Alan brown time trial

Anon - again I understand the point. But TS made a point of raising the perjury issue in cross with certain witnesses. A group of people in the court will be aware of this and when thinking about the outcome may possibly ruminate on it in the way I am outlining. Sceptic - a leading question can be a question that suggests the answer the questioner wants Alan Brown expected to be a crown witness. That means that the Crown had a good idea what his evidence was going to be.

The fact that the Crown only asked if he was sure confirms, to me, that they couldn't disprove that he meet Tommy that weekend. It's a resonable point to draw out Jaimsie, esp when you have a diary entry to back it up. Should we have waited for the witness to list every word that rhymed with "pokie" until TS said, thats it!

A jury deciding on a not guilty verdict does not automatically mean that the prosecution witnesses committed perjury. The presumption of innocence means the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. If the jury cannot make their minds up who to believe because of the conflicting evidence, and have reasonable doubt, they must find the accused not guilty.

This does not and cannot imply they believe the prosecution witnesses are lying. I have read many appeals in criminal cases, the Lords always say the jury were entitled to come to that verdict and no one except the jurors are privy to why they came to the verdict,so why are we not allowed to hear the full disclosures that have been made no matter how long it takes? Still leading - especially as the diary entry was known by the Court already. Time for some quiet reflection methinks That is no more leading than 'Is you name Hugh Kerr', which can also lead to the answer 'yes' or 'no'.

A leading question would have been 'do you agree that what I said was probably Cokie' - still allows a 'yes' or 'no' answer but the question has suggested the expected answer with 'do you agree'. When we drive on our main trunk routes our images are recorded on Traffic master cameras and the data is held centrally. These images have been used for example as counter terrorist tools. You see lots of them if you use the Irish ferries for example. In my book if they do not, it is because he never made the trip.

To "anon" oddly enough we do not post allegations from anonymous people trying to publish unsubtantiated evidence about witnesses that has not been heard in court. That won't change no matter how many times you try and post it what's that, 20 now?

So yes, if that is what you mean by "my roots" you are quite right. James, to me the question is not how people on here are responding, but why did AP give Alan Brown such an easy time, especially as he had nailed Hugh Kerr's double standards earlier in the day.

James, I know we aren't doing justice to your reporting but Ithink bloggers might have trial fatigue and it is a Friday night after all. Previous witness said he didn't show at the SSP event till the next night, now someone says that he was there on the Friday so I suppose its and we're waiting to hear about the Cokie.

In my opinion there is a lot of clever manoeuvring going on in this trial. It will be interesting to see who out-foxes who. Sorry posted someone's comment under my log in after editing That was by Watcher. What is good about this blog is that we have a complete history of all the witnesses and I have checked out again what was said by previous witnesses in particular KT and AK.

But there is evidence of phone records re KT - in particular when AP presented them to the Court TS requested for the rest of the afternoon to check the mountains of records. We will have to see if the evidence is presented by TS.

For that reason, the Crown MUST be able to corroborate evidence or the charge would be 'no case to answer'. The defence merely has to show reasonable doubt, and no corroboration of defence evidence is therefore necessary. Having an alibi is a good defence against an allegation that you were somewhere else, and in this case the alibi evidence is corroborating Tommy's claim that 'I wizna there'. The jury will have to decide whether the quality of the alibi evidence is strong enough to provide a reasonable doubt - the jury may dismiss the alibi as a mistake over times, or it may decide that the evidence was compelling - in which case it would have to have a reasonable doubt, and acquit.

Thought so James, was Watcher's comment the one that raised a reasonable doubt in my opinion about your "neutrality", but of course that is for the Jury to decide.

I think that's a pretty simplistic view. One person in the face of scores does not a reasonable doubt create. And we've yet to hear TS explain to the jury exactly how this conspiracy against him unfolded and all the disparate players came together. My view is that Sheridan will have to do a whole lot better than he did today. I do try my best to be as objective as I can anon. Of course it is up to others to decide if I succeed or not, but it is my aim.

Anon this is not a numbers game, you do not convict someone on the basis you have more witnesses than them. Also please note the defence does not have to explain anything, never mind exactly.

They just need to create a reasonable doubt. Charlie is right, if every trial ended in the losing side's witnesses being accused of lying, we'd have perjury trials every day of the week. Instead, we only have this badly performed pantomime to entertain us this Christmas. All it lacks is Gerard Kelly as Widow Twankie making an entrance Oh no he wasn't! Gerard Kelly R. Does GS still not have to provide an alibi? At the very least she has to say: "It wiznae me, I didnae dae it", and if the Jury found that "compelling" enough they would be perfectly entitled to acquit.

Innocent until proven guilty anon, that's the rule. The accused does not have to do anything, the Crown has to prove the charge and if they cannot the accused walks.

Even if no evidence was presented on her behalf, it is still for the Crown to convince the that the evidence against GS is sufficient to find her guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt. Depending how this Trial goes it could set a lot of legal precedents. If this witness is giving alibi evidence for the Friday night then one presumes that an alibi notice has been served if that applies in Scotland?

Did he mention any Friday night alibi when interviewed? Having known some Danish people something has been puzzling me for a while. Essentially I presume Katrine Trolle give evidence in court that her legal name or the name she is now known by is Katrine Trolle.

I presume also that she may have said her married name was Katrine Gray. Did she: a say what her name was before she was married? Thanks, Peter. She said: "There was a reference to that, but it was not meant literally.

Anonymous said December 3, PM Was this not the purpose of the investigation ordered after the libel trial was supossed to do, that is find out who had lied under oath I presumed that investigation would have included all who gave evidence at that trial. It is clear from the number of posts to this blog that during this trial that statements under oath in do not concur with statements in this trial.

If this investigation was soley to find who had lied there would be more than the Sheridans in court today. Even the police have doubts about Fiona MgGuire story. It's getting a bit interesting hearing the defence side of things. I'm quite disappointed we don't get to hear from Tommy, and see how he stands up to being questioned. We've stuck through this trial for some weeks now watching Tommy question witness after witness.

Now we hear that the main focus of the trial will not take to the stand himself. I'm a little lost for words. The defence witness says he was in Hamilton with Sheridan between Lets say it was He was alone in the car with Sheridan. According to Khan and Trolle they were picked up separately. Supposedly two other men were in the car. So that would be 3 pick ups possibly 4 if the two men were picked up separately. If the pick ups were in Glasgow Hamilton is 25 minutes from Glasgow. That takes us to If he made just three pick ups in Glasgow that would take about 10 minutes each conservatively.

That would take us to Glasgow to Manchester is 3 and half hours. NB: Khan said there was a rest stop on the way so that would be 15 minutes conservatively. The journey and the stop would take us to an approx 3. Trolle says the return to Scotland took place started in the early hours of the morning. Let us say that is 5am or 6am. I don't think that is feasible. I take it all back the police did do a rigourous forensic examination of the NOTW tape after all.

It appears to have involved the use of the very advanced technique of sitting down and having a little listen to it and thinking it is Sheridan. That's that sorted then! From The Independent: The court also heard from Detective Sergeant Stuart Harkness, 38, who was deputy senior investigating officer in the case.

The Lothian and Borders Police officer said that one of the lines of inquiry was to investigate a tape handed into police which shows a meeting between George McNeilage and a man alleged to be Sheridan in which the latter allegedly makes admissions about his private life.

Under cross-examination from Sheridan, Det Sgt Harkness said police were instructed to "probe the veracity" of the tape. He said he saw only a "fleeting glimpse" of the figure on the tape and could not say if it was Sheridan.

He added: "My understanding from listening to the tape is it is Mr Sheridan. The former News of the World editor will be called by the defence on Wednesday or Thursday to answer questions in connection with the publication of sex allegations which led to Mr Sheridan successfully suing the tabloid in The private investigator Glen Mulcaire is expected to be cited the following week. Mr Mulcaire was jailed along with the newspaper's royal editor, Clive Goodman, for phone hacking in , which prompted Mr Coulson's resignation as editor.

Detective Chief Superintendent Philip Williams, who investigated the affair on behalf of the Metropolitan Police, will also appear. Mr Sheridan is defending himself in the trial. He and his wife, Gail, who is also charged with lying under oath during the defamation case, deny the charges. Wonder what the jury make of that? If I was GS and had to sit through all the claims that have been made about my husband during this trial, I'd expect him to get up there and give evidence that he was not in the places mentioned and not with the women who claimed to have had affairs with him.

What possible motive is there that he is not doing just that? Indeed, Curious of Govan is right. It is generally accepted that the allegations of sexual misconduct against Gerry Healey were true! If there was a political question there, it was why the WRP allowed him to get away with it for some time before they turned against him.

Is the jury entitled to draw inferences from TS's decision not to go into the witness box? The judge did rule this in the Archer case, but this may not always be the case. Some of you should Google the name holly greig and get an insight to how things work on how investigation and prosecution work or don't work in Scotland. TS's decision not to go into the witness box means that we are NEVER going to hear the answers to the questions that we most want answered, TS's decision only leaves a lingering doubt as to his true position in my opinion.

TS doesn,t need to go in the box as his closing speech to the jury will be his evidence,why would he want to be cross examined by AP??? TS is quite right not to go into the witness box. Why take the risk of allowing himself to be humiliated by having to answer potentially very private questions.

Imagine the questions he could be asked about how often he liked to have sex, for example. He doesn't need to answer questions himself if he can call witnesses who can give alibi evidence etc. Yulefae:TS doesn,t need to go in the box as his closing speech to the jury will be his evidence Complete and utter poppycock! In a situation where an unrepresented accused has elected not to give evidence, any Judge worth his salt will surely direct the jury that an accused does not give evidence by giving a closing speech.

Many defendants think they can 'bulletproof' their evidence from cross-examination in this way. It would just not be allowed to pass without judicial comment and would make it even more likely the Judge would tell a jury they are entitled to draw adverse inferences from a failure to enter the witness box and submit oneself to the same degree of scrutiny afforded the Prosecution witnesses.

A closing speech is not evidence - only comment. POPPYCOCK,you can say what you like in your closing speech,it,s the jurys job on what to believe as fact or otherwise,take it you dont attend the courts. Ever since Anvar Khan's testimony it was clear that she lied. To believe her story about Cupid's and TS demanded a suspension of disbelief beyond my imaginative powers.

Since then witness after witness has been shown to be paid, to be expecting payment, to be deeply confused or just plain made up porkies. After Khan's testimony the case should have been thrown out. I presume it has been kept going because it uncovers the seamy side of the News of the World and the police, if not the prosecution service. For this I am grateful to the judge. Even at my advanced age and level of cynicism, much of the ugliness of this case has taken away my breath.

As an afterthought, what point is there is TS taking the stand? Every time he examines a witness he is telling us his views on this case. Even though Mr Sheridan in full flight is a joy to behold, one can have too much of a good thing. Errr Campbell et al So no it is not surprising at all to me that the United Left used the sex stories circulated by the NOTW to manouvere against Sheridan.

It can get very nasty in left parties - not for the faint hearted! Anyone care to cough disabuse me of the above. Denizen: Ever since Anvar Khan's testimony it was clear that she lied. I feel the same about the fact that he ever had a sexual relationship with her at all - but he admits hed did. In my opinion it does look odd an accused not allowing himself to be placed under the same scrutiny that he has placed others under.

There is in my opinion a distinct lack of "balance", something does not seem right, does not add up. Based on TS's "tactics" I for one am "drawing a reasonable inference". Yulefae: No - it is you who seems to have limited Court experience.

It is quite wrong to assert that you cannot say whatever you like in a closing speech. If Tommy had been represented, his advocate would have had to abide by that rule of advocacy. Just because he has chosen to dispense with his QC, the rule is no different for him. See: Archbold at Pages ; for a precis of the rules of cross-examination. Now politicians of Tommy's ilk may be used to making speeches before an adoring public - uninterrupted by awkward questions - in the form of a polemic.

Indeed stewards may be on hand to assist Cardonald's peoples' hero and deal with the odd heckler keen to remind all and sundry that in the immediate aftermath of the Poll Tax Riot - instead of helping found the Trafalgar Square Defendant's Campaign - a certain Scottish working class hero told a media baying for arrests that he and the ABAPTF would be 'naming names'. A polemical style may indeed have served various trade unionists well when defending themselves in Court in respect of labour disputes etc.

But this trial is a lot more personalised because it is all centered on whether TS perjured himself in pursuit of an action not instigated by the masses or their union reps - but run by TS for and by himself. The point here is that TS has chosen to avoid cross-examination on any part of his defence. That is his right and the Prosecution must still prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. An inference from his failure to give evidence cannot of itself prove guilt.

The jury must be satisfied that the Prosecution have established a sufficiently compelling case so as to call for an answer from TS before they can draw any inference from his silence. If despite any evidence relied on to explain his silence or in the absence of any such evidence, the jury conclude that the silence can only sensibly be attributed to the defendant's having no answer, or none that will stand up to cross-examination, they can draw an adverse inference.

See: Archbold at to To the anon who has now posted 15 comments about the "poll tax riot" this is not part of the case and nothing related to it will be posted. Sorry but those are the rules. With all due respect James. From this blog: "Mrs Drummond stated she had been involved in the campaign against the poll tax in the 's but had then dropped out of politics. Q1 How many perjury trials occur each year in Scotland Q2 why limit lying witnesses to only the accused. Q3 Has this blog not shown that witness testamomy has changed from to was has been said in this trial.

NAMING NAMES Iam sure he will know how to address the jury he has after all beat an allegedly very senior counsel Mr Jones,i didn,t mean anything but you can as Lord B has pointed out on numerous occasions use things that are not allowed in evidence to be put before the jury.

Hello anon, a number of witnesses have mentioned their involvement with the poll tax campaign in Glasgow. However as far as I can recall the London poll tax riots have not been brought into evidence by either the defence or prosecution.

I do have to be careful not to post comments that relate to evidence not heard by the jury, I'd suggest that the poll tax riot falls under that category.

Why should she subject herself to the whims of what is clearly now a desperate prosecution. If she took the stand she would on past evidence possibly be subject to: a an intimidating sectarian attack on her, her daughter and her families Catholicism and the symbols of that religeon.

If they don't get the result they want in this trial the NOTW, police and the Crown will be like a wounded bear. Best stay out of their path. The police and Crown, it appears to many commentators and the defence, dragged her into this matter in a squalid desperate attempt to pressurise her husband to plead guilty.

Both Tommy and Gail have shown admirable fortitude resisting these attempts to split them up over the past few years The squalid attempt to do so is not an attractive sight for Scottish justice system.

Legally, politically and morally Gail is absolutely right to not take the stand if that is what she decides to do. May I just remind commentators That Mrs Sheridan's defence has not yet begun and that the question of her taking the stand has not yet been told to the court. Oh yeah, he got all spruced up," Evelyn recalled. He should be home by midnight. So I went down to the dance and checked the road, screaming out the window. No John. I started prayin' at that point.

The police were telling her husband John's body was discovered by three young kids cutting through a vacant lot in the neighboring gritty city of Lowell. And there was tape on his eyes, on his mouth.

I heard a lot," Evelyn told Schlesinger. I lay there and cried. Gerry Leone was the local D. Today he's a partner in the law firm, Nixon Peabody. Tape that was used to tape his eyes and mouth. All of his clothing and his shoes," he replied.

But the case looked promising at first. A witness had spotted a car near the crime scene that night. Clues and evidence in the John McCabe case 33 photos.

Then another tip led police to a schoolmate of John's -- 16 year-old Mike Ferreira, who says he barely knew John. I didn't really -- he wasn't a friend," said Ferreira.

Ferreira and his friend, Nancy Williams, were questioned because they had picked John up when he was hitchhiking, on his way to the dance. Ferreira told police that while the dance was under way, he left Williams and met up with his best friend, Walter Shelley. They were in Walter Shelley's car. It was maroon and it was a Chevy Impala.

Police searched it, but found no evidence. Still, Walter Shelley was now a person of interest. He was brought in for questioning and later polygraphed five times. The tests showed he was "lying in all vital areas of the questioning. But Ferreira wasn't helping himself. At one point while joyriding with some friends, he suddenly blurted out that he killed John. We were drinking' jokin you know The Ferreira lead kept drying up," said Leone. There were dozens of other people the police investigated -- other teens, local drug dealers and pedophiles.

Detectives worked the case hard for two years. The whole time, Bill McCabe worked on a record of his son's life. I-- I was just lookin' at ways to hold on to him I'd be up in the middle of the night. She'd be saying, 'what the hell are you doing up? Get back to bed,'" he said. So the following year, the two of them left the area," said Leone.

With each passing season, John McCabe's case grew colder, but his mother kept asking the most painful questions about how he died. What kind of a mother was I? For a time, Evelyn set a place for John at the dinner table. His absence was a constant presence in the house. Through it all, Bill McCabe continued to write John's story, while constantly pushing police for an ending. The case stalled for some 30 years, until November , when Jack Ward, a childhood friend of John's, made good on a decades old promise to Bill.

McCabe, you know, I'm gonna tell you. Ward had been at a cookout at a house in Tewksbury, where he ran into a kid from the old neighborhood, Mike Ferreira. Ward said Marla Shiner was Walter Shelley's girlfriend back then. But he said the trouble was that Shiner also seemed to like John McCabe, and by all accounts, Walter Shelley was one very jealous young man.

And I immediately called the police," said Bill. But it took many more calls from Bill McCabe and three more years for police to show up at Ferreira's door. It was now Ferreira worked as a forklift operator and lived in Salem, New Hampshire. Nancy Williams, his friend back in the day, was now his wife. I never said that," Ferreira said. And finally I got sick of hearin' it. I says, 'He probably did it.

But the police had not forgotten John McCabe. Investigators had gone back over the files and a name jumped out at them in Mike Ferreira's latest interview with police. In recounting the night of the murder, Ferreira said he was with Walter Shelley, but this time he added a name and said "the other guy" with them was Alan Brown.

He had long since moved away, but when police tracked him down he said he knew nothing about the murder -- never even heard of it. But even that wasn't enough. For more than 30 years, he was active in its Lawyers Helping Lawyers Committee, serving for a time as its chairman. His father and mother, Edmund S. Roach, both partners in his firm. In addition to his wife and son, survivors include another son, Edward F.

A Mass of Christian Burial will be offered at a. Friday in St. Log in Sign up Become a Member. Continue reading your article with a digital subscription. Already a subscriber? Log in or Activate your account.