tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post8845493689209575677..comments2023-06-26T15:18:06.600+01:00Comments on The Sheridan Trial: Friday UpdateUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-15571329218595420912010-12-20T12:59:05.441+00:002010-12-20T12:59:05.441+00:00(Yet another) Anon @ 5.26 wrote:
This thread is a...(Yet another) Anon @ 5.26 wrote:<br /><br />This thread is a fascinating example of the CSI effect.<br /><br />Well, that's 2 minutes of my life I won't get back.<br /><br />Interesting thing is Anon, it will be for the jury to decide if there is really ANY evidence from the Crown, other than the "tape".<br /><br />Thankfully we're not talking about a serious and/or vicious crime against a person here - where forensic evidence is often used to secure a conviction.<br /><br />But the 'tape' appears to be the central production - no forensic evidence has been offered by either side, as far as I know. So it will be for the jury to decide using their ears.Sir Brian Hinenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-2353254879131851932010-12-19T17:26:08.093+00:002010-12-19T17:26:08.093+00:00This thread is a fascinating example of the CSI ef...This thread is a fascinating example of the CSI effect.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effectAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-15104508161898578252010-12-19T16:25:46.469+00:002010-12-19T16:25:46.469+00:00Thanks James.Thanks James.Kojaknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-73469409558604970242010-12-19T16:15:20.943+00:002010-12-19T16:15:20.943+00:00Hello Kojak, not much really. We also heard that t...Hello Kojak, not much really. We also heard that the number you use for accessing voicemail of vodafone is 121, that Tommy Sheridan had raised an action against the News of the World in 2004. That was about it.<br /><br />Best Regards<br /><br />JamesJames Dolemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774046346905734191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-16780437472300405072010-12-19T16:10:19.088+00:002010-12-19T16:10:19.088+00:00"After the witnesses were heard from, Mr Sher..."After the witnesses were heard from, Mr Sheridan then read the jury a "joint minute of agreement." Lord Bracadale, the judge presiding, explained to the jury that this showed evidence not presented to them but that both sides in the case agreed was true. It was therefore considered "proved." The joint minute had nine points, the main ones being that both Fiona McGuire and Glenn Mulcaire had been cited in the case but had produced medical certificates that stated they were not fit to attend court, that Andrew McFarlane had been operated on at Gartnavel General hospital on 20/08/2002 and had been certified as unfit to work by a medical centre on 26/09/2010, and that various phone numbers did belong to the people and organisations stated".<br /><br />James would it be possible for you to give us the rest of what else was on the "Joint Minute"?Kojaknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-87237877742430622642010-12-19T14:56:04.715+00:002010-12-19T14:56:04.715+00:00For goodness sake a woman in cleared in court afte...For goodness sake a woman in cleared in court after 44 days and you find it "odd" she was moved to tears?<br /><br />That really is desperate stuff, what could motivate anyone to say that?Debatornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-22381331791142196032010-12-19T14:50:00.853+00:002010-12-19T14:50:00.853+00:00Anon 2:12, I agree too. I also find it odd how GS ...Anon 2:12, I agree too. I also find it odd how GS burst into a flood of tears as if it has come as a complete shock to her. A complete shock to someone DIRECTLY involved in the case but not to readers of a blogging site?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-18700382233123329912010-12-19T14:12:14.001+00:002010-12-19T14:12:14.001+00:00anon 1249, I agree, McBride and, by extension, bot...anon 1249, I agree, McBride and, by extension, both Sheridans qould have been aware of the 'downs' from at least the end of the prosecution case, possibly before that.anon 1237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-52893504029105736282010-12-19T12:51:41.617+00:002010-12-19T12:51:41.617+00:00If GS had wanted to know when she would be release...If GS had wanted to know when she would be released all she had to to was read this excellent blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-63089352321059539692010-12-19T12:49:33.748+00:002010-12-19T12:49:33.748+00:00Anon 12:37 I would be really surprised too if McBr...Anon 12:37 I would be really surprised too if McBride hadn't anticipated this "surprise move" a while back, maybe like 10 weeks ago for all we know... nod, nod... wink, winkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-61051975337352776192010-12-19T12:37:38.904+00:002010-12-19T12:37:38.904+00:00legal macaw, you cannot assume all of that from Pr...legal macaw, you cannot assume all of that from Prentice's statement, McBride knew that it couldnt stand up to a jury as no evidence against this charge was presented in court. He was being kind to Prentice, probably on a nod and a wink. McBride would have known that this was getting dropped well befire it happened.<br /><br />For a jury to consider it, they would have had to introduce Mrs Sheridans diaries during their case. From what I can see, they didnt.<br /><br />They may have had 'suffiency' but they didnt use it. That tells this legal person that the deal was done some time ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-61880949530671059282010-12-19T12:13:05.055+00:002010-12-19T12:13:05.055+00:00Will all due respect, Sceptic you couldn't be ...Will all due respect, Sceptic you couldn't be further from the truth. Tommy the Trial Addict has got is sussed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-31815543905821886122010-12-19T12:06:33.818+00:002010-12-19T12:06:33.818+00:00I think McBride allowed Prentice to keep some dign...I think McBride allowed Prentice to keep some dignity, imagine what he would have said if the Crown had dared put that pile of nonsense in front of a jury?Scepticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-75572198735253225482010-12-19T12:04:04.022+00:002010-12-19T12:04:04.022+00:00"To a non-legal person it appears that McBrid..."To a non-legal person it appears that McBride has basically said: "Yep, you had grounds to go to the jury with this and they may well have convicted my client." - spot on Tommy - and that's from a legal person!Legal Macawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-88818006725961028682010-12-19T11:41:14.272+00:002010-12-19T11:41:14.272+00:00Tommy Trial addict - in a criminal trial an accuse...Tommy Trial addict - in a criminal trial an accused is primarily and immediately concerned with "getting out the front door". Why would you want to take the risk of being "vindicated by a jury" when there was an escape route open?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-602780963487778832010-12-19T11:20:27.988+00:002010-12-19T11:20:27.988+00:00the evidence from Fox was that Sheridan was in a h...the evidence from Fox was that Sheridan was in a hotel in Edinburgh that morning. We have seen in court that he was actually in Cumnock. Why didnt the police check that out as it was in Sheridans diary. there was no evidence for the subornation charge other than Fox's word. that should never have made it to a courtAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-6296045700540382982010-12-19T09:51:31.395+00:002010-12-19T09:51:31.395+00:00Perry Freemason,on your point re. the subornation ...Perry Freemason,on your point re. the subornation charge re. Colin Fox. Yes it was dropped due to lack of corroboration. However many doubtless believe that TS did try to get him commit perjury,just it couldnt stand up in Court. I think i am correct that Sheridan admitted asking Fox not to support (in his opinion) an incorrect minute which had been drafted in such manner as to frame him. That ,IMO, is a far cry from attempting to suborn Fox and i humbly suggest that had the charge proceeded it may have fallen anyway. However as this is now accademic we will never know what the jury might have decided.iain brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-56999244741030159362010-12-19T03:12:06.700+00:002010-12-19T03:12:06.700+00:00Perry,
Why did McBride accept there was a "...Perry, <br /><br />Why did McBride accept there was a "sufficiency of evidence".<br /><br />The diaries were entered into evidence and accepted by both sides as "proven".<br /><br />GS's diary and TS's diary did not corroborate Gail's claim at the defamation trial that she had "checked her and her husband's diaries" and that this showed she was with her husband every weekend at the dates in question.<br /><br />The indictment stated that: "You had recorded in your diary that you had travelled to Miami on Tuesday 20 November 2001 and you were in Miami on the weekend of 24 and 25 November 2001 and that said Thomas Sheridan had recorded in his diary that you were away between 21 and 28 November 2001;<br /><br />"You were in Miami (as the PROVEN diary shows) on 24 and 25 November 2001 and you did thus not spend every weekend in November 2001 with said Thomas Sheridan."<br /><br />Was this "sufficiency of evidence"?<br /><br />It looks pretty sufficient to me.<br /><br />To a non-legal person it appears that McBride has basically said: "Yep, you had grounds to go to the jury with this and they may well have convicted my client."<br /><br />But, and I know I have already asked this, why would he do that?<br /><br />Why not say – 'No, I don't accept it'.<br /><br />If I was on the jury I would be perplexed by this aspect of the case.<br /><br />I get what Deniizen says about the Crown protecting their butt but I feel I am missing something important.Tommy Trial addictnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-14729679928318646352010-12-19T03:08:19.895+00:002010-12-19T03:08:19.895+00:00I really think that Rupert Murdoch has got bigger ...I really think that Rupert Murdoch has got bigger fish to fry than the Sheridans; I can just imagine him stomping up and down in rage at Tommy's "victory" lol<br /><br />not being a fly on the wall at Fleet Street (or wherever) i can't imagine old Rupert was delighted by the 2006 verdict. Rupert Murdoch's bread and butter has been smashing left wingers/ the working class for his whole career!<br /><br />This is only my opinion of course, right or wrong. For me it is more important who has been pushing this investigation, and ignoring the other allegations of phone tapping. <br /><br />Others here may have more knowledge about how the police work, but I imagine if allegations were made involving one of the wealthiest and well connected companies in the UK breaking the law, I doubt it was the head of Lothian and Borders police made the decisions how to investigate the case alone. IMHO,i think input has come from the highest levels of government. These questions will not be answered whatever the jury decides but hope the court cases down south get some answers.blogaholicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-35484570617968672122010-12-19T01:01:31.273+00:002010-12-19T01:01:31.273+00:00exactly anon, it wouldnt make it that far, but if ...exactly anon, it wouldnt make it that far, but if it did it could be said to have "suffiency of evidence".<br /><br />As we are talking about Gail's remaining charge which has less evidence than my scenario. If Gail had been the only accused the charge wouldnt be at this stage.<br /><br />As the prosecution didnt enter evidence on this it doesnt even have a witness or any corroboration<br /><br />Look at the Fox subornation charge, anyone can see that this wasnt competent, yet they brought it to court.Perry Freemasonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-41583743491108725242010-12-18T23:53:47.402+00:002010-12-18T23:53:47.402+00:00Perry Free Mason, the scenario you are describing ...Perry Free Mason, the scenario you are describing would never be put in front of a Jury; it is not legally competent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-77665622838722996102010-12-18T23:45:19.641+00:002010-12-18T23:45:19.641+00:00tommy trial addict.
Denizen is wrong because it i...tommy trial addict.<br /><br />Denizen is wrong because it is not the juridiction of a defence QC to decide on those matters, no matter what he concedes in court.<br /><br />He isnt wrong on the point of false arrest or harrassment not being brought, I dont think that is a possibility. He is wrong to think that Prentice's statement about 'suffiency of evidence' is the reason for thatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-77481872778043126072010-12-18T23:28:39.455+00:002010-12-18T23:28:39.455+00:00Thanks for the replies Denizen and Perry.
You bot...Thanks for the replies Denizen and Perry.<br /><br />You both seem to be saying the same thing about "sufficiency of evidence" and yet Perry is saying you are wrong.<br /><br />I take it you are both right in your own way but for different reasons and at least I kind of get the drift now.<br /><br />This legal language is hard work!Tommy Trial Addictnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-68637935739771897862010-12-18T22:56:22.898+00:002010-12-18T22:56:22.898+00:00Hello Neckhlyudov you made a number of excellent p...Hello Neckhlyudov you made a number of excellent points but I'm afraid you were a bit, in my opinion, "conclusive". Could you possibly rephrase with that in mind and I'm be happy to post your contribution.<br /><br />Best Regards<br /><br />JamesJames Dolemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774046346905734191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-86610443942535637692010-12-18T17:05:37.792+00:002010-12-18T17:05:37.792+00:00I really think that Rupert Murdoch has got bigger ...I really think that Rupert Murdoch has got bigger fish to fry than the Sheridans; I can just imagine him stomping up and down in rage at Tommy's "victory" lolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com