using cheap throwaway motorola phones together with certain other techniques was only recently demonstrated IN PRINCIPLE as a complete technique at a very recent hackers convention.
Hacking directly into phones and recording calls "of air" is not something that was technically feasible at the time the tapes were first produced.
Using PIN numbers is a fairly low tech method in comparison and relies more on peoples laziness about the way they use pin numbers and the access this can them give to voice mails.
I consider it unlikely IN THE EXTREME that the NOTW would have been able to gain sufficient material in that way to then be able to fabricate a tape.
In any event that would involve TS accepting that it was his voice which I don't believe is his current position is it? I thought it was supposed to be a mimic?
Recall what TS admitted in his police interview and ask yourself if this admitted behaviour is consistent with the behaviour he lied about in court - ie group sex / swinging. There is your answer to this whole affair.
The fact is that the jury found him guilty even without having seen that police interview admission.
There are NO doubts in my mind that TS is guilty.
What people are doing is fumbling around for fancy theories and scenarios to try to explain away that simple truth.
None of that means that the NOTW is right to hack into peoples voice mails though and if Coulson turns out to have lied about that on the stand then he should be jailed.
If that happens then TS will be able to take some consolation that he helped to take the NOTW down with him.
Peter
A good summary of reasons for beleiving the tape to be genuine is, not surprisingly, found in AP's summing up.
In addition, much was made by bloggers during the trial of the fact that the Crown had not produced forensic evidence for the genuineness of the tape. We now know there were legal reasons why they could not present such evidence. These legal reasons do not apply to the defence. If it is not TS on the tape, and TS would necessarily KNOW it is not him, why did he not insist that his legal team commission a voice expert to prove it was not him?
I think Bunc clarifies things well. If Coulson is guilty of something it doesn't automatically make Sheridan innocent of perjury.
And Peter, my top five reasons for believing the video is genuine are:
1. A jury accepted beyond reasonable doubt Sheridan's guilt.
2. See 1.
3. see 2.
and on and on.
I see Critical Eye has not quite grasped the idea of "innocent until proven guilty."
In layman's terms the defence does not have to prove anything, it is rather a fundamental principle of law, not matter how much you may dislike the accused.
re previous comments that because Sheridan appeared to admit in police tape that he was involved in group sex at some time in the past,therefore he was guilty of same behaviour now.......
- when I was 12 I pinched Pik'n' mix (or pik'n'nik' as we called it!) from Woolies does that mean I'm likely to fill my pockets at Asda now?
also has anyone verified that the police tapes are completely genuine (maybe I shouldn't have watched Tomorrow Never Dies last night -about media moguls fabricating the news!)
Sceptic
The point is that if it is not TS on the tape, then a voice expert must be able to show it is not him, and by not leading that evidence the defence lost their best chance of blowing the procecution out of the water.
Why did they not lead the strongest argument they could have had?
Again you miss the point critical eye, the defence do not have to bring in a voice expert or anything else. You do have to ask why did the Crown not bring such a witness. The Cadder argument is, with all due respect, nothing but spin. The police could have obtained a sample of TS's voice at any time, they did not, why?
Sceptic,
they may not have had to, but they should have, if such a person existed.
But as it is Tommy on the tape, it was probably difficult to find someone credible to say it wasn't him.
Sceptic
You're right, the defence doesn't HAVE to bring any evidence but if I wanted to avoid jail and had something that would help convince a jury that I was innocent I would make sure it was led in court.
A lot of theories by many people. None seem very good. However we did have a solar eclipse the other day perhaps we can squeeze a theory out of that.
Anonymous 3:51
It was the moon what done it.
Critical Eye:
You need to be more critical. Aye?
We each have theories. You theory is that the tape is genuine as the jury decided that Sheridan was guilty of perjury. Not sure that stands up to scrutiny.
The main question here is not though is the tape genuine in terms of the voice opinions. There was no expert evidence on that matter so we cannot be sure.
The main question is whether that is Sheridan pictured in the tape or not. I cannot be reasonably sure it is as I cannot see the persons face.
I also have a reasonable doubt when I hear the NOTW say it is Sheridan as the NOTW agents and McNeilage have a bad and very recent track record of common criminality (and now personal betrayal in George's case) for simple, base financial gain. If they were honest people then fair enough - they are not. George is an admitted criminal and sold his once best friend out for £200K- the NOTW employed criminals.
We do not know what the jury view was of that matter of the voice.
None of the 4 NOTW "experts" so described in the NOTW who said that the tape was genuine - when it was first published - have ever published their accounts or methodology.
Why did the defence decide not to call experts. We don't know - but as you know if the tape is faked ie. with actors it is then a genuine tape but is still faked - if you see what I mean.
On the question of voice recognition the high level of ambient noise made that difficult. So the defence had limited options in terms of forensics and voice experts.
On the simple question of bringing sound a likes/mimics to court to show what could be done the judge would not allow it (apparently).
Some genuine people look at the tape and see Sheridan even though you cannot see the guys face as they are told it was him. Others hear him. Others (genuine people as well) see and hear other things in that video.
I see what is most likely an improvised acting session with the script cues and prompts liberally given by McNeilage to the unseen Tommy actor - straight out of a week 4 class. A for effort.
Bit of bad lighting; put your back to the camera; check the watch and the wedding ring are on; create a high level level of ambient noise; a few deletions; and bobs your uncle.
Not the best production in the world of course but it will do a job - as it did. The other versions were probably even worse.
Indeed only one of the 4 "experts" has ever been named and he seems to have gone to ground. He certainly was not mentioned by the NOTW. Mmmmmm.
Is the disappearance of these voice "experts" a coincidence .... along with Sheridan coincidentally not being in the video and the coincidental loss of the emails from the police and the NOTW to various Crown witnesses. Mmmmm.
Did they all go for their hols together to the Bermuda Triangle - cue Barry Manilow.
Bunc,
My feeling is that is fake - you feel that the tape is genuine and have no doubt at all of that.
In the absence of conclusive proof the doubt rests in favour of Sheridan not the Crown. No?
You (not for the first time) apparently are able to reach a level of certainty about his Guilt to that even the Crown did not ask the jury to reach.
Next you will tell us that you actually believe Ms McGuire and Ms Khan accounts.
Gail would have been found Guilty or copped a plea and Tommy would have been found Guilty of all 18 counts if your approach had been followed throughout this matter.
As for the video.
It may be genuine as I say. Strange things do happen.
I note, however, you cannot come with (yet) even 5 stand alone reasons why it is genuine. You got to 4.
Only 2 of the 4 grounds you present are possible grounds for credible examination.
a) that Sheridan's voice was listened to by the jury and they decided it was him.
b)and that in police interviews he admitted to certain sexual acts before his marriage to Gail.
Only one of those two points stands up to the mildest legal scrutiny ie. that it sounds like him in the tape. But even that is dodgy.
If you as an amateur believe this tape is genuine because it sounds like him and I say as an amateur it does not really sound like him it is not really very compelling evidence is it.
They were always going to get someone with a voice that could sounds a bit like him ie. male, Scottish, deep voice - they are not going to get Joe Pasquale to do it are they?
You are all for likelihooods but cannot explain to me why the main character in this lengthy film is not even pictured.
If you had come come up with a theory that McNeilage had received a confession of sorts from Sheridan before and had tried to flog hs story; that the NOTW - or their agents - refused but wanted his help to create a video; and this video was the result then I would say you had some logical thinking in you.
However, your strict adherence to the belief that it is actually Sheridan PICTURED in this particular production blurting his heart out and then adding in daft, irrelevant details of his family life is quite bizarre to me.
The point I (in particular) am making is that the family titbits in the video are to try and make the video appear genuine.
Such details are taken from the records of bugging or from voicemail messages and then put into the script.
I am not claiming they recorded and spliced in the recordings just simply that they COULD have used the titbits gained by bugging for the improv script. The sophistication does not need to be very high - it isn't.
You also do not know if the jury felt the tape was genuine. You think that. You don't know it as you were not in the jury.
amended......
Peter......
I really feel for you. Your unwavering loyalty to Mr s. I think if even if Mr s decided to is was him in the tape and it was Cupid number and address in his diary you would still believe it wasn't him.
You need to start accepting the facts and evidence. The difference between the 2 is what was led and what wasn't allowed to be led.
Do you honestly believe that one of her majestys advocates would use this video tape after it was checked by an expert and found not to be him. The results of the crown analysis would have been given to the defence. Why didn't they just get their own expert to dispute the tape. It was being led so they could have discredited it with a voice expert saying it isn't him. You need to accept it is Mr s on the tape because if it wasn't the defence would have led an expert and not rely on des mclean. Why try go to the trouble of getting an impersonator yet not get an expert?
Peter I'm sorry to spoil it for you and your supporters but there's no getting away from it. He's guilty.
Re the tape and its genuiness.
No-one knows why expert voice witnesses weren't called by either side. However there was a strong prima facie argument as to why it was TS - Bunc summarises the arguments well; AP did an even bettet job in his closing speech. Whether or not TS 'had' to 'prove' it wasn't him is not the point - it was in his interests to discredit the validity of the tape to persuade the jury there was reasonable doubt it wasn't him on the tape. I'd wager that in a case where the defendant is pleading not guilty it's very rare to have a tape of their voice effectively admitting their guilt - so it was key to TS's defence to discredit it.
Consider how TS tried to discredit the tape in the trial .
1) By trying to call Des McLean to show that his voice could be impresonated. This wasn't allowed. But if you youtube footage of McLean doing Sheridan it sounds (to my ear) exactly as it should do - a comedian carricaturing a voice. In contrast the tape (throughout its entire 45 minutes or so) sounds to me genuinely like TS's voice from when I've seen him on TV and heard him in public meetings.
2) Second TS argument was to get testimony from defence witnesses who knew him well to say it wasn't him. But here the argument was so weak to be easily dismissed. A number of the defence witnesses said the voice on the tape sounded 'nothing like' TS. Really? As AP countered why then was it similar enough for TS himself to claim that his voice had been 'spliced' into the footage just after the video had been released by the NOW?
If anything TS's arguments against the tape's validity in the trial made me more convinced it was genuine.
Peter
re TS not being pictured. Isn't there a very simple explanation? If you want someone's face to be recorded you need the lens to have sight of their face, thereby making it very much more likely the person will notice the camera. McNeillage hid the camera where it couldn't easily be seen by TS. As a result it rarely gets his face.
Peter,
just in case you missed it, Tommy Sheridan was convicted of perjury by a jury of his peers at the High Court in Glasgow on December 23, 2010.
This jury had spent three months listening to evidence from the prosecution and to Tommy Sheridan's defence that he was the victim of three separate conspiracies:
1. a Vendetta by L&B cops.
2. a News International campaign to punish him for opposing the poll tax, and
3. a plot to destroy him by SSP colleagues.
In the end, the jury found him guilty and he now faces anything up to seven years in jail, according to legal sources.
I just wanted to make sure you knew about this, Peter.
Peter, your unswerving loyalty is in my view misplaced.
Can you explain why after leaving the 9/11 meeting early (a meeting that all in attendance including TS stated was intense) did Tommy not call a family member or close friend but instead called Katrine Trolle and Gary Clarke.
Think it's time to accept your hero has clay feet.
Hello Clive, just FYI in his summation Mr Sheridan produced phone records which showed he had called his sister, then his mum, then his voicemail then Mr Clarke.
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/12/tommy-sheridans-summation-forensics.html
Facts, stubborn things you might find.
OK folks, enough sillyness. For free - download the trial version of this (or any other decent audio software);
http://www.brothersoft.com/downloads/adobe-audition-1.5.html
-READ THE INSTRUCTIONS - unlike some blog posters here. Record a voice, look at the waveform and then see how easy it is to compare one voice with another - even the tiddly bits. And the labs obviously have better versions (and so do I.)
Simples!
Just out of interest, Mike Yarwood and Harold Wilson underwent intensive tests, spectograph, etc. The firm doing the testing claimed that it would show which was which. The upshot was it didn`t, the overlaying graphs were identical. Everyone was amazed. This was on the BBC at the time.
As for the Sheridan tape, no visual, it remains that it could be a fake. Thats the problem.
Anonymous said...
mike yarwood could be called for the appeal. des mclean and him could maybe allowed to do a double act on the stand. they could do a sentence each in rotation. (NB a worded sentence and not a prison sentence)
then we could all go home happy....
Knock Knock,
I was just about to accuse you of being a silly billy as I believed that Yarwood had passed on these many years since.
Unlike the NOTW/Police emails; Big (allegedly) Bob Bird's boxer shorts; and Bunc's sense of perspective it appears old Mike is still very much with us - but no longer performing (sadly?) ... unlike a few in this trial I could mention.
Peter - it seems my sense of perspective has proved in fact to be a bit more accurate than yours.
You were predicting a not guilty or not proven for most of the case.
It was my opinion that TS was guilty based on the evidence heard in the case. You have sought throughout to find all sorts of concocted and complex ways of explaining away the evidence.
It seems that my perspective has turned out more in tune with the perspective of the Jury - who actually heard all the evidence and, most importantly in relation to the video, who heard TS speaking throughout the case and made up their own minds.
My perspective has been further bolstered I would suggest by the admissions TS made during police interview - he can hardly argue that we shouldn't believe the swinging stories because they are "out of character" now can he?
Best of luck to him in finding some technical means of appeal - but it won't stop most folk thinking that the guilty verdict in this case reflects the actual truth of the matter.
Hi Bunc,
I predicted that:
- that Gail Sheridan would be aquitted of all charges. Correct.
-that the Crown would confirm they were not going to prosecute any of the other people who had been charged with perjury. Correct.
- that the charges in relation to Ms Khan would not be upheld(especially after the collapse of her testimony when braced by McBride). Correct.
- that Ms McGuire would not be called by the Crown as no one believed her except the NOTW - not even the police (as confirmed in this trial.)Correct.
- that the Crown would not call any forensic evidence eg. CCTV, credit cards, video analysis, mobile phone tracking, voice anaylsis that "force insiders" had leaked existed. Correct.
- that the story about phonehacking would explode after the trial. Correct.
Admittedly I did not predict that Tommy would be found guilty. I thought there would be a majority verdict the other way.
You are Correct on that point only.
Cheers,
Peter
Bunc,
you were correct ONLY when it came to predicting the outcome of the case. Got that?
Uncle Buck
Peter there is a danger that we are going to start sounding like two Astrologer hacks arguing about which of us has the best astrology column.
I'm happy with having predicted the date of death of the deceased rather than in your case with what color tie they were wearing.
So Peter all of your predictions were that the "good" would end happy and the "bad" unhappy? Oscar Wilde once wrote that that was the definition of fiction.
Bunc,
I agree that it is not particularly worthwhile to go into who predicted what.
I wouldn't have pointed out your failings in that regard if you had not raised it first.
I do so now only to clarify that felt that many here (including you) looking at the charges felt the Crown had a very strong case.
In fact the Crown had a marginal case, important parts of which collapsed.
I admitted I got the verdict on the verdict on the remaining 5 charges wrong.
It shows a distinct lack of perspective by others to not admit much of the Crown case was flaky. However, many here cling on to the abandoned indictments to show it was a strong case.
I think it is fair to point out that if the advice of many posters here (including some learned and not so learned people) was accepted that the Crown would have suceeded at the first hurdle via a Guilty plea by Gail, Tommy and indeed the 4 others charged with perjury who had not been brought to court.
In contrast a sturdy defence applying appropriate rigour to the prosecution case (and a challenge to their less than fragrant witnesses) was able to secure the wholesale collapse of the Crown case against Gail AND by consequence the release of those others, who were initially charged, from the continued threat of prosecution.
So the Crown got one of their 6 targets and missed 5.
(NB: Unless of course you consider that the Crown pursued those others only to get at Tommy - perish the thought that such abuse could take place in Scotland)
As for the one the Crown did get in the course of securing that verdict it left so many open ends that the verdict is now open to legal challenge.
This is what I mean about perspective.
NB: The use of undercover officers (within radical groups) revealed by the press today; the close connection between the Met and the NOTW; and the "loss" of emails by the police and the NOTW is no doubt a matter that will keep us busy for some time.
So I agree let's drop who predicted what and propose a truce.
Peter
You can add this to your list
http://tinyurl.com/2v69xzt
Post a Comment