tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post7278181225612182620..comments2023-06-26T15:18:06.600+01:00Comments on The Sheridan Trial: Lord BracadaleUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-86894013174420556632010-11-24T22:20:17.679+00:002010-11-24T22:20:17.679+00:00"I am tempted to predict at this point what c..."I am tempted to predict at this point what counts will be remaining but, even though everyone else seems to be doing it, I will refrain from doing so on this blog." - go on Victor, be a Devil.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-41415010616429123432010-11-24T21:28:51.017+00:002010-11-24T21:28:51.017+00:00It would be very unlikely that technical evidence ...It would be very unlikely that technical evidence in the form of testimony will be brought as we have moved on from that chapter, unless it is to do with the availability of the witness. <br /><br />The Crown must feel that the evidence presented so far on the video is strong enough. Or, it is possible that both sides see that their expert evidence would make little difference and, if they are not contesting the technical points made by either side, then have agreed that neither of them will bring expert evidence on the video. An example of that would be if one side had technical evidence on an aspect of the tape, but the other side's evidence did not contest that. The other side's technical evidence may not be contested by the Crown. Both sides, in that case, might see no point in adding evidence that does not advance either argument.<br /><br />One of the anons said "The defence's unpicking of the prosecution case is that it is all a grand conspiracy and everyone is lying or faking. From here it doesn't look anything close to producing reasonable doubt."<br /><br />The defence 'unpicking' of the prosecution case has not started, what we have seen is cross-examination of Crown witnesses combined with court productions. It is impossible to say what the defence case is. But, the parts that we have seen, the NoW investigators diary, the mention of both the owners of cupids club and the man who held the house party afterwards for instance, show far more than just "this is a conspiracy".<br /><br />You also say "Several witnesses from various backgrounds have painted a consistent picture"<br /><br />As I pointed out to Bunc, this is not true, several witnesses from a variety of backgrounds have given testimony on different evidence, there is nothing "consistent" between witness A who say they saw Mr Sheridan at a swinger's club, and Witness B who say that they saw him at a flat with Anvar Khan, they are not related.<br /><br />On the other question someone asked about the jury. They will be asked to rule on each charge, Mr Sheridan has one charge of perjury and one charge of Subornation. Mrs Sheridan has one charge of perjury. I would guess that several counts will be removed before the end of the trial and they will be asked for their verdict on the charge of perjury with the remaining indictment 'as deleted'. So, no, they dont speak to every count on the indictment, they answer one question on each charge, but they DO consider each count as, if they find Sheridan guilty of one count only, they must find him guilty of perjury.<br /><br />I am tempted to predict at this point what counts will be remaining but, even though everyone else seems to be doing it, I will refrain from doing so on this blog.Victor Englishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-50013954562651804312010-11-24T21:28:46.503+00:002010-11-24T21:28:46.503+00:00It would be very unlikely that technical evidence ...It would be very unlikely that technical evidence in the form of testimony will be brought as we have moved on from that chapter, unless it is to do with the availability of the witness. <br /><br />The Crown must feel that the evidence presented so far on the video is strong enough. Or, it is possible that both sides see that their expert evidence would make little difference and, if they are not contesting the technical points made by either side, then have agreed that neither of them will bring expert evidence on the video. An example of that would be if one side had technical evidence on an aspect of the tape, but the other side's evidence did not contest that. The other side's technical evidence may not be contested by the Crown. Both sides, in that case, might see no point in adding evidence that does not advance either argument.<br /><br />One of the anons said "The defence's unpicking of the prosecution case is that it is all a grand conspiracy and everyone is lying or faking. From here it doesn't look anything close to producing reasonable doubt."<br /><br />The defence 'unpicking' of the prosecution case has not started, what we have seen is cross-examination of Crown witnesses combined with court productions. It is impossible to say what the defence case is. But, the parts that we have seen, the NoW investigators diary, the mention of both the owners of cupids club and the man who held the house party afterwards for instance, show far more than just "this is a conspiracy".<br /><br />You also say "Several witnesses from various backgrounds have painted a consistent picture"<br /><br />As I pointed out to Bunc, this is not true, several witnesses from a variety of backgrounds have given testimony on different evidence, there is nothing "consistent" between witness A who say they saw Mr Sheridan at a swinger's club, and Witness B who say that they saw him at a flat with Anvar Khan, they are not related.<br /><br />On the other question someone asked about the jury. They will be asked to rule on each charge, Mr Sheridan has one charge of perjury and one charge of Subornation. Mrs Sheridan has one charge of perjury. I would guess that several counts will be removed before the end of the trial and they will be asked for their verdict on the charge of perjury with the remaining indictment 'as deleted'. So, no, they dont speak to every count on the indictment, they answer one question on each charge, but they DO consider each count as, if they find Sheridan guilty of one count only, they must find him guilty of perjury.<br /><br />I am tempted to predict at this point what counts will be remaining but, even though everyone else seems to be doing it, I will refrain from doing so on this blog.Victor Englishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-51644427081738017052010-11-24T20:36:27.368+00:002010-11-24T20:36:27.368+00:00To quote a famous Ealing comedy: "Well Sir, s...To quote a famous Ealing comedy: "Well Sir, same as with Photoshop I suppose it is possible that someone, somewhere with the right equipment, expertise and knowledge could concoct a tape", "Thank you expert witness, no further questions".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-11761055832883791392010-11-24T20:34:48.085+00:002010-11-24T20:34:48.085+00:00Alex Prentice would have to be daft/naive/out of t...Alex Prentice would have to be daft/naive/out of time/? to not have the tape forensically verified, as Bunc says it would be far to easy for the defence to muddy the waters on this one:Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-37794375095350044322010-11-24T20:31:07.955+00:002010-11-24T20:31:07.955+00:00Lynn, technical/forensic evidence is usually kept ...Lynn, technical/forensic evidence is usually kept back until the end, so you might be in luck - yet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-45422176260108551172010-11-24T19:00:32.931+00:002010-11-24T19:00:32.931+00:00Bunc, re Crown presenting experts on tape authenti...Bunc, re Crown presenting experts on tape authenticity, you forgot to say... Yet. Or is it too late for this to happen? There are clearly still a few days of Crown evidence left, and it may stretch into next week due to court not sitting in afternoon today after McColl's refusal to answer q about identiity of his girlfriend.Lynnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02043179069517017984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-47770659831873244422010-11-24T17:09:49.357+00:002010-11-24T17:09:49.357+00:00Anonymous ( I wish people would choose a name !!)
...Anonymous ( I wish people would choose a name !!)<br />I do agree with your overall judgment but I must say I am very surprised that the prosecution has not led expert evidence giving a technical view of the tape. All TS has to do is to produce some expert who will human haw about "possibilities" for manipulation of the tape. It's not hard to produce experts who will give differing views so it seems to me the prosecution has left an open goal for the defence on that aspect.Bunchttp://ayrshireblog.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-8310143907127721102010-11-24T16:38:05.556+00:002010-11-24T16:38:05.556+00:00I think the case made by the prosecution is strong...I think the case made by the prosecution is strong and it will be interesting to see the defence. Several witnesses from various backgrounds have painted a consistent picture, there is a recording purportedly of the accused admitting the behaviour in question. And so far the defence has produced only one person who contradicts the masses of others. It looks like a pretty firm case.<br /><br />The defence's unpicking of the prosecution case is that it is all a grand conspiracy and everyone is lying or faking. From here it doesn't look anything close to producing reasonable doubt.<br /><br />So I am very interested to see the defence's case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-76180181346785606932010-11-24T15:36:43.127+00:002010-11-24T15:36:43.127+00:00"Ladies and gentleman, because of the positio..."Ladies and gentleman, because of the position adopted by this witness in refusing to answer the questions, there are certain steps I am required to take and it is not possible to continue with his evidence at this stage."<br /><br />Thumbscrews?Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-13863822255189838802010-11-24T15:23:41.368+00:002010-11-24T15:23:41.368+00:00"Not proven" is a verdict of acquittal; ..."Not proven" is a verdict of acquittal; technically, the "not guilty" verdict is the alien incursion into Scots criminal law, as it was, until the 1750s, not possible for a hury to return such a verdict.<br /><br />Given that both "not Guolty 2 and "not proven" depend in law solely upon the jury not finding the Crown case proven to the requisite standard, and there being no distinction in law between them, it would be legally feasible, if reckless, for the NOTW to proceed with their appeal against the verdict of the civil jury even if the accused is acquitted.<br /><br />Please always bear in mind: the ONLY issue for the jury is whether they do or do not find perjurt proven. They are not delivering any decision on the outcome of previous civil proceedings.the_voice_of_reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10179007944478552588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-71666793319752333982010-11-24T14:53:52.124+00:002010-11-24T14:53:52.124+00:00Simply not true, not proven is no different in law...Simply not true, not proven is no different in law from not guilty. It may, to a point, assist the arguments of the NotW in their attempt to appeal, though that would be difficult to frame a legal argument on as the appeal judges will view an acquittal as a rejection of the evidence, irespective of whether it is 'not proven' or 'not guilty. The fact that the original proof was a case of defamation is irrelevant to the question of whether Mr and/or Mrs Sheridan committed perjury.<br /><br />But, although the jury might be making a statement by using 'not proven' or the public might take it to mean something, it is the same as 'not guilty' in law.Victor Englishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-2874013145862219162010-11-24T10:54:02.904+00:002010-11-24T10:54:02.904+00:00A brief legal point.
The first case concerned a ci...A brief legal point.<br />The first case concerned a civil trial (between two private individuals)brought by TS on the charge that the NOW defamed him. He won.<br />This trial is a criminal trial (between the State and a private individual) that chrages TS and GS with lying at the defamation trial.<br />If he is proved to have lied then there is no legal issues with double jeopardy.<br />However what happens if he is found not proven? The purpose of a defamtion action is to restore your reputation (as a legally protected interest under what Stair 4 1 1 states as one of four personal intersts protected by law)<br />Not proven proves nothing, and therefore cannot "restore your reputation" as the perjury case is based on a defamtion one. Therefore not proven cannot be legally competent? <br />Discuss!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-53918736467547219882010-11-23T21:36:00.000+00:002010-11-23T21:36:00.000+00:00I think it is now clear that any technical evidenc...I think it is now clear that any technical evidence from the prosecution now will be about the moathouse allegations, the chapetrs about the tape and cupids are gone.<br /><br />We will not see any SSP witnesses in the last week of the prosecution as the only one that has any connetion to the Moat House story is Baldassara who testified last week. Prentice led him to the moathouse story, indicating that is where the prosecution is going next.<br /><br />We might see technical evidence from the defence about the video, but not from the prosecution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-67541578542735538892010-11-23T20:29:58.690+00:002010-11-23T20:29:58.690+00:00Peter - regrets, I have a few... and not paying e...Peter - regrets, I have a few... and not paying enough attention to the poor teacher who tried to teach me shorthand (and it was 'proper' Pitman, not the upstart Teeline used more frequently now) is one of mine. I'd imagine James and Whatsy's shorthand must be pdq judging by the quality and quantity of their court updates.Lynnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02043179069517017984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-4251625133724497722010-11-23T20:25:08.697+00:002010-11-23T20:25:08.697+00:00Unrelated satire:
What tape your honour? ... oh ...Unrelated satire:<br /><br />What tape your honour? ... oh that one ... yes well ... lets move on shall we m'lud .... no that's not all we have m'lud ... err .... I have ...I have ... err ... i have this genuine bit of lint, an original Tesco loyalty card, my car keys and ... and .... this half sucked murray mint ... slightly fluffy yes m'lud ... but a mint that I contend m'lud may once possibly have been sucked by someone who used to work with the accused's father ... I think. The Crown rests.Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-61245597563307948192010-11-23T19:41:25.293+00:002010-11-23T19:41:25.293+00:00In my opinion, if the Crown don't have (but th...In my opinion, if the Crown don't have (but they might, we must wait and see) satisfactory and compelling technical/evidence to back up the witnesses testimonies they should never have embarked on this Prosecution in the first instance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-16306946768834247712010-11-23T19:24:31.843+00:002010-11-23T19:24:31.843+00:00Lynn,
I am waiting with baited breath. (particula...Lynn,<br /><br />I am waiting with baited breath. (particularly about the genuiness of the NOTW tape)<br /><br />My mum did teach me to type badly.<br /><br />If I had kept with her shorthand lessons I would be up there tommorrow to lend a hand.Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-48285545006050398172010-11-23T19:11:41.779+00:002010-11-23T19:11:41.779+00:00The Crown did well to hide the NOTW paid /oddball ...The Crown did well to hide the NOTW paid /oddball witnesses is to put them in the middle. <br /><br />I therefore expect the Crown to try and finish strongly on their second best evidence. <br /><br />I cannot believe that would finish with more witnesses paid by the NOTW or common criminals<br /><br />There may also be a last minute rush of other unassailable technical evidence about the tape etc that will help salvage the Crown case. Equally there may not be.<br /><br />From watching trials a lot of the “technical” stuff although exciting to nerds can just turn out to be techno – bluff. <br /><br />It is often overstated pre-trial to try and break the accused or pressure his/her witnesses. <br /><br />Often when presented it is not quite what the Crown sets it out to be and the jury who are not experts do not know who to believe. <br /><br />Quality testimony from people of good character;who are rational; who have not been paid and have no axe to grind is most important. <br /><br />On balance that has been lacking from the vast majority of Crown witnesses so far. A large number have been previously paid / offered big money by the NOTW. There are also a couple of common criminals peppered amongst them - which does not look at all good.<br /><br />I have been back through all the court reports this last week. <br /><br />NONE of the Crown witnesses appear to be able to say consistently and categorically that they saw Sheridan at this place, at this date, doing this, with that person. <br /><br />All the Crown witnesses so far are either: wrong/confused about dates; unsure who was there; unsure what happened; unsure what was said; have been contradicted by other Crown witnesses or said something different at the first trial. A very confused bunch overall.Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-90740495688383088692010-11-23T18:44:20.117+00:002010-11-23T18:44:20.117+00:00Peter, yes but all of that has already happened we...Peter, yes but all of that has already happened weeks ago and according to James's post above about remaining indictment, the Crown is going in another direction and we might see fresh evidence from people with no connection to the supposed 'plot'<br />Wait and see.Lynnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02043179069517017984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-77061708551282698172010-11-23T17:10:27.110+00:002010-11-23T17:10:27.110+00:00How much of the defence case - the innocent until ...How much of the defence case - the innocent until proven guilty Sheridans aside - will consist of character evidence or 'for he/she's a jolly good fellow' testimony?<br /><br />Anyone know if the Crown are calling mobile phone geographical plot evidence re: Tommy's whereabouts otherwise than at the dates and places aforesaid in the indictment?Carnybullnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-10111322177559921752010-11-23T16:01:27.106+00:002010-11-23T16:01:27.106+00:00Bloomin heck, no wonder the accused needed another...Bloomin heck, no wonder the accused needed another 2 days off court to prepare.Lynnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02043179069517017984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-6967671949333920802010-11-23T15:58:10.889+00:002010-11-23T15:58:10.889+00:00Thanks. Others suggested expert testimony on the ...Thanks. Others suggested expert testimony on the tape. Three days seems ambitious given progress so far.Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-46023876306787264952010-11-23T15:31:09.180+00:002010-11-23T15:31:09.180+00:00Hello Steve, looking at the indictment (see http:/...Hello Steve, looking at the indictment (see http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/09/sheridan-indictment-in-full.html) the only part we have not covered is:<br /><br />" that you did attend the said Moathouse Hotel on 14 June 2002 at an event organised by said Matthew McColl along with said Andrew McFarlane at which you and said Andrew McFarlane went into a bedroom with Beverly Anthea Dixon, c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh and you did have sexual intercourse with said Beverly Anthea Dixon; that said Helen Todd Allison and Lily Anne Colvin had not lied during their evidence during said civil jury trial when they said that they had seen you at the said Moathouse Hotel "<br /><br />So I'd expect that to be covered and perhaps more on Gail Sheridan's charges?James Dolemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774046346905734191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-30845076746597304862010-11-23T14:42:08.349+00:002010-11-23T14:42:08.349+00:00What is the next chapter going to be? Have you sh...What is the next chapter going to be? Have you sharpened your pencils for Wednesday James? We are all on tenterhooks!Stevenoreply@blogger.com