tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post8047363557440297638..comments2023-06-26T15:18:06.600+01:00Comments on The Sheridan Trial: The Crown Summing Up, The "Cupids Visit"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-3499341800961443222010-12-21T20:58:34.258+00:002010-12-21T20:58:34.258+00:00So they're incompetent as well as liars, the t...So they're incompetent as well as liars, the two are not mutually exclusive lolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-3644866996091501542010-12-21T15:27:37.637+00:002010-12-21T15:27:37.637+00:00Good point, Simon. "genuine" conspiraci...Good point, Simon. "genuine" conspiracies tend to be "close-knit" affairs, this alleged conspiracy appears to have all over the place and have its tentacles everywhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-89754256666852503852010-12-21T12:48:15.219+00:002010-12-21T12:48:15.219+00:00"Katrine Trolle had produced receipts from &q..."Katrine Trolle had produced receipts from "Primark and Debenhams"<br /><br />Well, that's some pretty convincing evidence that Katrine Trolle bought stuff at both Primark & Debenhams. She'd no doubt have been able to get refunds if she had returned her purchases in perfect condition within 28 days.<br /><br />"Anvar Khan being shown, in court, her bank statement that showed a debit to British airways of £223.40 on the 26th September 2002"<br /><br />And here we see conclusive proof that Anvar Khan bought a plane ticket... on the 26th of September 2002, no less!<br /><br />I rest my case!The law is an ass, & so is the QCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-82254202187540801262010-12-21T12:36:25.670+00:002010-12-21T12:36:25.670+00:00Andy Mcfarlane and Gary Clark were included in the...Andy Mcfarlane and Gary Clark were included in the original testimony of Katrine Trolle and Anvar Khan why? If making up a story why include others it makes lying unesssarily difficult. Gary Clark did not admit this visit until 2010 so much for him being involved in a conspiracy. Andy McFarlane is not joined to TS by the HIP so why include him if not true?Simonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-46165479602796672912010-12-21T12:33:49.924+00:002010-12-21T12:33:49.924+00:00Anonymous 10.24. Re sick note from A McFarlane'...Anonymous 10.24. Re sick note from A McFarlane's doctor. This part of the evidence intrigued me as on first hearing it sounded like he had had hip resurfacing which is a major op and the thought of sitting in a car for a 4 hour drive to Manchester shortly after that would have been ridiculous. But, in fact he actually had a minor investigative procedure done before alledged Cupid's visit, Whatsy I think confirmed that the resurfacing wasn't done until 3 YEARS later so whatever sick note said, it wasn't that the witness was incapacitated from a hip resurfacing op as this hadn't taken place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-6227634342386137572010-12-21T12:00:42.833+00:002010-12-21T12:00:42.833+00:00James glad for your info.re.the "wee mention ...James glad for your info.re.the "wee mention of the Cumberbirches and"the other eye witness from Cupids",think thats Ms Tucker.Not surprised little was said by AP re. this trio. As i highlighted some time ago,their testimonies were so contradictory and flawed as to fatally damage them(IMO).The AD couldnt airbrush them out of the Crowns summation , so he basically skirted over them hoping no one noticed his "little local difficulty".These people should have been critical to the Crowns case as they were neither members or associates of the SSP, and potentially the vital,independent corroborators of the now central facts in issue,re. the alleged Cupids visit.Thus his brevity regarding them. Perhaps the jury will have picked up on this as well.Mmmmmm!iain brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-18105764095427980492010-12-21T10:45:08.594+00:002010-12-21T10:45:08.594+00:00Hello Anon just fyi there was a brief mention of M...Hello Anon just fyi there was a brief mention of Mr and Mrs Cumberbirch and the one other eye witness from Cupids. The AD then asked the jury to consider their evidence<br /><br />Best Regards<br /><br />JamesJames Dolemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774046346905734191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-28463742034870399912010-12-21T10:24:38.537+00:002010-12-21T10:24:38.537+00:00so a receipt from Primark is powerful evidence - w...so a receipt from Primark is powerful evidence - what does that make the sick note from Andrew MacFarlane's doctor?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-55809807452461061702010-12-21T04:50:40.405+00:002010-12-21T04:50:40.405+00:00I find it surprising that there's no mention o...I find it surprising that there's no mention of the various witnesses called that are alleged to have met him at or after visiting Cupids, seeing as their lack of links to either the SSP or the NOTW is pretty compelling evidence for the theory that there is no conspiracy against Tommy Sheridan.<br /><br />Perhaps Alex Prentice mentioned the large number of unaligned witnesses in his concluding remarks though!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com