tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post4709586477416612358..comments2023-06-26T15:18:06.600+01:00Comments on The Sheridan Trial: Bob Bird, Cross-examination Pt 3Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-86311874974243726832010-11-24T19:52:59.628+00:002010-11-24T19:52:59.628+00:00The trial has been a great eye opener for me as I ...The trial has been a great eye opener for me as I was sure rhe wheels of justice turned for all the people and not just The News of the World. The trial is costing a lot of money which could well be spent helping some of the people who will lose their jobs in this period of cuts. Having watched a good number of days I am sure tommy has the metlal to see this to a sucessful conclusion and I am sure the PF will appeal on behalf of the News of the ScrewsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-55604188988941202012010-11-16T19:04:34.310+00:002010-11-16T19:04:34.310+00:00Lynn, if you are still in any doubt about the unre...Lynn, if you are still in any doubt about the unreliability of Elizabeth Quinn's evidence you should read the relevant entry on this blog. The excellent analysis by the commenters should leave you in no doubt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-89478436133243907882010-11-16T18:53:58.247+00:002010-11-16T18:53:58.247+00:00@ Lynn Re: Elizabeth Quinn, her "paint story&...@ Lynn Re: Elizabeth Quinn, her "paint story" didn't quite stack up, if it didn't blow a hole through her testimony at least it left enough for reasonable doubt. As for the other two their evidence was all over the place, even the timing were way out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-36173180904414689242010-11-16T14:31:37.059+00:002010-11-16T14:31:37.059+00:00Oh dear, here we go again, cheque book journalism,...Oh dear, here we go again, cheque book journalism, political in-fighting, jealousy, conspiracy theories.I feel so sorry for the jury today, they must've been comatose by lunchtime. As a lay observer, I keep going back to something quite simple - the evidence of 3 witnesses who are not involved with any of the above; Elizabeth Quinn the retired head teacher and the 2 people who shared a house with Katrina Trolle. All 3 claimed to have seen TS in places that he says he had never been and with people he claims he wasn't having a relationhsip with. What motive is there for them to lie and perjure themselves? This along with tangible evidence such as telephone records and diary entries along with expert opinion on the relaibility of the tape would be very hard to ignore no matter how many clever theories abound.Lynnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02043179069517017984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-60133604968565060902010-11-16T14:12:46.995+00:002010-11-16T14:12:46.995+00:00Careful Peter you have now provided the NotW with ...Careful Peter you have now provided the NotW with enough information to run a story regarding Ms Jloies unrequinted love of yourself.<br />With kind regards Ms.Jolies PalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-91024077675573299962010-11-16T13:45:52.425+00:002010-11-16T13:45:52.425+00:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Psychenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-80961159048362930722010-11-16T12:06:17.506+00:002010-11-16T12:06:17.506+00:00PAYMENTS TO CROWN WITNESSES CONT.
On a more gener...PAYMENTS TO CROWN WITNESSES CONT.<br /><br />On a more general point Fred/Bunc I think you posted that you do not see the problem with Crown witnesses having discussions with the NOTW and being offered money or advancement if they then go on to reject such offers. <br /><br />You indicate you consider Ms Trolle to be one such person. I take the point - it is a fair one. But considrr this.<br /><br />Ms Trolle denied, under oath, both in the libel trial and the perjury trial that any offer was made to her at all. <br /><br />Her evidence has now been, very reluctantly, contradicted by Mr Bird. In the libel trial if you remember he had been careful to back up Ms Trolle's version that she was not offered money by NOTW. <br /><br />He has now under pressure from the defence left her swinging in the wind and admitted she was offered large sums after all. <br /><br />But maybe it is still Ms Trolle who is telling the truth and Mr Bird is lying. The Crown no doubt hope so.<br /><br />Of course if Ms Trolles version is right she still cannot really be held out as someone who has on point of high principle rejected the advances of the NOTW ..... if no such offer was made to her there was nothing to reject in the first place.<br /><br />I have a 100% record of rejecting the advances of Ms Angelina Jolie but I do not hold that out to my girlfriend as evidence of my fidelity.Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-73118784298654632962010-11-16T12:01:59.636+00:002010-11-16T12:01:59.636+00:00Court Testimony Regarding Large Payments to Crown ...Court Testimony Regarding Large Payments to Crown Witnesses:<br /><br />These are sensitive matters but they have already been stated in open court so it is legitimate to comment on them.<br /><br />Fred the Shred (or was it Bunc). Sorry for the delay in getting back to you my post disapppeared somewhere - it was too long I think! <br /><br />I think you asked which Crown witnesses have not told the truth about the contamination of the witness pool by the deep pockets of News of The World. <br /><br />I have done a brief outline of 4 of the main Crown witnesses the defence has accused of lying about money which I will post later. There are others of course.<br /><br />TBCPeternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-39398383493715078942010-11-16T11:46:13.402+00:002010-11-16T11:46:13.402+00:00@ Sceptic: "One rather important variation is...@ Sceptic: "One rather important variation is if the alleged Cupid's visit happened in September 2001 or September 2002. Now I don't know about you but I have a pretty good recall of what I was up to in September 2001, after all the twin towers had just been attacked, a memorable period, especially for left-wingers engaged in anti-war activity."<br /><br />Personally I can clearly remember having a drink with my flatmate shortly after sept 11th but I honestly can't remember if it was late 2001 or late 2002 when we slept together a few times. And its not like I was having tons of opportunities with different women.<br /><br />Memory is a funny thing like that.<br /><br />As an ORDINARY IMPARTIAL OBSERVER I find a conspiracy of the magnitude the Defence is claiming to be highly unlikely. With all due respect to TS's political work hes no John MacLean and I doubt hes important enough to be on Rupert Murdochs personal hitlist as TS seems to be suggesting.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong - I'm sure the NoTW and the bourgeois state is delighted to have this opportunity to pursue, possibly imprison and possibly end the career of a socialist politician. I'm just not convinced they concocted such a grand conspiracy to do it.<br /><br />Although if the Defence were to show the videotape to be a fake I might reconsider that.Gunboat Diplomatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-24276939827244507762010-11-16T10:34:07.721+00:002010-11-16T10:34:07.721+00:00There's an element of fantasy creeping into so...There's an element of fantasy creeping into some suggestions further up this thread.<br /><br />There are only three situations where counsel can be appointed without the direct approval of the accused.<br /><br />(1) Where the prosecution is for a named sexual offence, and the accused has not instructed a solicitor (since November 2002 it is not permitted for an accused person to represent himself in a sexual offence case)<br /><br />(2) Where two psychiatrists confirm that the accused is mentally unfit to give instructions, and the court directs an examination of facts.<br /><br />(3) Where the accused has parted company with one or more solicitors and counsel, wishes to instruct new counsel and cannot find anyone prepared to act, then the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates (Counsel) or the President of the Law Society of Scotland (solicitor-advocates) may appoint someone to act for the accused.<br /><br />None of these three situations exists here.<br /><br />the_voice_of_reason (can't access my usual account from here)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-51383272333422327602010-11-16T09:48:40.237+00:002010-11-16T09:48:40.237+00:00To go back to the question at 11:07.
"Mr Bir...To go back to the question at 11:07.<br /><br />"Mr Bird replied ... there had been no end of people disgusted with the verdict who rang up NotW “telling us what you were really like” with names of no end of women who had affairs with you"<br /><br />Can Bird actually say that and get away with it if said "no end of women" aren't going to be witnesses?Stannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-3419297302768083892010-11-16T09:44:45.288+00:002010-11-16T09:44:45.288+00:00Sceptic said:
"Now I don't know about you...Sceptic said:<br />"Now I don't know about you but I have a pretty good recall of what I was up to in September 2001, after all the twin towers had just been attacked, a memorable period,"<br /><br />By way of comparison, I can remember where I was working that day (as I saw it on a TV in the building) but I have no recall of my personal or political life, other than things that must have happened because they always happen. Memories seem to hang on significant events, as in 9/11.<br /><br />I'd say I have a pretty good memory, but I've been round the block a few times now.Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-30577570905359171512010-11-16T09:18:07.747+00:002010-11-16T09:18:07.747+00:00@anonymous (1:21)
Do I find it surprising that two...@anonymous (1:21)<br />Do I find it surprising that two different impartial observers might come to two different conclusions - No. Happens all the time about all sorts of stuff. Happens all the time within Juries too.<br />I don't recall Peters comments specifically so I'll look them up and then respond to that.<br />By the way it would help if you didn't post anonymously - it's hard to debate issues when comments aren't identified to a specific person.Bunchttp://ayrshireblog.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-53180655603223168182010-11-16T08:26:23.300+00:002010-11-16T08:26:23.300+00:00(a not very difficult) CROSSWORD CLUE
I sell shit...(a not very difficult) CROSSWORD CLUE<br /><br />I sell shit, it’s how I live<br />I always take, cannot give<br />My rag’s yellow putrid pie<br />I cannot look you in the eye<br />I sell lies, make up muck<br />I’m a shallow shameless fuck<br />Bribe the weak, attack the truth<br />Control the English polling booth<br />Don’t come too near, there is a smell<br />If god exists I’ll burn in Hell<br />Who am I ? not hard to sus<br />A parasite that peddles puss<br /><br />Davie - (an unbiased observer)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-5536476895395034352010-11-16T08:08:24.293+00:002010-11-16T08:08:24.293+00:00Tommy will continue with the trial to the end. No ...Tommy will continue with the trial to the end. No major illness of any kind.Psychenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-71324633969188570482010-11-16T01:49:52.726+00:002010-11-16T01:49:52.726+00:00The issue that has been made several times is that...The issue that has been made several times is that many of the witnesses were not too enamoured to give evidence in the previous trial and did so under protest, what was it Richard Venton said he felt like he was a "hostage".<br /><br />Also the witnesses have been interviewed by the police and probably precognosed to prosecution and defence who would be drilling away and asking for verifications, so not that surprising that all the evidence does not match between the 2006 trial and the 2010 trial. It would also appear to me that the NOTW were complete muppets in 2006 and hardly anyone was co-operating with them (as it should be)Fred the Shrednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-3769531629136652912010-11-16T01:21:50.460+00:002010-11-16T01:21:50.460+00:00Hi Bunc.
Just like you, I'm another (to use y...Hi Bunc.<br /><br />Just like you, I'm another (to use your type-face) ORDINARY IMPARTIAL OBSERVER, and I have to say I completely disagree with you. Isn't that strange!?<br /><br />I'm honestly shocked at some of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.<br /><br />I never expexted that so many of them would be unable to answer clear questions, and feel mightily confused by some testimonies (based on the revelations in court regarding payments, particularly over the past few days). <br /><br />In fact, I'd be very interested to know what you think of Peter's comments over the past few days on this blog? It seems that the legal arguments being debated on some of the threads below, have not swayed your opinion. Perhaps you could say why?<br /><br />It's funny isn't it, being an ORDINARY OBSERVER can provide us with such different views of things! Anyone would think we were totally UNORDINARY OBSERVERS! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa the very idea!<br /><br />The Shrink xAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-59645575869753408312010-11-16T01:12:51.465+00:002010-11-16T01:12:51.465+00:00Bunc said
Oh but the range of witnesses is importa...Bunc said<br />Oh but the range of witnesses is important if the line is that there is some kind of conspiracy going on or that evcidence has been bought. It stretches credulity the wider the range and number of sources of evidence are.<br /><br />I could believe a suggestion of conspiracy if there were a small number of witnesses but sorry I don't buy it at all given the range and number of people we are hearing from. Biut as I said before I have no political axe to grind on this one and I'm not a fanboy - neither indeed am I generally a believer in fanciful conspracy theories. <br /><br />Bunc have you ever considered the notion that if there was a conspiracy in motion to do down T.S. What better opertunity there would be for said conspiritors to act than when information became available that the NotW had T.S in their sights, and would be happy to act Pro bono if it led to where they wished things to be?A Rural Socialistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-69489711986745873982010-11-16T01:12:20.182+00:002010-11-16T01:12:20.182+00:00Tommy trial addict /Graeme
"it's amazing...Tommy trial addict /Graeme<br /><br />"it's amazing how their memory improves the farther away from the original event they get.<br />I would have thought the opposite would be the case for most people."<br /><br />Sorry, but I don't find this surprising at all. My impression at the earlier trial is that many of the witnesses were not exactly whole-hearted about the whole thing. Facing a second trial those who had been called a scab and a liar (effectively all the "defence side" the previous time) will have had their minds wonderfully concentrated and so I don't find it surprising that they would make corrections and adjustments. The question is whether any of these amount to something which calls into question the essential nature of what they are testifying to. Again I can only say that in my opinion it doesn't. Then my opinion of the first verdict is probably not printable here anyway. Was it a shining example of the jury system in practice? A victory for TRUTH and justice? Hmmm.Bunchttp://ayrshireblog.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-9060620457924457922010-11-16T01:04:02.275+00:002010-11-16T01:04:02.275+00:00CONTINUED DEFENCE NARRATIVE:
So to finish off Bun...CONTINUED DEFENCE NARRATIVE:<br /><br />So to finish off Bunc: I have come across all the above scenarios in my political and professional life - but maybe I have just been lucky! It could be a Liverpool / Glasgow thing of course.<br /><br />It is a rich vibrant (and rather scary for some) tapestry but all human life is there. <br /><br />It is the very complexity and the three dimensional structure of the story that leads me to consider that the defence narrative is either truthful or at least believable. <br /><br />The narrative is coherent and compelling. <br /><br />Importantly it is also varied enough to give each of the jury members a chance to apply their own life experience and hang their reasonable doubt on at least one or more of the above scenarios. <br /><br />Some are scenarios may well have come across in their own lives or have knowledge of from family members or even from popular culture. <br /><br />I would agree with you if the defence narrative was weak if it was “just cheque book journalism and political infighting”. It’s clearly not. <br /><br />This may well go all 15 rounds but considering that this is the Crowns part of the case I must put Tommy ahead on points.Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-65430481123302819372010-11-16T00:55:21.624+00:002010-11-16T00:55:21.624+00:00DEFENCE NARRATIVE CONT:
So Bunc to continue I thi...DEFENCE NARRATIVE CONT:<br /><br />So Bunc to continue I think on consideration you may agree that the defence offers much more than “just political infighting and cheque book journalism” to the jury. <br /><br />At my count the defence has raised the following scenarios to explain how Tommy has found himself in the Glasgow courts:<br /><br />Cheque-Book Journalism / Gutter Hacks / The Hubris of Embarassed (& Passed Over &desperate) Scottish News Paper Executives / the need to cover up Illegal Investigatory Techniques and payments<br /><br />The Murdoch Empires anti union / anti socialist agenda<br /><br />SSP Political In Fighting inc. Factional Activity, Feminist Conciousness Raising, Personal Rivalry.<br /><br />The Personality Disorders and M/H Problems of Crown witnesses and people who sold stories to the NOTW <br />Sexual Fantasism / Story telling<br />behaviours / Attention seeking behaviours<br /><br />The Alcohol problems of some Crown witnesses and people who sold their stories to the NOTW<br /><br />The unreliability of common criminals as opposed to those with political criminal records<br /><br />Memory Problems of witnesses Due to the passage of time.<br /><br />Memory Problems Due to the affect of medication / alcohol.<br /><br />Hearing problems.<br /><br />Fall outs from the Break Up of Long term Friendships.<br /><br />Jealousy<br /><br />Career Advancement<br /><br />Greed<br /><br />Fear of prosecution<br /><br />Immunity offers<br /><br />Improper / unprofessional nvolvement of male police officers with younger female witnesses<br /><br />Police / Crown vendetta/hubris for past political activity <br /><br />Poverty of the pocket and more poetically a Poverty of the soul<br /> <br />and of course the dog that has not barked yet ..... the involvement of state assets inside the SSP and state agencies such as MI5 etc.<br /><br />TBCPeternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-75813753648528041702010-11-16T00:52:27.153+00:002010-11-16T00:52:27.153+00:00I posted a comment as "tommy trial addict&quo...I posted a comment as "tommy trial addict" but in my next one I posted as Graeme using my google account by mistake.<br /><br />Sorry for any confusion caused.Tommy trial addcitnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-84884455061833059202010-11-16T00:50:15.711+00:002010-11-16T00:50:15.711+00:00Victor - I am quite clear on the points that you a...Victor - I am quite clear on the points that you are making and of course there has to be a level of credibility from witnesses relevant to the points at issue. <br /><br />It seems to me that there are a diverse range of witnesses on the different parts which have been covered so far.<br />Your theory may be correct but I suspect for ordinary jurors it will provide weight unless they can convince themselves that all these witnesses have reasons to be lying.<br />As I said, for me - viewing this AS AN ORDINARY OBSERVER that stretches my credulity. I can only call it as I see it and personally I have yet to hear anything that causes me much level of doubt about the points that the prosecution is trying to establish. Much of the defence is flim flam in my view. Other views may of course differ.Bunchttp://ayrshireblog.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-30382825398443804142010-11-16T00:29:02.758+00:002010-11-16T00:29:02.758+00:00Relevant witnesses can be added at any time as lon...Relevant witnesses can be added at any time as long as it is agreed, if the defence and prosecution cannot agree the judge decides whether they can be added or not.<br /><br />In this case, evidence has come up that has previously been unknown. The defence would be able to add witnesses to counter that evidence.<br /><br />There is no compulsion to accept new evidence or witnesses but neither is there a bar on it happening either.<br /><br />In a case this size I would guess that both Crown and Defence have added witnesses since the trial started, and that would not be unusual.<br /><br />Bunc, the sheer weight of numbers of witnesses is not irrelevant but, in theory, it makes little difference. Even if witnesses are repetitive it can be used to add weight to story and can be powerful with a jury.<br /><br />But, theoretically, it does not matter. what matters is the evidence they bring and whether it corroborates other evidence.<br /><br />The judge might rule that too many witnesses covering the same ground is a waste of court time, but it is not unusual to see a whole host of witnesses who say the same thing yet have little affect on the jury, as they do not believe the point of evidence they are testifying to.<br /><br />So you are wrong that it is "the central point". The central point is proving, beyond doubt, the charges in front of the court.<br /><br />Different witnesses pertain to differect counts on the indictment. Therefore, a witness who maintains that Mr Sheridan had an affair with a woman, does not add weight to other witnesses who say he confessed, simply through the virtue of being another witness or from a different background.Victor Englishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-22543229004538554182010-11-16T00:16:35.464+00:002010-11-16T00:16:35.464+00:00Bunc 11.13pm:
That is not quite right is it? The ...Bunc 11.13pm:<br /><br />That is not quite right is it? The defence narrative is not as sparse as you make out. <br /><br />If you give it a closer look at the defence advanced, in both the libel trial and this perjury trial, you will see a very complex narrative. <br /><br />A colorful mise en sceneis is presented most dys. Any time you dip into this narrative you will come across a very believable cast of grotesques, the unfortunate, the wrongly persecuted and the vengeful.<br /><br />TBC:Peternoreply@blogger.com