Friday, January 7, 2011

The Sheridan Trial, Friday Morning Update

Despite the trial being adjourned for sentencing, articles about the case continue to feature prominently in the Scottish media.

The Herald has a full report on the story, that we reported on yesterday, that Tommy Sheridan is to "take legal action" against  News International and the Metropolitan Police for allegedly "hacking" his mobile phone. This can be found Here

The Scotsman meanwhile leads with a story on "three new witnesses" who will, it says "bolster" Mr Sheridan's appeal, that story is Here

Finally Kenneth Roy at the Scottish Review has an update on his piece from earlier this week on the BBC's broadcast of police interview tapes on the day of the verdict, a link to that  is Here

If any reader has a link to any article or blogpost they think  would be of interest please leave a note in the comments or email us at the usual address, .


The Herald has now run a piece on one of the "new witnesses" mentioned in the Scotsman article above, that can be found Here


Jamesie Cotter Esq. Govan Straw Clutchers Collective said...

Well surprise, surprise: three new witnesses pop up - even before sentencing! All claiming to have seen TS on a key date.
What the Court of Appeal will want to know is:
1. Why were these witnesses not called at the trial, if their identities and evidence was known?
2. In the case of the grieving witness, why was no application to read her evidence at trial made if she was unable to attend?

I'm afraid this is all highly unlikely to fall into the category of 'new' evidence which could not have been heard at the trial.

Yet another legal observer said...

Jamesie is quite right.

To allow new evidence to be admitted at an appeal both of the following must be satisfied (a) it could not have been made available at the time of the trial and (b) it is significant enough that it could have had a material impact on the jury's verdict.

Whilst part 2 might be satisfied, it is hard to see how there can be any proper explanation that the evidence was not available at the trial. Indeed one of the witnesses was actually in court herself during it. Mr Sheridan did call witnesses who got in touch during the course of the trial. The two whose details are given were known of by the defence and not called. "Fresh evidence" appeals are not designed to fix tactical errors in court.

If Mr Sheridan had remained represented, and these witnesses were not called by his counsel, (when they ought to have been) then he could have appealed on so-called "Anderson" grounds based on allegedly defective representation by his counsel. However, he can't appeal (or at least should have no prospects of success if he did) on the ground that he failed to defend himself properly!

Open your eyes said...

I should imagine that the witnesses didn't realise the significance of the meeting that they and Tommy attended, because the prosecution witnesses couldn't decide which year the alleged sexual activities took place.

Anonymous said...

Yet another legal observer states the legal position very well. Understandably TS is furious about his phone records being public domain!

James' blog contains the following text in the prosecution summing up:

“Mr Prentice then showed evidence of a phone call from Mr Sheridan's phone to Cupid's club on 23 November 2001 at 23:41, stating that it may seem like a small piece of evidence on it's own, but asked the jury to consider it as part of a "pattern of evidence" adding "there is a pattern, is there not?"


Mr Prentice then produced the evidence of Mr Sheridan's phone records, showing six phone calls to Anvar Khan, Gary Clark and Katrinne Trolle over the 26th and 27th September 2002 - the latter being the date of the alleged trip to Cupid's.”

I know I wouldn't have ever heard of Cupid's if not for Tommy Sheridan. Why would you phone there if you didn't have an interest?

I do think the public ineterest has been served, that the due process will work and TS will serve his time.

Anonymous said...

Anyone know why Sir Nicholas Winterbottom who was found to be claiming rent for a property that he in fact owned (one of Chaytor's charges) only received a Parliamentary slap-on-the-wrist.

Steve said...

I was disappointed by the first two of Kenneth Roy's articles, though I have a high regard for his journalism and public activity in general.

His third article though has sokid investigative content, though it seems the investigation has not yet come to any conclusion as the BBC has remained silent on its sources.

There was certainly a public interest in the release of the tapes, as they concern the activity of public servants (police officers) whilst on duty in relation to people with a public profile and there was adebate on the whole issue that ought to be well informed.

That would have to be balanced with the Sheridan's right to privacy. Of course, there is also a public interest in journalists' right to keep their sources confidential that Roy has not addressed.

It seems that someone or other has been bending the rules.

Anonymous said...

"If any reader has a link to any article they think we would be of interest please leave a note in the comments"

knock knock said...

from kenneth roy's page...
SR is no longer alone in pursuing these questions. Prompted by our revelations, the Liberal Democrats' Robert Brown has tabled three questions in the Scottish parliament. Mr Brown's intervention carries considerable authority: not only is he the party's justice spokesperson; he is also a lawyer.
These are Mr Brown's parliamentary questions:
1. What guidelines cover the release of information and documents by (a) the police (b) the Crown and (c) the courts to the press or public in connection with criminal prosecutions?
2. What documents, if any, were released by the police or the Crown or the court to the press or public in connection with the recently concluded prosecution in the case of HMA v Tommy and Gail Sheridan?
3. Whether the DVD recordings of interviews under caution with Tommy and Gail Sheridan by police officers of Lothian and Borders Police were officially released to the media, particularly to the BBC, and if not, what action has been taken with regard to the use of this material in the BBC programme, 'The Rise and Lies of Tommy Sheridan', broadcast on BBC1 Scotland on 23rd December 2010?
We understand that Mr Brown intends to write personally to the Lord President, the Lord Advocate, the chief constable of Lothian and Borders Police and the director of BBC Scotland.
We applaud these initiatives.

i cant wait to hear the replies to these questions!!

somebody's in the poo yet they are all standing pointing the finger at eachother.

the bbc think they can get away with it because they are the BBC. mrs s should be taking l&b to court on this one. she can win this without fuss.

again james you didnt post a comment from this morning??? it wasnt contentious it stated what was printed in 1 one the links you provided.

James Doleman said...

Hello all, having to delete a lot of comments the evening, I don't like doing that as I know people make an effort to write them but we do have a policy which can be read here,

If anyone has any queries over comments could they please email them rather than making comments about comments, otherwise it all gets a bit cluttered.



Steve said...

As matters drag on, it's funny how much the lyrics of these early David Bowie songs chime with the case and even, more or less, with the upshot of it:

knock knock said...

hi james,
looks like its died a death on here. any reason why. if you over censor people will just go away and that doesnt look good.

openess and transparancy are whats required.

even if you disagree with some of the comments instead of not posting them can you not redact them and then post them?

James Doleman said...

Hello Knock Knock

Sorry but I am not going to spend lots of time editing people's comments, that is not a matter for me to decide what they were trying to say or not.

There is a open and transparent policy, if a comment fits that it gets published if not it does not, me agreeing with it is not the issue.

all the best


knock knock said...

this wont help

Whatsy said...

Can anyone explain to me how Sheridan's team failing to call witnesses is a valid ground for appeal? The coverage of this just seems like a complete waste of time to me.

James Doleman said...

It's not grounds for appeal but, assuming that appeal is successful and you get a retrial you can call new witnesses I suppose.

Bunc said...

Knock Knock - if that is the quality of evidence and witnesses that Sheridan is "putting together" then he risks facing an even longer stretch and some other folk may yet join him IMHO.

Steve said...

It would be interesting to know who did the research behind the Herald article. I've noticed seom fo the Scottish press (not the Herald) seem to have had limited resources to cover the trial.

It would also be interesting to know how the other witnesses found info on meetings in 2002 on the SSP website, given that it doesn't seem to have a search function.

Anonymous said...

oh dear, this is very poor. I wonder ho wthis has been found when the guy has not even launched his appeal yet?

Anonymous said...

Yes, unfortunately there seems to be a lot of spinning going on here from Mr Sheridan's camp: I cannot see this having anything but an adverse effect as regards mitigation.

Moreover, it seems to have backfired spectacularly - the "witness" featured in the Herald article can only cast a shadow on the quality of Mr Sheridan's case as a whole. The spin operation seems to be an amateurish, politically driven campaign as opposed to one with a legal mind behind it.

Tomorrow's papers should be interesting.

yulefae said...

Good read

Anonymous said...

will we ever get to know how the jury voted

Bunc said...

It seems to me that there is a danger that the TS camp and those on here who are desperate to find any sort of fantastical theory to explain away the verdict risk doing TS and more particularly the cause of the socialist left more harm than good in the long run.

One of the lessons of the MP expenses affair is that the public expect some contrition from their politicians when they have been caught in acts of dishonesty.

From comments I have read on various left blogs it seems that for some there is no perceived need for honesty when it comes to dealings with "the bosses" courts.

Those on the left who seriously think this is the way to win political support and defend their cause are deluded.

James Doleman said...

Sorry Knock Knock, I'm going to avoid posting any speculation about possible sentences, could be seen as contempt.

Best Regards


knock knock said...

James once again that's a pity and nothing was in the comment that hasn't been posted before. Why has Mr s's Facebook had pages deleted? Is that for contempt?

James Doleman said...

Hello Knock Knock, I'm afraid I have no idea who, if anyone, has deleted pages from their facebook, indeed I was unaware you could do that. I am hence a bit puzzled over why you would ask me that question.

Best Regards


knock knock said...

the treason I ask is you are obviously close to Mr s.

James Doleman said...

I think you are assuming things that are not actually true Knock Knock.

Lets keep the debate within the grounds of reality if that is ok with you.

All the best


Steve said...

"Lets keep the debate within the grounds of reality if that is ok with you."

And who decides what is real?

knock knock said...

James the ssy had a go at you at the end of the trial so if you are not in the sap/ssy camp you must be in the Sheridan camp! don't you think that's a fair point? also why else would the notw have a go at you or is this a biblical moment.

Anonymous said...

knock knock said...

Just read the new look Sunday herald. 1 of the jurors has came forward to post on Mr s's Facebook. It looks like curtains for her and James explains the missing pages on his Facebook.

James Doleman said...

Out of interest Knock Knock how did you know in advance about the "missing pages" on facebook?

Best Regards


knock knock said...

holly greig told me, what do you think james? am i added to the conspiracy? maybe the venezuala comment you didnt allow will come true and you'll ask me how i knew that to.

out of interest james why ask? your closer to tommy than me!

as the sunday herald does have the story up on its site i only found this.

Not every newspaper launch or relaunch manages to score a news hit; The new Sunday Herald avoids that potentially embarrassing fate with a strong tale of a juror in the Sheridan trial allegedly describing, on Faceboook, her fellow jurors as - among other things - "scum bags".

James Doleman said...

Hello Knock Knock

It was a simple question, no need to get personal about it. Just thought it was interesting that you posted that yesterday and today the Herald story came out.

I'll leave it there

All the best


knock knock said...


i didn't think i was getting personal!



Anonymous said...

And....who is to say some one is who they say they are on Facebook, could be a ploy like so many others.

Peter said...

Re: New Witnesses

A new potential alibi witness said she remembered Sheridan was at the cultural festival in 2002 as she was chairing the meeting at the cultural festival and her husband was taking her out for her birthday meal afterwards.

Sheridan apparently gave her a peck on the cheek that evening when he was made aware it was her birthday.

The memorable occasion of her chairing the meeting is thus further bolstered by the memory of the Sheridan kiss.

I would remember Tommy kissing me so it seems a fair claim by her.

Her evidence puts Sheridan in Glasgow when the Crown say he was in Manchester in Cupids.

The Herald, seeking to debunk this lady, attack her account and claim her birthday was not that day but earlier in the week.

Mmmmmm. Lets see.

When Mrs Peter takes me out for a birthday meal it is not always on the day itself - we usually wait for the weekend so we can have a few (drinks).

When friends / family see me around the time of my birthday I may also be lucky to get a peck as well - even though the actual birthday has passed some time earlier.

A wholly common occurrence for you all - No?

So a bit of a fail by the Herald there on that specific point of debunking - don't ya think dawl?

Anonymous said...

Peter: But she is actually quoted as saying:

“I wound up the meeting as it was my birthday and my husband and I were going out for dinner for my birthday"

Not, 'it had been my birthday a few days before'

There is a difference - No?

Steve said...

Maybe it was that kiss that put it into his mind to head off to Cupids the following Friday - makes sense?

Peter said...


I spotted that one mate. It's not getting past me I am afraid.

The Crown tried to prove Tommy went to Cupids on the Friday evening of the Cultural Festival NOT the following Friday - as you hint at. Naughty. You have tried that one before as I recall and Sceptic got you.

I agree that the Crown left open in its indictment the possibly that he went to Cupids some other day - but the EVIDENCE the Crown actually led in court was only for a visit on that particular Friday of the cultural festival.

As the Crown only claim he went ONCE to Cupids I am afraid you will need to admit that the Crown have tied themselves down to that specific Friday.

If they cannot prove that Friday then there must be at least a reasonable doubt he was ever in Cupids at all.

Indeed Ms Trolle and Ms Khan went to some trouble to change the date of the alleged visit to Cupids that specific Friday - changing the dates from their previous statements which gave different dates).

You will recall Ms Trolles intriguing evidence in which she denied that there was an SSP cultural festival at all that Friday night.

The mention of such a festival in her own diary was according to her just a euphemism that she had just made up for the sex trip.

That there was actually a SSP cultural festival that Friday night appears to have come to the great surprise of Ms Trolle and the Crown!

This very remarkable coincidence has not yet been explained by the Crown supporters on this site - where is Bunc when you need him - but no doubt we will be presented with some explanation shortly by an Anon.

So where was Tommy that Friday?

Crown witness Kane did not recall seeing him on the Friday.

Considering that the(unpaid) alibi defence witnesses are piling up that he was actually there it is perhaps likely that he was in Glasgow.

Ms Kane possibly just didn't see him, misremebered, or is not telling the truth.

As the only other Crown witnesses who say he was in Cupids that specific Friday night are the discredited Trolle (diary issue/NOTW offers/changed dates) and the discredited Khan (too long a list to mention) I think you should take a pause.

Perhaps you may wish to give the defence alibis some credence - at least pause and consider if there is any reasonable doubt.


The 3 Manchester witnesses dragged up since the libel case could not place him at Cupids - on that specific Friday night.

One was a criminal and admitted perjurer; another was the wife of that criminal who could not identify Tommy at all; and the third apparently knew Tommy as she had worked with his father a fact she apparently never mentioned when she allegedly went for a pizza with him in between the two alleged sex orgies (that she and the other two apparently did not see) and only recalled she had NOT worked with his father under cross examination!
Mmmmmmmmmm - scratches head.

Peter said...

Anon 1.35pm re: The Kiss

Good point.

On the KISS question I will reply to you if you pick a user name. Think of something pertinent/witty etc. Maybe choose "Rodin". It helps us all follow the debate if you pick a user name.



Rikky Tikkitavvi said...


The jury disbelieved Sheridan's witnesses regarding the night in question. That is clear.

These people were already on the witness list, so they could have been called but weren't.

You can't appeal on the basis that you didn't call witnesses first time round.

A jury has found, beyond reasonable doubt, that Sheridan went to Cupids that night, contrary to his claims.

That's that, old pip, I'm afraid, no matter how much you'd like it to be otherwise.

Rikky Tikkitavvi

James Doleman said...

Hello Steve, if you have an issue with the comments policy could you please email me about it rather than cluttering up the comments themselves about it.

Best Regards


Whatsy said...

"As the only other Crown witnesses who say he was in Cupids that specific Friday night are the discredited Trolle (diary issue/NOTW offers/changed dates)"

Would that be the discredited Ms Trolle of whom Mr Sheridan was found guilty of lying about having an affair with and visiting a swinger's club with?

Regarding your ongoing misrepresentation of Ms Tucker's evidence - you know full well she also said she recognised TS from something to do with the Poll Tax. There was also no evidence led that she didn't know TS's dad - just TS stating that his dad had never worked or lived in Corkerhill - where Ms Tucker claimed to have met him. She wasn't a great Crown witness, but she wasn't quite as bad as you portray.

If I may be so bold to assist you once more, I feel it would help improve your credibility and lengthy arguments if they were based on the actual evidence that was presented, rather than the evidence as you wish it had been.

Whatsy said...

> Moderation <
@Steve - I binned the comment you refer to. I was on the point of posting the same as James has just done when I noticed he had beaten me to it.
> Moderation Ends <

Peter said...


The jury verdict is in. I know that. I have been following it all off and on :)

But there are various matters that are not yet explained.

I was actually being generous to Ms Tucker by the way but lets put it this way.

I know Tommy Sheridan from the Militant.

If I met him outside a sex club as Ms Tucker claims to have done; or inside the club as she also claims to have done; and if I went to a house in Wigan with him; and if I went off for pizzas with him I may well have brought up that I recognised hifrom the Militant.

If I recognised him from the poll tax I may have mentioned that. If I had worked with his father I may have mentioned that as well. Something along the lines of.

"Hi Tommy. Fancy seeing you here. Small world isn't it. Do you know what Tommy I think I also worked with your father once."

Tommy no doubt could then have said:

"Where did you work with my father Peter or what Militant branch were you in etc, etc, etc. Fancy a pizza"

With Ms Tucker we have a rather bizarre explanation (delivered 8 years later) of how she knew someone was at a club but despite having a good old chat outside and in the car she did not say that she knew that person or his father even at the time even when alone in a car with him getting the pizzas.


Ring of truth?

Don't think so. But we each have our own level of sceptism so your view she is credible, whilst very generous, is valid as well.



Peter said...


As for Ms Trolle.

I will not not go into all her inconsistencies for fear of further criticism from you for length.

Lets just fly this one up the flagpole and see who salutes.

Ms Tucker apparently did not observe; hear or feel the vibrations of any sex orgy in the flat in Wigan.

Wereas the tone of Ms Trolle exotic accounts leads us to believe the only people missing from the Wigan athlectic display were the band of the Coldstream Guards, Caligula and Paddy McGinty's goat .... with George Formby atop his ladder looking in through the window, banjo in hand, furiously plucking away.

To be serious I hope you agree Whatsy only one or the other of the women is credible on this Wigan orgy issue. Did the Wigan orgy happen or not?

Both woman cannot be right surely.

I take the simpler view that neither is credible at all and agree with the defence that both of them were likely talking banjos.

I do, however, admire your continued attempts to defend the veracity of these ladies intriguingly differing accounts of that evening.

I respect the jury decision whilst disagreeing with it.

The jury may have taken a different view to me - as I was not in that jury room I do not know.

The verdict indicates they did not believe Ms Trolle on some matters but did on others. We cannot be sure what they thought of Ms Trolle.

They may have disbelieved her but believed other witnesses.



Whatsy said...

"I do, however, admire your continued attempts to defend the veracity of these ladies intriguingly differing accounts of that evening."

I've got no interest it defending either lady. However, I do take issue with you when you wilfully and repeatedly misrepresent the evidence they actually gave.

Anonymous Brian said...


Why you feel the need to continue to defame Katrine Trolle and why James publishes your defamations is a mystery to me.

Mr Trolle has been treated appallingly by Mr Sheridan. Your continued attacks on her integrity are disturbing.

I really find it objectionable that these attacks are published.

Anonymous Brian

Whatsy said...

"I do not and have not claimed you have any interest in defending these ladies accounts but defend their veracity you certainly seem to do. Fair enough.

I am Not Guilty of misrepresentation.

Again, I have no interest in defending the veracity of either. My objection is to your misrepresentation of what witnesses said, which I have corrected several times with no specific retort from you, particularly regarding Ms Tucker.

Whether you choose to believe a witness or not is a matter I have no objection to whatsoever.

So long as your speculation and interpretation is based on the facts, I look forward to reading it.

Peter said...


I do not and have not claimed you have any interest in defending these ladies accounts but defend their veracity you certainly seem to do. Fair enough.

I am Not Guilty of misrepresentation.

I am Guilty of wilfully applying myself to examining the various stark inconsistencies in their accounts which in my view are so extreme as to undermine their veracity.

Put it this way:

3 women McGuire, Trolle and Khan went public to say they had sex with Sheridan after his marriage to Gail.

Many including me do not think these ladies are credible.

They claim that sex was often on a one to one basis but included various orgies one in a flat Wigan.

McGuire: Noone (even the police) believed McGuire except the NOTW and even they regarded her as "barking".

Khan: Not even the jury (it appears) believed Khan as the jury deleted the Khan indictments.

That leaves Trolle. Lokk at her Wigan evidence.

Clarke recalls no orgies at all with Trolle in Wigan - or elsewhere.

The three Manchester Crown witnesses claim to have been present in a Wigan flat with a Scandinavian woman.

They do not recall the lengthy 18 handed orgy in the Wigan flat claimed by the Dane Trolle.

It is likely, if we believe those three, that the Wigan orgy simply did not take place. No?

If that is the case can Trolle reasonably be believed about her other sexcapades if she is making that Wigan orgy up? Is her credibility not shot?

Or are the three Manchester witnesses not telling the truth?

Trolle is therefore the only witness to the Manchester orgy and the Wigan orgy (as Khans evidence on all sex claims was deleted by the jury).

Is Ms Trolle credible.

Remember Ms Trolle also:

- changed the date of the sex trip (pointed out by the judge);

- denied there was a cultural festival in Glasgow the same night as the sex trip when there was such a festival;

- denied receiving substantial offers for her sex stories from the NOTW (twice under oath) when such offers were (it appears from NOTW records) made to her.

You will I hope forgive me if I therefore regard her as lacking credibility.

Importantly as she is not supported by anyone else on the Wigan isue (except the discredited Khan). It is therefore strange to me that people still swallow (cough) her story whole.

[abbreviated by Whatsy]

Whatsy said...

> Moderation <
@Anonymous Brian
I published Peter's efforts today. Can't say I agree with some of it, but his analysis of a witness's credibility based on testimony leads to his own conclusions, and I figure readers can make up their own minds as to whether these are reasonable or not.

I did delete his Hans Christian Anderson finale on that last one, though.

I'd be interested to know what other readers think - where is the point where fair comment turns into something else?
> Moderation Ends <

Anonymous Brian said...

It's not really about opinion or Peter's "analysis".

Mr Trolle is innocent of any crime and there is no proof of her being dishonest, therefore the suggestion that she is is a defamation. Simple.

This stuff lets the site down. Is a serious thing or a nasty free for all?

Anonymous Brian

Whatsy said...

> Moderation <
@Anonymous Brian
I agree with you that it is not acceptable to call a witness a liar, but believe commenters are welcome to state they find a witness not credible and/or not reliable.
> Moderation Ends <

Peter said...

Anonymous Brian,

What specifically have I said about Ms Trolle that is untrue or defamatory Brian?

Ms Trolle's Wigan flat orgy account was not supported by 4 Crown witnesses (Clarke, Mr and Mrs Cummerbirch and Ms Plummer) who were supposedly in Wigan. FACT.

Her Wigan orgy account (including a threesome there with Khan and Sheridan is only supported by Khan). FACT.

The indictments about sex between Ms Sheridan and Khan (including that threesome) were all deleted by the jury. FACT.

That the 2006 libel jury apparently did not believe Ms Trolle AND Ms Khan is a FAIR opinion held by many.

That the 2006 libel jury found for Sheridan is a FACT.

The jury rejected the very detailed Trolle claim of sex in the marital bed. FACT.

The jury here may well have believed ms Trolle on other sex events or it may have believed the SSP or Ms Trolles flatmates - we simply do not know how the jury reached it's decision.

As I say this jury verdict is respected by me.

That it is a very confusing and surprising verdict (considering the apparent rejection of some of Trolles and all of Khans claims as evidenced by their deletion ) has been widely commented upon across the national media.

To point out the many inconsistencies about her evidence is not defamation - especially when Ms Trolle and the Crown admitted those inconsistencies in court themselves - never mind the defence!!!

But you keep trying to close down the debate on this hotly disputed verdict - it shows up the lack of response the actual points at issue.



Anonymous said...

The Cumnock Two