Thursday, December 30, 2010

The Verdict Aftermath

Duncan Brown, a freelance photographer, has kindly allowed us to post some photographs taken in the aftermath of Tommy Sheridan's guilty verdict last Thursday. Of all the pictures I have seen taken from  outside the court that day these are, in my opinion, the best. 

You can find more of Duncan's work on his Flicker Page Here


knock knock said...

the last picture thats black and white looks photoshopped. didnt see the guy in the middle in any of the press pics and doesnt tie in with the ones above it.

do i win a kitkat for the spot?

is it you james, whatsy or is that sheridan trial thats been put "i the picture" lol

James Doleman said...

Hello knock knock, are you trying to win the prize for oddest comment of the month!

The picture is not photoshopped, it is taken after the statements of Gail Sheridan and Mr Anwar when that group
is trying to get through the scrum of reporters and photographers.


DuncanB said...

Yes I'm always in the habit of dropping people into the middle of my shots...not. I'm baffled why you think I would want to do that.

Well to be totally honest it is actually 'photoshopped', but no more than cropped with the contrast/brightness and colour fiddled with. There few press photographs that haven't had that happened to them.

DuncanB said...

I don't take pics for the SUN I have standards you know

James Doleman said...

Hello Knock Knock, lets not go there please.

Best Regards


Jessica Fletcher P.I. said...

I take it the guy with the sign that read "LIAR" at the bottom was a supporter of Sheridan, and that it was just unfortunate they way it looked on the screen.

Can anyone tell me what the full sign said please?

James Doleman said...

Hello Jessica, the full sign read:

"George McNeilage



The Sun and the Record cropped the first two lines.

Jessica Fletcher P.I. said...

Thanks James.

From the Herald picture I can see something about "drug" as well.

The live BBC coverage had pretty much the same shot as the Record and Sun to begin with, but quickly zoomed in to take it out.



James Doleman said...

Hello Raphie

Sorry but we do not publish comments of that nature, if you wish to read our comments policy you can find it here.

Best Regards


Anonymous said...

That's the aftermath.

Steve said...

Hi James,

I see you're on page eight of the NOTW today. Not sure if you intend to sue for defamation, but you deserve a right of reply at least - and might find a use for the publicity one the shock wears off!

paw said...


January 1, 2011 2:58 AM

This is odd. You are possibly;

1) Anne Colvin who was cited to appear as a witness in this trial but was not called to give testimony - in my opinion, because the prosecution started started off evidence in this Moathouse "chapter" by disastrously calling Matthew McColl. You may have something else interesting to tell us about this abandoned part of the case.

2) Someone who is maliciously, or possibly, given the date, in the "spirit" of New Year pretending to be that Anne Colvin

3) An unrelated Anne Colvin.

We may never know, but until further evidence emerges, I tend towards crediting the second option.

Happy New Year to James, Whatsy and other contributors.

Jamesie Cotter Esq. Govan said...

Mr Anwar has been reported to the Law Society, according to The Scotsman,

because after the sacking of TS's QC, Anwar was appointed 'a friend of the Court' and it is alleged he failed to fulfill that role.

It is hard to see how someone has been briefed over a period of many months for a Defendant can undertake the role of an impartial adviser to the Court in the SAME case, not least because of the potential conflict of interest.

This may cause unease in the Appeal Court.

James Doleman said...

Lots of talk about people "being reported" not much about by whom I note.

James Doleman said...

Hello Steve

I knew that was coming, not much to the story though. The only thing the good people at the News of the World have to complain about is some comments.

Jamesie Cotter Esq. Govan said...

If Mr Anwar acted on behalf of the Court on the day TS was convicted as an impartial adviser: why did he then act as TS's spokesman outside the Court?

James Doleman said...

Jaimsie, I would suggest that the "friend of the court" thing was a technicality to allow Mr Anwar to help Mr Sheridan in court, it was discussed without the jury being present so we did not report it.

I would also note that Lord Bracadale had the opportunity to say during the trial if he had any issues with Mr Anwar's conduct, he did not.

Bit of a red herring IMHO.

Jamesie Cotter Esq. Govan said...

I really do not understand why it was allowed to happen. When a 'friend of the Court' is appointed ordinarily it is usually to undertake cross-examination for an unrepresented Defendant in a rape trial. Surely if TS sacked his QC, Anwar could carry on representing him as a solicitor? If he could not (because for argument's sake he was also sacked) then why was it appropriate for the Court to appoint him?
The problem being that sometimes the interests of the Court (which Anwar would need to represent) are not always in the interests of the Defendant.

It is not so much a problem that Lord B did not object, it is the appearance of a conflict of interest which may well exercise the Appeal Court.

James Doleman said...

Hello Jaimsie, as I recall (and I've not looked up my notes) AA was technically being employed via Maggie Scott, once she was removed their was an issue about him staying in court and the "friend of the court" idea was put in place to allow him to stay.

Why the appeal court would be concerned that a solicitor was representing his client is, to be honest beyond me, perhaps one of our more legally experienced commentators could give us their view?

Anonymous said...

No legal expert but
1) My understanding that it is the solicitor who instructs counsel on behalf of client, but that solicitor then takes guidance of conduct of case in court and advocate who has the right of audience in court. As AA is not a solicitor advocate with rights of audience in court, once Maggie Scott was no longer representing TS would make sense that AA would have no locus in court without specical arrangement as James suggests.

2) I would think the complaint against AA would be similar to the accusation that TS made against Kenneth Lang in his cross-ex where he claimed a conflict of interest in Lang's role in being a crown witness and also being responsible for release of information to the defence. Here Lang disputed this and replied his first duty was an officer of the court.

3) Complaint against AA has according to reports being made to Law Society scotland, and like James I see no reason why the Court of Appeal should have any interest in it.

4) Re further perjury investigations/criminal cases. Given the prosecution's dropping of last perjury charge against GS as it was not 'in the public interest' it would seem unlikely that that the prosecution of others who have already been charged or are allegedly under investigation would be in the public interest. The one exception to this could be Rosemary Byrne given her position (as an MSP) when she allegedly gave knowingly false evidende in 2006.

Jamsie Cotter Esq. Govan said...

So the legal relationship in Scotalnd between a solicitor and a silk is that the silk hired the solicitor? News to me since it is the complete opposite of what happens in England and Wales.

If you are right about Anwar no longer being able to act as TS's solicitor after he sacked Maggie Scott QC; if he was thenceforth employed as a 'friend of the Court'. I stand to be corrected but I do not believe one of the functions of a 'friend of the Court' is to make press statements in relation to the proceedings on behalf of someone he no longer represents.

Anonymous said...

For those who think these complaints will amount to nothing...that's what Sheridan said in 2006 and he's off to the big house in three weeks for what some people are saying could be as long as 7 years.

Open your eyes said...

I think that some people or organisations are really becoming involved in a game of brinkmanship with these perjury allegations.

All it will take is one piece of incontrovertible evidence that one of these witnesses is telling the truth and News International and the Crown prosecution will find themselves in an utterly unredeemable position.

Imagine the public outrage if it was ever revealed that Tommy had told the truth and the prosecution witnesses were lying!

Are they really foolish enough to take this any further?

justaglasgowguy said...

"It is hard to see how someone has been briefed over a period of many months for a Defendant can undertake the role of an impartial adviser to the Court in the SAME case, not least because of the potential conflict of interest."

By the same token its hard to see how a law firm that work hand in glove with the NOTW in the 2006 libel case could have been responsible for the collection of evidence for the subsequent criminal libel trial.

Anonymous said...

The sad thing is that no one would be surprised if the complaints were made by News International or the SSP.

The complaints will go nowhere though. It's pretty much accepted that accused persons and their witnesses will tell lies in court. I can't see the Crown Office want to depart from that practice for this case. As for the Law Society complaint, I imagine the Law Society will lose more sleep over it that Anwar will.

Jamesie Cotter Esq. Govan said...


OK OK give us some more transactional analysis without addressing the issue:
the delicious irony is that an argument based on Anwar's conduct could be the most effective before the Court of Appeal. Even then it is only likely to buy him a retrial...

Anonymous said...


I don't think it's accepted that witnesses will conspire to pervert the course of justice, which seems to be the allegation.

jimmy the penguin said...

In my opinion the aftermath should be about rebuilding the left and promoting a vision for a better socialist country. That means people from all sides need to come together and find a way to put this dark episode behind them.

iain brown said...

Jimmy the penguin,absolutely!. But there are a number of important issues. When you talk of the "Left",what exactly do you mean?Are you talking of only those who describe themselves as "socialists",or are members/ex members of "socialist" organisations?If thats your (narrow?) perspective then there are major problems since many in the SSP,certainly at leadership level,will never be in the same organisation as TS,and i,and many more will never be in the same organisation as them. That said,however disheartening the current situation is,if viewed from that standpoint alone,things might seem eternally bleak.But not so.We,despite all those(on the left) who have written of the possibility of major resistance from below(we are not like the French,Greeks etc)are far less pessimistic and demoralised.Witnesss the fantastic recent student uprisings(yes,thats what they are),the mushrooming grass roots direct action targetting of the corporate (multi billion pound tax dodgers etc.etc. The situation is far from bleak.Admittedly, from an organised working class angle,for a multitude of reasons,things on the surface may not appear so bright. But that too is changing and in March their is a massive potential and opportunity to unite ,hundreds of thousands on the TUC demo(despite the delay in calling this).The task for socialists is not to degenerate into a civil,"Party",war when we should be expending all of our time and energies into making all out war on the Tories and their Lib Dem lackeys,the bankers, the bosses etc.Sadly it appears,that for the SSP leadership anyway,their main task ahead(despite their rhetoric) is to continue their war against Sheridan and those who stand with him(and Gail,and the other 5 still facing perjury charges).I know which war i will be concentrating on.

Anonymous said...

jimmy the penguin said

You're right but I don't see that happening. The truth is this case, the likely attempt at appeal over TS conviction, the NOW appeal over 2006 case and possible persual of other witnesses in the case risk leaving a long dark shadow over any scottish socialist movement for the next decade. Hope I'm wrong, but fear not.

the_voice_of_reason said...

Aamer Anwar's role in this case was not entirely legally clear, but I cannot see why it should be a matter of concern to his professional body.

As instructed solicitor under a Legal Aid certificate, it was his duty to instruct counsel for the trial, in accordance with (a) his client's instructions, and (b) his client's interests, which are not always the same.

When the client withdraws instructions from counsel, it is customary, but not obligatory, for the solicitor who has instructed them in his professional responsibilty, also to withdraw. In some cases, such as a counsel going off in cropss-examination on a foray not agreed with accused and solicitor, the solicitor can stay in the case.

Lord Bracadale (correctly in my view) took the view that to require the accused to represent himself with no legal assistance at all might give rise to a potential miscarriage of justice. Aamer Anwar took the view that his instructions remained in place. As he has no right to speak in the High Court his role was broadly similar to the English "McKenzie Friend"; it is not clear whether he will be paid for his time taking notes and offering advice by the Scottish Legal Aid Board, but I suspect they will not be obstructive.

I know that a year or so back a solicitor-advocate found himself in a tight spot when counsel withdrew in a murder, and it was pointed out that he could represent the accused himself, which he did not want to do. The circumstances were different, but there was no issue about him staying in the case.

A solicitor acting as "amicus curiae" may be no more than an impartial offeror of information, although in criminal cases where an accused is unrepresented the court will often allow a considerable degree of leeway, especially if there is a risk that an unrepresented accused may do his case damage giving rise to an appeal.

I'm not wholly sure it is generally prudent for a solicitor to stay in when, by implication, his decision to instruct counsel is not accepted, butI don't see it as a matter which need trouble a professional regulator.

Jamesie Cotter Esq. Govan said...

Thanks for clarifying the situation. Previous comments led me to understand Aamer Anwar was appointed 'amicus curiae' by the Court - a strange decision if he had no rights of audience!
However, if he acted as a 'McKenzie Friend' or carried on as TS's solicitor, the chances of a complaint succeeding before the Law Society would be zero.

An object lesson for Defendants: choose a solicitor without a Higher Rights of Audience qualification and you could end up with no-one to speak on your behalf if you dispense with counsel's services,

James Doleman said...

Ian Hamilton has written this interesting piece

the_voice_of_reason said...

Ian Hamilton does raise an interesting point.

While I find it hard to sympathise with McNeilage, whose morality is dubious to say the least, and while the NOTW's practice in paying for evidence is depolorable, I understand the facts to be roughly these -

1. McNeilage claims the tape is of a conversation he had with TS before the defamation trial took place.

2. After the verdict he offered it for money to the NOTW.

3. They published it on 1st October 2006, therefore it was in their possession some time in September

4. The police investigation into perjury began after 2nd October, and Crown Office instructed a full investigation in February 2007.

Therefore, at the time the tape was handed over, it was bought by the Appellants in civil proceedings, and no criminal proceedings were even in contemplation. It was therefore open to the NOTW to presume as at 1st October that it would only be used for the defamation appeal; perhaps not wholly likely, but at least possible.

The fact remains that, if genuine, the McNeilage tape showed evidence of the commission of a serious criminal offence, so the proper course would have been to hand it free of charge to PC Plod. Nevertheless, the tape did eventually reach the Crown, was ruled admissible and seen by the jury.

I do not know, but I would be surprised if there had not been some preliminary discussion as to the admissibility of a covert recording that might have violated TS's Article 8 ECHR rights to private life, home and correspondence.

Anonymous said...

This article by Peter Jones in the Scotsman is also interesting, it discusses the differences between the level of evidence required in the civil and criminal trial.

Jamesie Cotter Esq. Govan said...

The Herald now quotes Aamer Anwar denying any breach of professional duty. But they say that he was appointed an 'amicus curiae' by Lord B.

One of the functions of an amicus curiae is to conduct questionning when necessary and to address the Court on legal issues. If Anwar did not possess Higher Court Rights, although the Court has the power to hear any person [even the Court of Appeal has let a 'McKenzie Friend ' address them - Challinor v Challinor 2003] it is arguably wrong to have appointed him in a lengthy trial since he had no right to address the Court as and when necessary to carry out professional duties.

There then remains the issue of why he thought it part of an amicus curiae's duties to address the press on behalf of TS after the verdict.

iain brown said...

James(Frank),re, your post Jan 3 ,12:31(article by Ian Hamilton QC.Just read it,agree "it is interesting.IH draws attention to the fact that in the first instance,McNeillage contacted the NOTW with "the tape". By rights they should have,but didnt immediately inform the police. Had they done so ,then the police would have obtained a warrant to search "The Havers"(ie McNeillages) house. According to IH, a Haver is a Scots law term for someone who deliberately witholds info /evidence in potentially criminal litigation proceedings(not exact words,but near enough from memory. Found this quaint term both informative to me, but also ironically rather apt to Mr McN.In Dundee parlance, a haver(one of many Scots variations),is "a blether"(again one of many Scots variations),but in essence are the same!. Translated into Standard English,it means someone who talks rubbish. IH makes many thought provoking points which i will leave to others who likewise have read,or intend to read the full article.

James Doleman said...

The Herald article that Jamesie mentions above can be found here

Anonymous said...

Reading the article that james posted and this article in the guardian - - it seems that when TS dismissed counsel, legal aid board refused to continue payment for AA's work as solicitor and that his subsequent costs were rather met by the Scottish Court Service, which may have been the reason he was made a 'friend of the court' rather than anything to do with rights of audience (given AA didn't represent TS in court). Reading the Herald artice it appears the complaint has come from the NOW and appears a pretty vindictive move. Can't see it going anywhere personally.

Jamesie Cotter Esq. Govan said...

As I say, if he was there as:
1. an unpaid McKenzie - no problem.
2. a solicitor with Higher Rights of Audience appointed as an amicus curiae - no problem apart from the question of addressing the press on behalf of TS.
3. A solicitor without Higher Court Rights accepting a brief from the Court as an amicus curiae - three potential problems:
a) no right to address Court b) conflict of interest c) address to press on behalf of TS whilst acting as amicus curiae.

It may not 'go anywhere' before the Law Society but I think TS should take independent legal advice on the situation.

Sheridan Trial said...

I got this comment by email,

"I see on your blog that the concluding "Comments" on "The Appeal" refer to "The Guardian" reporting the jury's majority verdict to be 8-6. In fact, this this first appeared in Kevin McKenna's "Comment" in "The Observer" of 23 December. I wrote a corrective letter, which I forward, and which was not published yesterday but we seem to have one of those situations in which one journalist plucks a number out of the air, publishes it without regard to the facts but according to his predisposition and it then enters into popular discourse as "truth", precisely because it's been published by a careless journalist...

If you want to add an appropriate corrective to your blog, it might helpfully clarify things, 'cos the blunder is all too likely to assume the characteristics of truth embossed on a tablet of stone...

Steve said...

I understood that the subject of complaint against AA was his reported advice to potential defence witnesses not to give statements to the police.

Sceptic said...

Hello Steve, I'd be careful with that. All that was ever said in court by any witness is that they had been told they had a "legal right" not to give a statement to the police. Which is quite different.

The Crown have various methods to gain information on a witness's potential testimony other than sending the police round. They can get a precognition statement via a solicitor, they can even have the witness appear in the Sherrif court and swear under oath.

I don't really see how AA could get in trouble for advising people of their rights or the crown not bothering to precog people.

Whatsy said...

Have to agree with @Sceptic on that - nobody ever said AA had advised them not to give a statement to the police, and Prentice usually stated that the advice that they received from AA - that they were under no obligation to give the police a statement - was quite correct legally.

I'd be interested to know what lengths the Crown went to in order to get statements from defence witnesses. One witness, I forget which one, maybe Lynn Sheridan, stated that it was just L&B police she refused to speak to and that if the Crown had contacted her directly she would have given a statement, but they never did.

yulefae said...

Have just read the judge and jury,
aka the NOTW wht are these deluded people all about?

It would seem from the mince they printed there have been more leaks and if the evidence went to the jury TS would have been done with the Moat House chapter as well.

I,m thinking about putting a complaint in myself to see if Strathclydes finest carry out an investigation into corrupt reporters and cops,as the so called info could only have come from insiders

Anonymous said...


you should do that. They'll be happy to hear from you and will examine the evidence you submit.

Good luck.

Anonymous said...

"I got this comment by email"

I take it this means that the 8-6 is wrong and we do not know how the jury voted?

Denizen said...

I love the fact that that great defender of individual freedoms, freedom of speech, the truth, Justice and the rights of millionaires to determine our politics - the respected News of the World, is trying to put the hems on this blog. Sweet.

I would be more interested in the situation of Mr Wight who committed prima facie perjury about the two witnesses in the Moathouse Chapter being paid in the first trial. There are interesting aspects of his evidence that would provide prima facie evidence that he suborned another witness. About the fact that so many witnesses were paid by the NOW. About the fact that the paid witnesses were perceived to be unreliable. About the fact that there has a total refusal to investigate the extent of the NOW's phone hacking. That there is prima facie evidence that at least one executive was involved in this and a suspicion that everybody knew about it and/or was involved. About the evidence of the MET officer who said that the fact that a name and phone number in a detective's notebook etc. were not proof of phone hacking.

Until these problems are addressed then we will live in a democracy where everyone is afraid to cross News International. An abusive Press which cannot be controlled by the law is not the sign of a healthy democracy.

We will never know the truth of that executive meeting on the 4th Nov 2004 until someone breaks. The fact that there are fourteen witnesses to five does not weigh all that heavily. As for the tape - all I can say is surely not. 'Quasi Sheridan' is like a man obsessed, determined to get his confessions out, neat and precise, no matter what, interrupting McNeilage when he threatens the flow of guilt. Apart from the fact that there is no visual evidence, the sound quality is atrocious, the levels of sound are questionable - why is McNeilage so quiet when he is nearer the microphone than quasi Sheridan? But there is so much that is difficult to understand in this case.

Yet it is not difficult to understand why Sheridan would phone Anver Khan after that meeting. He knew she would have knowledge of the first story, even though it did not involve her. But did he? Could someone please explain the telephone calls. Were they proved?

Until this boil is lanced then the Left - as an organisation - is disadvantaged. Maybe that's as well. We have had too much posing by people who don't know better. Maybe it is time for anarchism rather than Stalinism.

iain brown said...

To many ,whomever you call(or choose not to call yourself),is this not a pertinant (IMHO) question?In the wider ,global scale of things,what for Socialists is the greater import,ie. to stand wholeheartedly,and steadfastly against the,so called ,never ending "war against terrorism",or a never ending war against "Sheridanism"?.

Steve said...

Sceptic and Whatsy:

The Fitzpatrick testimony says:

"Asked why he had refused to give a statement the witness replied that he had taken legal advice from the defence team who had told him he was not obliged to give a statement."

And for Mrs Hill:
"Mr Nicolson then asked why the witness had not provided a statement, and she replied as she had already given a statement to Mr Sheridan's lawyer, she thought that would be OK."

That is indeed different from the reported complaint Euan Malcolm describes in the NOTW (2/1/11, page 4) which is:

"And in a separate complaint, legal watchdogs have been asked to look into the actions of Sheridan's lawyer Aamer Anwar. It is alleged he [AA] advised witnesses not to give statements to the police."

Malcolm doesn't say who is doing the alleging, but you are right, it is not supported by your record of the court testimonies.

It was Lynn Sheridan who said that she would speak to the PF office/Crown, but not over the phone to Detective Houliston.

Anonymous said...

who won the box of after eights?????????????

Denizen said...

I get very worried. Not about Ahmer. Should be okay unless the thing is getting so twisted it is unbelievable.

They know AA is Sheridan's adviser. Attacking AA is an attempt to undermine Sheridan by distraction.

The attack on the blog is what disturbs me. Just had news from China that they are trying to make Skype illegal there. I think that attack on James may be the beginning of an attempt to gag the blog.

What do China and Murdoch have in common? Quite a lot. Both support socialism (as long as its their pet socialism), equality (for millionaires), justice (for the powerful), love of country (any country will do as long as its the country that supports them), freedom of the Press (as long as they can control it) and unfettered sexual conquest for themselves. They also are good business partners.

Peter said...

Anon 12.10 am

After Eights still under consideration but you have no chance of winning with a user name like that.

Try Ferrero Rocher. Or Mr Ambassador.



Whatsy said...

What's this attack on the blog everyone keeps talking about?

The NotW guy certainly mentioned it, but all he said was that James is a Sheridan supporter, there were some comments that were a bit rude about some witnesses and there were some crazy ideas about TS lodging an appeal.

No big deal, I say. Notice he doesn't say the blog itself was biased or inaccurate. That's about as close to praise as you're going to get from the NotW. Thanks, NotW guy.

Epic Win!

paw said...

Whatsy said...
What's this attack on the blog everyone keeps talking about?

The NotW guy certainly mentioned it, but all he said..............

In the interests of accuracy, can anyone type in the exact words from NotW about this blog? I know that means admitting that you have access to a paper that, I would think, is despised by most followers of this blog.

Anonymous said...


how dare you come on here with your sense of perspective, brandishing logic like a weapon?

The NotW is after us all! Pastor Niemoller! First they came for the bampots! And that was me screwed! And so on and on and on.

Denizen said...

Dear Whatsy. Do words not have meanings? The sneering reference in the NOW was meant to be threatening.

Epic victory?

Only in the sense that it was against all odds, all sense and all Justice.


Anonymous said...

Can't quote exactly but it was by their politics editor, mentioned Sheridan supporter James Doleman's blog and reference about comments made on the blog.As far as I rememeber It didn't say anything about blog being closed down, that was actually said about Andy Newman on Socialist Unity site.

Whatsy said...

Re: "Do words not have meanings? The sneering reference in the NOW was meant to be threatening."

It certainly was a nasty sneering comment from the NotW, but that was all I took it as. James might feel different, of course.

I'm sure they'd like to find more on, well, anyone at all associated with the Sheridan trial, but so far all they've come up with is old Moat House stuff, an ancient affair TS had with a woman before he was married, and some possibly made-up stuff about 5 other people maybe being investigated for perjury, which can be immediately be contradicted - see the Herald story.

Maybe they've got something massive lined up for TS's sentencing, but right now it looks like they're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Anonymous said...

That stuff about the police investigation isn't made up.

Anonymous said...

Whatsy, re something massive lined up, there were also references to 'flood gates' and the 'deep and murky waters' behind them. I think you could be right and they are going to stretch this out with rehashing previous info over the next few Sundays then let rip after sentencing.

James Doleman said...

Just my 2c on the NOTW article.

From my point of view it was an opinion piece and the author is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else. So I have no issue with it at all.

I do however think the reference to calling on the police to shut down the Socialist unity site is worrying as it appears to be an attack on free speech. So I do stand with Andy Newman and the other people involved in the SU blog in defending their rights to express their views.

Anonymous said...

I don't think free speech is freedom to threaten people. Some of the stuff in the comments section is threatening.
Oh God, I agree with the News of the World.

Jo G said...


Can I repeat the question already posted about the email excerpts you posted earlier regarding the jury split? Was a "correction" offered to you? Can you clarify please?

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:42 Methinks too that what the NotW is publishing at the moment is just padding, filler material. How many people are really paying attention to or even buying newspapers on Boxing Day, 2nd January? It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the Notw has lined up for 30th January (Sunday after TS's sentencing).

Whatsy said...

@Jo G
My understanding was that nobody knows what the jury split was, and that McKenna's article was creating a misleading impression that the split was 8-6 for conviction when he doesn't know that, only that at least 8 jurors voted to convict.

Jo G said...

Whatsy, with respect, I'd still like James to answer the question I put. The parts of the email he posted suggest the writer knows what the verdict was and accuse McKenna of "plucking" numbers out of thin air. He/She claims to have sent a "corrective" letter on the subject. What did that say? That no one knows what the split was or that McKenna's information was made up? That's what I meant by clarification.

I take on board your own view of McKenna which you made only too clear in a previous post but the reality is we don't actually know what he knows, do we?

James Doleman said...

message to Anne

Hello Anne, I still have to be careful, sure you understand. I'm always happy to post your thoughts but I do have to think of libel etc.

All the best


anna banana said...

A C.

James Doleman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James Doleman said...

Hello Jo, as I said the actual vote was not stated in court, of course the journalist you mention could have access to information I do not. I posted that comment I received by email as I thought it was interesting, that does not imply I agree with it or not.

All the best


Steve said...

Bernard Ponsonby referred to three jurors as crying in the STV show on the verdict, which I took for a coded reference to 11-3, but of course, there's no saying unless you're in with Bernard.

Kubla Khan said...

Out of interest is there a legal reason for not releasing the jury breakdown? In the civil case we knew (I think straight after) that the jury verdict was 7-4. Is there a protocol about not releasing the breakdown in criminal cases does anyone know?

James Doleman said...

I was told at court (by a journalist) that the jury sometimes tell the court or are asked. In this case that didn't happen, at least while we were there.

James Doleman said...

KK, no problem with your point however we don't allow personal attacks on other commentators.

If you could edit those out and resubmit I'd be happy to post your comment.

Best Regards


Whatsy said...

I've been told by court officials that it is a big no-no for the jury to disclose the split of convict/acquit, or for anyone to ask them what it was. They sometimes let it slip to court officials, though, even though they're not really supposed to.

Just in case anyone, such as myself, would have considered asking a juror if you spotted one of them in a pub.

Jo G said...

Whatsy I don't think anyone would dispute what you say. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen tho. It can and does happen.