Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Tuesday Morning update

This morning the court had heard from the witnesses for the Defence. The first was Charlotte Ahmed, who testified that she had not been presented with any minutes of the 9th November executive meeting at subsequent meetings. Ian Fitzpatrick, who stated that he had known Mr Sheridan for many years and that, in his opinion the voice on the "McNeilage tape" is not that of Mr Sheridan and Phillip Stott who also told the court that he did not believe Mr Sheridan's voice was that heard on the tape.


Mr Sheridan was also asked by Lord Bracadale, the presiding judge, if he could give the jury an idea of how much longer his defence case would take. Mr Sheridan told the jury that he expected to be finished by Thursday or Friday of this week, weather permitting.


The court has now adjourned until tomorrow morning.


Full reports to follow.



98 comments:

Anonymous said...

Say the weather allows the rial to continue this week and TS finishes up on Friday. How long will the final speeches from TS, AP and Lord Brac take?

James Doleman said...

Mr Sheridan is not the only defendent anonymous.

Anonymous said...

Fprgot about GS, it's so long since she's been mentioned. Could it go on till New Year then?

Steve said...

Apologies to Muddy Waters, etc.
(12 bars)

Ah woke up this morning, with the Mike Gonzales blues, yeah,

Said aaah, woke up this morning, with the, talking Mike Gonzales blues,

He came good with Pat Smith on Monday but man,
When is James gonna give us the news (talking, Mike Gonzales blues)

Mike said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Correct me if i'm wrong but TS defense so far seems to be:- infamy imfamy they all have it imfamy ! !
The minutes and tape are not the only record of TS alleged confession - what about all those other witnssess - Gary Clark etc

Anonymous said...

James..

long time "lurker"..first comment

Mr Sheridan is not a "defendent"...or even a "defendant"...he is the accused...or possibly more accurately given it's a solemn case, the panel..

apart from that keep up the very very good work!!!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Admittedly, she is not, James. But we could be excused for getting that impression at times.

Mike said...

According to the BBC, Charlotte admitted that she hadn't actually looked at the papers she was given at a subsequent meeting.

So, not really much use to the defence then.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

From the BBC:

"She [Miss Ahmed] She said that on 24 November 2004, a bundle of documents was handed out to members of the executive who had to sign them in and out.

Miss Ahmed, 50, a chemistry teacher from Glasgow, said she had formed the impression the documents were to be destroyed following the meeting.

She said: "I didn't see any minutes at the meeting. We were given a bundle at the beginning of the meeting.

"I looked at what was at the top, but I didn't look through it. There was nothing that I would say was a minute."

Mr Sheridan, who is representing himself in the case, showed Ms Ahmed a document purporting to be a draft minute of the 9 November 2004 meeting.

She said she did not recognise it.

Advocate depute Alex Prentice QC asked her what had been in the bundle handed out at the 24 November meeting.

She replied: "A bundle of documents, most of which I didn't look at."

Mr Prentice told her: "You can't say it was not there, you can say you didn't see it. So it may have been there.""

Whatsy said...

>Moderation<

@Anonymous 1:41pm
"Correct me if i'm wrong but TS defense so far seems to be:- infamy imfamy they all have it imfamy ! !"

While I don't think this post breaks any rules, the "Imfamy Imfamy" gag is getting pretty old. So if anyone chooses to use it in future, just be aware that it will expose your comment to especial moderation attention.

That is all.
>Moderation Ends<

Anonymous said...

"2 people who say it doesn't sound like him on the tape" - didn't TS say? that he would be presenting "incontrovertible" evidence that it wasn't him on the tape, that the tape is in fact a "concoction"?

TheLateKennethWilliams said...

inferus, inferus...no, that doesn't work. sorry.

Own goal with the Fitzpatrick guy with Prentice getting to show Tommy saying his voice is on the tape.

Anonymous said...

For our viewers down South "infamy" is the Scotch equivalent of "in fae me" which translated into English is "in for me".

Boomerang said...

Mr. Whatsy.

At the risk of hoots of "Ooh Matron" can we take it that should anyone attempt that phrase again it will be a case of the Kybers - as in "Fakir. Off!". :o)

Ah... the plain, simple (and politically incorrect) humour of times past.

Steve said...

No, "in fae me" would mean "in from me", which wouldn't mean anything, unless the jury decides otherwise of course.

Whatsy said...

@Anonymous 3:17pm
"didn't TS say? that he would be presenting "incontrovertible" evidence that it wasn't him on the tape"

Did he? I'm not sure he did. Try using the Search function on this site to find out...

Colin Q said...

Yes the incontrovertible evidence is that he claims he doesn't swear, making the tape fatally flawed.

Hardly The Rockford Files

Whatsy said...

T be fair, Colin Q, there have been quite a few witnesses, for both Crown & Defence, who have testified that TS doesn't normally swear.

And thanks a lot for putting "The Rockford Files" theme tune in my head.

Steve said...

No, "incontrovertible evidence" is a phrase from the alleged tape itself, according to the Herald:

http://breakingnews.heraldscotland.com/breaking-news/?mode=article&site=hs&id=N0138841292326885710A

Funny, I remember that C4 interview - Jon Snow pushed Sheridan quite hard as to what his position was.

Anonymous said...

Who amongst us can honestly say that we never f!"£$%^ swear?

Colin Q said...

It could have been worse, I didn't mention Hawaii-5-0

Anonymous said...

The funny thing about swearing is that we swear a lot more then even we ourselves f!"£$%^ realise. Maybe TS does genuinely believe that he doesn't f!"£$%^& swear.

yulefae said...

Anonymous said...
"2 people who say it doesn't sound like him on the tape" - didn't TS say? that he would be presenting "incontrovertible" evidence that it wasn't him on the tape, that the tape is in fact a "concoction"?

December 14, 2010 3:17 PM

Anon 4 crown witnesses say the exact same it was him,who do you believe?

The crown have not proved anything about the tape only McNeilege was alledgedly present when this tape was made,no expert to verify it,s TS,sounds like in my opinion is Not Proven.
How does Bob Bird know it,s TS? because McNEILEDGE TOLD HIM AND IT SOUNDS LIKE HIM,if i was to make a tape of Bob Bird and play it to you,your answer would be it might be i cant see him.

Another thing you miss is these 2 witnesses said the reason it,s not him is he doesn,t speak the way it is on the tape

Sir Brian Hine said...

For the attention of those present: was Lord Brac's question regarding when Mr Sheridan's defence would be likely to end, asked as a matter of fact, or was his Lordship perhaps becoming impatience with the type and direction Mr Sheridan's defence is taking?

Peter said...

Not quite sure that you have it quite right Mike.

It is not (as I understand it) the prosecution indictment that it is actually Sheridan on the tape "confessing" as he cannot be seen on it.

The Crown case is that the soundtrack partly contains a voice of someone that some people who know Sheridan think it sounds like Sheridan but that it is not possible to say any more than that.

Colin Fox and a policeman (who are not specialist) were put forward by the Crown to say it "sounds like" Sheridan.

The defence have (so far) simply countered the evidence of those two Crown witnesses by providing other people who know Sheridan (who are also not experts) to say it does not sound like him.

So it's a reasonable doubt on the tape and if the Crown case is based on it the case fails.

It, is, however, probably just a bit of a "mood piece" to support the other statements that Sherdian allegedly confessed to rather than a serious bit of forensic evidence that stands alone.

The Crown need to try and get the jury to consider it is at least possible that Sheridan was going around confessing to all and sundry in the SSP to his intimate sex life. On the face of it seems extremely unlikely so a tape of someone who sounds like Sheridan may help set the mood.

If you thik the Crown should have (if it treated the video seriously) have presented more detailed forensic evidence about it then you will not be alone on this blog.

Interesting tactics by the Crown some may think.

In the light of the series of investigative errors that appear to have occurred in relation to this case there may be a simple explanation.

Consider: the Bob Bird revelations about the offers to Trolle and Khan; the Cupids visit clashing with the the Cultural Festival; the Aberdeen Stop The War meeting clashing with the alleged visit to Trolles house; and the whole debacle around the collapse Moat House issue.

They are all possibly strong indicators that the police did not check out some bits of evidence as carefully as they should have - and they are not the only ones.

That rush to judgment is always a danger when plod think they have their man.

The news today of the disaster that is the Forensics Service may also hold a clue.

It appears at least a possibility that Prentice has been sold yet another pup by the doughty investigators in Lothians police who passed the video as kosher.

Whatsy said...

@Sir Brian Hine

Seemed a very straightforward question to me - and answered in a straightforward way. I didn't sense any irritation.

Blasphemy said...

Whatsy, Doesn't NORMALLY swear-
From G McN cross: ''Mr Sheridan then stated that there was a "fatal flaw" in the tape.
Mr Sheridan put it to Mr McNeilage that on the tape the voice allegedly of Tommy Sheridan swears "115 times in 38 minutes" and that in 30 years of knowing him had he ever heard him swear like that. Mr McNeilage replied that night he had saw a "different person" and "I saw the real Tommy Sheridan, that is you." Mr Sheridan then stated that, what he called, the "C word" is used 9 times on the recording and that "I don't use that word." Mr McNeilage said "of course you use it, you say it at football."

I know many people who don't NORMALLY swear in every day conversation but do when under pressure or excited/agitated.

Next Point from same cross:
''Mr Sheridan told the court he would be producing an expert witness who would testify that the tape had been "selectively edited"

Doesn't that also contradict TS's attempts today to show that it's not him?

Anonymous said...

But with all due respect, Yulfae, the tape ON ITS OWN as a piece of evidence would POSSIBLY fail due to a lack of corroboration and I don't believe for one minute that TS would on trial if all the Crown had was the tape. The Crown's contention is that the tape IS corroborated by witness statements, the details on the tape etc. And previously TS appear to argue? that the tape was compiled with information obtained by bugging his phone, it now appears (at least according to the Detective Chief Inspector) from the Metropolitan Police that there was no bugging operation on TS's phone. This, in my opinion, makes the tape an even stronger piece of evidence.

Sceptic said...

" it now appears (at least according to the Detective Chief Inspector) from the Metropolitan Police that there was no bugging operation on TS's phone. "

I'd advise you to go read what the Superintendent actually said, not what you think he said.

Whatsy said...

@Sceptic - agree with you on that.

Anonymous said...

With all due respect, Peter, the arguments that you make against the tape have all been gone through before. Really, what is more plausible, that is really is TS on the tape? An actor? "Quentin Tarantino" production? Add in the "mood pieces" and "background noise" of the witnesses statements and in my opinion there is Sufficiency in Law to Convict the Sheridans, but of course that is for the Jury to decide.

CB said...

Yulfae

Please make a tape purporting to be McNeilage admitting to various naughty actions - even if we can't see him - and let's find out if you can make it convincing, or if it would turn out to be "mince".

YouTube would be fine for this enterprise.

You can make your McNeilage swear or not, as you please.

Peter said...

Anons are you still not aware of the advantageous position you are all now in to pick a subtle/witty/poignant user name and win a prize?

Knowing what the prize is I wish I could turn the clock back and pick a better user name.

If anyone picks "Credulous" or "Danegold" I have heard from the comp. judge they will join the front runners .... but its early days yet and that will be for the jury to decide, allegedly, IMHO - (insert Sheridan Trial blog cliche / platitude).

"Anon" by the way is bringing up the rear. Oooeer!

Anonymous said...

Aye, CB, why hasn't someone put up a youtube video of George McNeilage, Bob Bird etc. confessing to all sorts just to prove that point if it can be that easily done?

Anonymous said...

Spectic: "I'd advise you to go read what the Superintendent actually said, not what you think he said."

From the Herald:


DSI Williams:

“All I can say is there was no information in our system relevant to you. We have phone data from that period. It does not relate to you.”

Make of that what you will.

Tommy Trial Addict said...

CB

If I had several hours of McNeilage's mobile phone calls recorded on tape I could easily create a tape of him saying all sorts of weird stuff with a bit of judicious audio editing.

It is not hard to do, just time consuming to do it well.

Sceptic said...

I make of it that the Superintendent did not say "your phone was not hacked" especially as he also said he "did not know" how many other phones had, and had managed to prove a total of 1.

Anonymous said...

@ Spectic, as DSI William himself said, how does this "phone-hacking" business "shed light" on the matter of alleged Perjury. Some of us genuinely don't "get it".

Bobby said...

As we are also nearing the trial's end, I am wondering if anyone knows what the procedure is at the end of the trial: i.e. if TS is found innocent, what happens to the NotW appeal? Does it continue?

Also, if TS is found guilty, can he appeal? Would he be sentenced immediately?

Sceptic said...

Nice gear change there anon. The DCS saying Tommy was not hacked is terrible news for Tommy Sheridan. That fact that he in fact did not say that makes the whole issue unimportant.

Hmmm.

James Doleman said...

Hello Bobby, we may be near the end but we are not there yet. I'd be happier if we did not get into those issues just yet.

Bobby said...

Ahh OK sorry :)

Anonymous said...

Tommy castigates the police for not investigating his case thoroughly, fair enough!
He then produces witnesses in his defence who refused to give the police statements, well you cant have your cake and eat it Tommy!

Peter said...

We videosceptics don't need to create a You Tube video to prove our point. Just check out the alleged Britney Spears tape out this week(no not that one clam down). Ironically it was our old friend Owl Investigations who looked at the tape for the Spears camp. Britney claims it was not her. Owl backed (their very rich client up. They have came up with various explanations about how a tape can be tampered with but that tampering can be masked. The lad she allegedly called (that childhood friend who she married in Vegas that time) was so convinced it was her that he immediately sold the story to the media. Strange what close friends / ex partners will do for cash. So maybe the lesson is that people just hear what they want to hear depending on the cirumstances. (Sorry should have given Sheridan Trial blog cliche alert.) People have different motivations for saying it is and is not Sheridan.(edited by JD)

Legally Challenged said...

Whatsy

be fair, Colin Q, there have been quite a few witnesses, for both Crown & Defence, who have testified that TS doesn't normally swear.

And thanks a lot for putting "The Rockford Files" theme tune in my head.

December 14, 2010 3:43 PM

Fu

Thanks to you Whatst by finishing one of your posts with "Hello Hello" placed in my head a well know Glasgow football team supporters chant.

TheLateKennethWilliams said...

There is something Pythonesque about a man calling witnesses to say a man, who everyone can hear, doesn't sound like him.

Max said...

Peter,

Note you saying you had viewed tape several times.
I only saw a clip on the tele some time ago and I'm convinced the alleged figure of TS crosses in fron of the lenses in front of McNeilage sitted opposite the camera. Is this as you recall.?

Campbell McGregor said...

Tapes can certainly be tampered with, but experts can often spot this. For example, the famous "Squidgy" tape with Princess Diana was examined by an expert, who concluded that it was a genuine telephone conversation, but a conversation over a normal land line which had been tampered with to make it sound like a mobile phone call.

Anonymous said...

Exactly, Kenneth Williams. From evidence heard so far,it appears that there are three hypotheses regarding the tape. One, that it is a genuine recording of a conversation featuring the accused. Two that it a "concoction" including a splicing of different voices. Three, that it is a genuine recording of a scripted dialogue featuring actors, albeit with 10 minute section deleted (perhaps for costume change/prompting). It seems that the defence is relying on option three. We could infer that this is because it has been impossible to disprove its authenticity as a recording. Notwithstanding the crown's responsibility to prove guilt, the crown may believe therefore that it is rather obviously a genuine recording, and counterproductive to produce expert forensic testimony since they feel it is so obviously genuine. The question focuses therefore on the plausibility of the "actor" theory that the defence is evidently promoting, in conjuction with the wider notion of a conspiracy involving the media, the police, the state, the SSP and an array of individuals motivated by financial gain and personal envy.

Anonymous said...

Campbell McGregor, they do this a lot of the time with (radio) adverts etc, record it in the studio and "tamper" with it to make it sound like the person is on the 'phone, lying on a sun-bed or something to give the (false) impression that they are just an ordinary person, not someone trying to sell you something. So obvious though, and nothing that is going to stand up to forensic examination. With these kind of things you just "know".

Earwig said...

The human ear is a very sensitive organ and its powers of perception and ability to detect the very slightest nuances in sound should not be under-estimated.

Justsaying said...

TheLateKennethWilliams I did like that point, however what Mr Sheridan was asking the witnesses to testify on was what he sounds like outside court, in private with friends. I do swear on ocassion but I'm pretty sure I'd avoid it if, god forbid, I was defending myself in the High Court.

Campbell McGregor said...

I do have my own view about which witnesses are telling the truth and which are not in this case. However this is based to a large extent on various events which took place in the SSP during 2004-06. I understand and respect Jim's view that for legal reasons there are limits to what can be discussed on this blog.

TheLateKennethWilliams said...

Yes, just saying. But Mr Sheridan is banking on the opinion of these people influencing jurors who can hear him and the tape and will, unless they are spectacularly odd, make up their own mind on the basis of hearing both. It's bizarre.

Peter said...

You'll have to do Better Max (see what I did there).

Yes you are right the "alleged" figure of a possible Sheridan crosses the room.

Just as a person (who may or may not be the same person in the video) says some things on the soundtrack supposedly in 2004 - the text of which could have been taken from the narrative of the pre-libel trial period, the libel trial period and the post libel trial period in 2006.

Some people think it is Sheridan some do not.

Anybodys guess really. I give up.

As well as the "Britney" tape did you catch the new Jacko LP that will be in many aging hipsters white stockings this Chrimbo?

His close relatives felt that whilst the voice sounded like him thye felt it was most likely not.

The record company in light of the objections claim to have done "due diligence" and got people who were in the recording sessions to give verifying statements and even produced a forensic voice expert who claimed it was him.

After pointing out the benefit to the Jackson estate of everyone agreeig it is Jacko, the pointless cost of litigation and the effect any further queries would have on sales objections were apparently dropped.

So we will now be having a "Jackson" album for the next 7 Xmases.

After me now: Pren ... tice .... is just a guy ... who claims Tam is the one ....but the tape is not of Tam (allegedly)

Max said...

James,

Could you ignore previous post from me.?

Dancing Queen said...

What about all those Abba "tribute" bands... whose is to say that it is not really Agnetha, Benny, Bjorn, and Anifreid - See what I did there, Peter.

yulefae said...

Why did McNELIEGE not make sure the camera was actually going to catch the face of the person he was going to dupe?,because you can clearly see him on it,i would have thought it easy enough to place the person your going to tape where he sat on his arse.

The NOTW and the crown have had long enough to produce an expert to verify this tape.


My opinion is that it has been tampered with and this is the sole reason they have not produced a witness.

They produce a witness and and the case is home and dry,AP is struggling my opinion,with the dross he introduced to the court.

TS,s witnesses have been head and shoulders above

Anonymous said...

yulefae,

no serious analysis of the last two days of court activity can conclude that these witnesses have been helpful to Sheridan.

Max said...

Ta Peter.

Tried to snatch back last question as would you believe, clip referred to appeared on BBC Scotland just after I sent, well almost.
Not definitive as too quick for me to be certain of exact position of GMcN at opening of scene.
Would need to see the beginning and wonder if it has ever been shown. The loss of the last 10 mins is talked about but is there some loss at the beginning. I expected to see GMcN backing away from the camera after switching it on, hear noises as he moved around awaiting his visitor or see him sitting expectantly awaiting the door bell. Then hear the door bell, the sound and or sight of GMcN heading for the door, the door being opened, the sound of voices etc.and the footsteps coming allong the Hall with the alleged figure proceeding GMcN into view. Do you recall if all this happen in the full tape?.
If it does, it doesnt prove its veracity but if it dosn't, then why not?

Whatsy said...

@Anonymous 7:18pm
"no serious analysis of the last two days of court activity can conclude that these witnesses have been helpful to Sheridan"

Go on then - I'm on tenterhooks.

Watcher said...

Anon seems to believe that any analysis can only be "Serious" if he agrees with it.

I assume you have not been in court the last few days and observed the body language of the prosecution team?

Anonymous said...

GMcN could have just turned the camera on by remote control when the door-bell rang at the alleged time and thrown the controller into the toy-box or something. Does kind of look like TS on that video, in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

In the video you can see TS? an actor? entering the living-room? and seating himself on an armchair.

Anonymous said...

The thing about a camera facing someone's face is that you are very likely to see the camera, we all have a six-sense that we are being watched. With the size of the lense on a camcorder? there would be no way of really concealing it. It looks from the video that someone has gone out of there way to make sure that the camera was as "hidden" as possible.

Anonymous said...

What difference would it really make if there was a clear shot of a face, TS's face. I suspect that it would be suggested that it was a "look-alike", and I suppose that witnesses could still be called to state that the guy on the video looked nothing like TS, in my opinion.

Dex said...

DSI Williams:

“All I can say is there was no information in our system relevant to you. We have phone data from that period. It does not relate to you.”


Just doesn't work as an argument, it's officious evasion.

As to the tape and it's veracity - can those who think the tape is real answer this...if it was an hour long and TS made phone calls just before the start and just before the end of the presented edit, why cut out those bits? They'd be cast iron proof.

yulefae said...

Anon,these witnesses were all professional people who in my opinion would not lie,and gave their evidence in the manner they were brought up to be,not the dross produced by the Crown.

Read a comment earlier about the judge getting tired of the same stuff,go to the Crown case and you have repeat repeat repeat,no need for five six seven,coming in and saying the same thing,and they were spitting bile

Anonymous said...

Yulefay said.....7.03pm


'Why did McNELIEGE not make sure the camera was actually going to catch the face of the person he was going to dupe?,because you can clearly see him on it,i would have thought it easy enough to place the person your going to tape where he sat on his arse.'

Agreed, but the absence of even a mirror or even some reflective surfaces also tells its tale.
Suggests the preparation might hsver included ensuring the absence of such for some reason.

Anonymous said...

Is the suggestion not that TS?/the actor? made the calls before entering and after leaving the property that the tape was allegedly made at?

Anonymous said...

Why are the media showing the excerpts of the video anyway - don't they usually wait until the trial is over?

Anonymous said...

Yulfae - Professor Nicholas Mc Kerrell was a very professional person with his career still in progress. According to this blog Mike Gonzales is retired so he has a lot less to lose if you want to look at it that way.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said 7.37pm

'GMcN could have just turned the camera on by remote control when the door-bell rang at the alleged time and thrown the controller into the toy-box or something. Does kind of look like TS on that video, in my opinion.'

OK but it doesn't answer the question!
We should still see the empty seat awaiting GMcN, the clatter of the remote landing in the toy box, the feet in the hall etc etc.?

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:02 The camera could have been controlled by one of those "mulit-controllers", it could have been sat on the seat beside G McN. TS?/the actor? would have been none the wiser. Turning down a TV would have been an ideal pretext.

Wullie McG said...

Ever heard of "Democratic Centralism" yulefae?

Anonymous said...

the one point we have missed is that TS was not being himself through all this, his best man/friend said he had turned into an ar*e and turned on those who had supported him (which he did in court to his best friend and basically called the guy a not very nice person, dragged up his past) and when they did not support him for going after the paper the toy went out the parm and he started well all of this in motion. If he indeed dig himself into a ditch he may have become erractic enough to rant on more than he does normally.

He is supposed to have sworn at Francis when she did not support him for going after the paper.

Not on any side just saying that certain things are missing from our discussion here.

Anonymous said...

BBC Scotland 6.30 news showed a report of Tommy stating that his voice may be in sections of the video. Where does this leave the evidence of witnesses who said the voice was not that of Tommy.
Even Tommy at one time believed it to be his voice and that the tape was a clips of his voice edited together.

Watcher said...

With respect anon Sheridan said that two days after the video had appeared on the news of the world website, he had not had time to look at a copy. He said it might be spliced or it might be an actor, not unreasonable when you have not seen it properly.

It certainly did not make a big splash in court IMHO.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:01, BBC Scotland did not show{~] a report of Tommy stating that his voice may be in sections of the video. What they showed was a video of someone? TS? an actor? purporting to be TS "stating that his voice may be in sections of the video."

Anonymous said...

@ Seriously Wathcher, two days after the NotW had posted it and TS hadn't got round to watching it!? If it had been me, I would have been on the NotW website like shot.

Max said...

anon 8.41
'He is supposed to have sworn at Francis when she did not support him for going after the paper.'

Yes, she claimed that, but what was crucially significant in my view is that she also told us that TS was unaware of having confessed the day before at the 9/11 meeting. This amongst other things has convinced me that she and the others out to remove TS had made their minds up and it wouldnt have mattered what he had said ( as Peter has expounded on earlier.)

Bunc said...

Oh god no - the conspiracy grows - you mean the BBC has allegedly faked a tape of an alleged actor allegedly faking a response to an allegedly faked tape that they allegedly hadn't watched?
I need to lay down.

Sir Brian Hine said...

This is an excellent and informative blog James, as many have said already.

Would it not be possible to prevent people from replying as Anon? I'm not sure if you can see IP addresses (I assume you can) but post after post from Anon (the majority of which seem to be taking the same side, if I can say that) reduces the impact of the comments section.

One last time Anon's choose a name, any name! - or don't post at all please. What have you got to hide that you can't think of a random name??

James Doleman said...

Bunc, could you remember to say allegedly?

Thanks

J

James Doleman said...

Hello Sir Brian, I don't track IP addresses and while it would be easier if people chose a name they have a perfect right not to.

Just to mention again, you do not have to register, just click on the third button below "Name/URL" and you can choose any name you want

Anonymous said...

well they got what they wanted even if TS walks free he is still out of their hair and doubt he will get voted back in into the council again. He will just turn up at events shouting the way he used to get on the telly poor guy is more of a joke now.

Bunc said...

Allegedly.

( sorry - I couldn't resist the temptation)

Sir Brian Hine said...

@ Whatsy 4.03

Thanks for the reply. USeful to have that clarified by those that were there.

Bunc said...

On a more serious note -

In my view, whatever the legal outcome of this trial the political outcome for the socialist left on Scotland is dire. It's been a damaging expose of the factionalism that seems to dog socialist politics ( same stuff was going on in my former Trot fringe IMG days at Uni - we hated the IS and they us.) It's all quite Pythonesque really.

Peoples United Liberation Front vs United peoples Liberation Front anyone?

None of the personalities in this come out with any great credit.

Anonymous said...

good one Bunc alhough you have to say the People's Judean front were at least funny.

Neckhlyudov said...

Peter said

Some people think it is Sheridan some do not.
Anybodys guess really. I give up.


Imagine you were the victim of a serious frame-up, instituted by a close friend in alliance with a national newspaper, where your identity was fabricated using an actor and you were portrayed as admitting to sexual engagements that could have serious marital and career repercussions. Imagine you get the opportunity to cross examine under oath the editor who authorised the purchase of the bogus tape for £200,000. How much focus would you place on the fake recording during the cross-examination and how would you be able to resist accusing the editor of either chicanery or crass stupidity? In the imagined scenario, T.S. would have had the opportunity to take apart, and even destroy, the career of, No 10’s Tory Director of Communications.

And what do we get? In approximately 3,750 words of James’ report of the cross examination, Sheridan’s direct reference to the tape is covered in less than 200 words –less than 6% of the total. There is no attempt to establish the tape as a fabrication – no attempt to mock the judgement of an editor who spent £200,000 of his employer’s money on a supposedly counterfeit item. If anything, the tape is introduced in a token manner and then conspicuously avoided until A. P. refers to it later.

That T.S. protests too little in an encounter of such significance indicates the tape is genuine.

Anonymous said...

But tape is genuine = Sheridan is guilty, does it not?! Let's no got there... back to the "actor" theory... What if...

James Doleman said...

"approximately 3,750 words of James’ report of the cross examination"

Really? I must admit I've never counted.

Neckhlyudov said...

I've often thought that what T.S. neglects to focus on (demanded by the witness's testimony or status) is as revealing as what he asks. His cross examinations of Nicholas McKerrell, Andy Coulson and, yes, Katrine Trolle come to mind.

Max said...

Neckhlyudov

Just teasing us or are you going to you explain?