tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post1037654695136839751..comments2023-06-26T15:18:06.600+01:00Comments on The Sheridan Trial: Alan McCombes' Cross Examination Pt 2Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-80867478982011235032010-11-03T22:28:51.658+00:002010-11-03T22:28:51.658+00:00Re: Perry Freemason
"whatsy, these were impor...Re: Perry Freemason<br /><i>"whatsy, these were important distinctions for three reasons.<br /><br />1.It allowed sheridan to show a pattern that he has repeatedly shown to the jury witht several witnesses.<br /><br />2. Mccombes claimed that the police statement was recorded wrong and that the court record was a misprint - very weak arguments<br /><br />3. his change of position on the mintues coincides with the testimony of other witnesses, creating a narrative for sheridans defence. if you look at the dates of meetings,events and statements it could be used to suggest a deliberate attempt to conceal "</i><br /><br />1 - what pattern are you referring to?<br /><br />2 - I'd like to hear the tape of the 06 trial, as McCombes seemed very certain about what he said, and the point didn't seem worth going out on a limb on unless I'm missing it. What's the big deal about "always" V "all"? How significant is this? Or did TS just pounce on it as an apparent gift of a witness contradicting their own testimony in a tiny way?<br /><br />3 - could you spell this out for me, as I've followed the case closely so far and I haven't noticed this.Whatsynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-8776376112071747372010-11-03T14:52:38.472+00:002010-11-03T14:52:38.472+00:00"audited by the Big Issue."?! Nuff said!..."audited by the Big Issue."?! Nuff said!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-12295109578012945882010-11-03T13:56:59.028+00:002010-11-03T13:56:59.028+00:00Alex as in Alex Salmond.Alex as in Alex Salmond.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-75330653097021880892010-11-03T13:56:29.034+00:002010-11-03T13:56:29.034+00:00It wasn't really the Daily Record per se that ...It wasn't really the Daily Record per se that TS was writing for - it was the Trinity Mirror group, that is why the same article appeared all over their titles. I also recall? Gail doing quite a few "at home" articles for the Mail? Express? Anyway, "writing" for newspapers magazines pretty lucrative. A "ghost written" column in a Sunday newspapers can net 60-100K a year. Lots of politicians ans celebs do this: Alex used to/still does have a Saturday column in the Sun; even the late Jimmy Reid used to write for the Daily Record (controversially too when he slagged of the Miners and had to apologise next week blaming it on a "sub-editor re-wording his column"). And does anyway really believe that Wayne Rooney writes his column, David Beckham his books?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-53039018510936339652010-11-03T10:01:15.366+00:002010-11-03T10:01:15.366+00:00Shug, it was 20k, it was paid to Gail Sheridan for...Shug, it was 20k, it was paid to Gail Sheridan for her story and arranged beforethev rseult of the defamation case. The monday interview in the Daily Record where Tommy decsribed some un-named people as "political scabs" was not part of Gail's deal.<br /><br />There was no "infamous scabs story". It was the Daily Record who chose to single out the word "scab" and attach it to names and pictures.<br /><br />The money Rosie Kane got from the Sunday Mail didnt go to the party, it went to her tax bill, that is a matter of SSP record.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-86693977249569831192010-11-03T09:26:35.311+00:002010-11-03T09:26:35.311+00:00"2. Mccombes claimed that the police statemen..."2. Mccombes claimed that the police statement was recorded wrong and that the court record was a misprint - very weak arguments"<br /><br />Not really when you consider that polis are human too and that the court record they're using isn't the 'official' one but one recorded by NOTW legal team on terms of cost.Shugnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-43588695182835165932010-11-02T23:48:52.631+00:002010-11-02T23:48:52.631+00:00whatsy, these were important distinctions for thre...whatsy, these were important distinctions for three reasons. <br /><br />1.It allowed sheridan to show a pattern that he has repeatedly shown to the jury witht several witnesses.<br /><br />2. Mccombes claimed that the police statement was recorded wrong and that the court record was a misprint - very weak arguments<br /><br />3. his change of position on the mintues coincides with the testimony of other witnesses, creating a narrative for sheridans defence. if you look at the dates of meetings,events and statements it could be used to suggest a deliberate attempt to concealPerry Freemasonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-16980577285832307122010-11-02T23:32:58.705+00:002010-11-02T23:32:58.705+00:00The money from any colums written by the SSP MSPs ...The money from any colums written by the SSP MSPs went to the party coffers and/or charity, afaik, not into personal accounts.<br /><br />"Tommy sold his story for 20K to the Record after he won his libel case didn't he?"<br /><br />Thirty, and that included the infamous "scabs" story.Shugnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-89601610298255376932010-11-02T22:27:11.260+00:002010-11-02T22:27:11.260+00:00From memory, TS donated his money from the newspap...From memory, TS donated his money from the newspaper work to charity and unlike other his accounts were audited by the Big Issue. <br />Every week he would ask for charities or other campaigns to donate the money to. If you check back issues of the parers for that time you will see that each week the organisation which received the money was listed. Not sure what the others did which their monies as we never saw accounts for them!Dementia Rulesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-5401839888227577322010-11-02T22:24:47.600+00:002010-11-02T22:24:47.600+00:00Re: Perry Freemason
McCombes also has the added pr...Re: Perry Freemason<br /><i>McCombes also has the added problem of being the 'mystery' author of the affidavit which left his assertion that he was doing it for the party a bit hollow, when he did not consult the party. He has been shown, in my opinion, to be a person who has 'managed' the whole affair.</i><br /><br />I think he might admit to that - he was after all the press & policy guy at the time, and seems to have been the person most in charge of the SSP behind the scenes. It would have been his job to manage any such situation.<br /><br />While the revelation that he was behind the Sunday Herald Affidavit was a bit of a head-scratcher at first, his explanation of this now makes sense to me, particularly when the carefully vague content of the affidavit is seen.<br /><br />Also, I didn't think McCombes's testimony was in conflict with the 2006 testimony in any significant way.<br /><br />The debate about whether he had the minutes "always" or "all" in his possession didn't seem that important, and when taking into account how he referred to having them "temporarily" in earlier police testimony makes me agree with McCombes's assertion that he didn't say "always", as it wouldn't have made any sense at the time. It would have been interesting seeing how Paul McBride would have handled that area, though.<br /><br />What areas did you think differed significantly from previous evidence?Whatsynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-20139368823291816842010-11-02T21:11:31.925+00:002010-11-02T21:11:31.925+00:00Once again contrary evidence to the police stateme...Once again contrary evidence to the police statement and the testimony in 2006. How many witnesses have done that now?<br /><br />McCombes also has the added problem of being the 'mystery' author of the affidavit which left his assertion that he was doing it for the party a bit hollow, when he did not consult the party. He has been shown, in my opinion, to be a person who has 'managed' the whole affair. That doesnt mean he was wrong or that he is lying, but it doesn't do much to prove the indictment against Sheridan.<br /><br />Sheridan is doing well to get the SSP witnesses to start ranting, it backs up his position that this is a hostile and bitter political battle. It doesnt prove anything, but Sheridan doesnt need to prove anything.<br /><br />I really don't get why the SSP seem to think that approaching this in such a manner helps the prosecution. Its almost as if there are two trials going on, one to decide if the Sheridans lied in court, one to show who acted properly within the Scottish Socialist Party. The SSP witnesses are taking part in the latter.<br /><br />Prentice will be glad to get back to other issues, he isnt being allowed to lead the prosecution, as some witnesses think that they know better than him and go off on their own agenda.Perry Freemasonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-25496084064145221402010-11-02T20:52:07.024+00:002010-11-02T20:52:07.024+00:00I believe both Tommy and Gail had contracts with T...I believe both Tommy and Gail had contracts with Trinity Mirror, but I think half the SSP wrote for some rag or other, elected for a workers wage and anything they could make on the side and all falling over each other to get into the papers. What would really interest me is If News International published a list of any of those involved who had offered them information prior to the fall out, I'm sure there will be one.shhhush its menoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-89740584694428450812010-11-02T20:49:08.508+00:002010-11-02T20:49:08.508+00:00Tommy sold his story for 20K to the Record after h...Tommy sold his story for 20K to the Record after he won his libel case didn't he? Yes, and your point is caller?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-82003872760902095732010-11-02T20:25:54.203+00:002010-11-02T20:25:54.203+00:00Tommy sold his story for 20K to the Record after h...Tommy sold his story for 20K to the Record after he won his libel case didn't he?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-31304912844638477642010-11-02T20:17:05.747+00:002010-11-02T20:17:05.747+00:00On further reflection, if McCombes's account i...On further reflection, if McCombes's account is false, it will make an even better book.Whatsynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-24671619126429409902010-11-02T20:13:47.326+00:002010-11-02T20:13:47.326+00:00He also mentioned he gave the £6k to his teenage d...He also mentioned he gave the £6k to his teenage daughters & their mother.<br /><br />If his account is true, I can't see why writing a book about this whole saga would be unreasonable. Someone is certainly going to write one, whether McC does or not.Whatsynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-12205052330436329612010-11-02T20:00:33.993+00:002010-11-02T20:00:33.993+00:00Mr McCombes said he was writing a book but that it...Mr McCombes said he was writing a book but that it was a "work in progress" and he had received no money other that a 6,000 pound advance. Nuff saidwellineverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17434157889159472479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-85404935653447803242010-11-02T19:40:00.927+00:002010-11-02T19:40:00.927+00:00On a less specific point, it was very annoying to ...On a less specific point, it was very annoying to see 30+ seats police-taped off in the public gallery. I checked with te High Court reception, and this was due to audible tutting and talking during McCombes's testimony yesterday from the public gallery near the witness.<br /><br />I'm sure regular attendees will be able to make a good guess as to who was responsible for this, but to reduce the capacity of the court, make it look like a crime scene (which it may well be if further accusations of perjury are pursued after this trial) and make it much more difficult to attend for the public seems disproportionate for the sake of having a word with the one or two responsible and keeping an occasional eye on them.Whatsynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-84494116021942955232010-11-02T19:34:39.340+00:002010-11-02T19:34:39.340+00:00Another lively session between TS & an SSPer. ...Another lively session between TS & an SSPer. I thought McCombes was the most robust of all the SSP witnesses so far called - he seemed credible and did not make any significant changes in evidence.<br /><br />TS was also not able to control him at all - some witnesses have gone off on a rant before, which may have been entertaining, but was not usually that relevant, but McCombes was much more controlled and made a series of very effective points in the course of answering questions - although admittedly, not always answers to the question he was asked.<br /><br />In particular, he didn't fall into the trap others have of claiming to know something when it was clear TS was about to produce evidence to the contrary.<br /><br />He also seemed to get under TS's skin more than other Crown SSP witnesses, and was surprisingly able to appeal to the judge a couple of times regarding the nature of TS's line of questioning - I thought this was a big no-no for a witness.<br /><br />It was interesting to see Bracadale make more interventions again today - he seems to be tightening the leash during TS's cross-examinations - both on TS and the witness. He was noticeably cross a couple of times, especially on one occasion with McCombes when he talked over the judge! Ouch.Whatsynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-18005893141518675582010-11-02T13:32:00.528+00:002010-11-02T13:32:00.528+00:00Gonnae get the clock fixed - you seem to still be ...Gonnae get the clock fixed - you seem to still be on BST.<br />(Really posted at 1330 or so).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com