Dear All
One of the hallmarks of the Tommy Sheridan trial is it is like a rollercoaster, one minute Tommy Sheridan is doing well, the next he is getting his arse kicked into orbit by witnesses.
For the jury this case is a minefield, who do you believe Tommy Sheridan or the Crown’s witnesses?
And the Crown has plenty of witnesses but with the drawback that some of them have been paid by the NOTW.
But the most damage being inflicted on Tommy Sheridan is from witnesses who are independent of the political dogfight between the SSP and Sheridan’s Solidarity mob.
Pamela Tucker for example, she has told the High Court that she saw Tommy Sheridan at a swingers' club in Manchester.
And that she recognised Tommy Sheridan because of his involvement with fighting against the poll tax.
Pamela Tucker has told perjury trial at the High Court in Glasgow that Sheridan and a group of his friends went back to the flat she was staying in for a cup of tea.
And now to damage she is claiming Sheridan was with another man and two women, one of whom was called Anvar.
She said:
"I saw Mr Sheridan. He was picking some people up at the club. I asked him back for a cup of tea before he went back because he had a wife. Of course I knew who he was, because of what he did with the poll tax and stuff."
Ms Tucker also claims that she and Sheridan left to get pizzas.
Might you it would be ironic if Sheridan was sunk by a simple ham and mushroom pizza.
For his part Tommy Sheridan is denying her claims.
He said:
“I am going to suggest you are either confused, very confused, or you are lying, as I have never met you and have never been in Cupid's club. Do you understand?”
I fail to understand why Sheridan thinks that acting like a patronising bastard will play well with the jury. It won’t and might have quite the opposite effect.
To his credit however Sheridan didn’t pursue this witness too much and left it with she is confused, which is a tactic when you want a witness out of the witness box quickly.
One part of her evidence interests me; she said she had worked with Sheridan’s father in the "Corkerhill Project."
Sheridan then steered the conversation in the direction that his father had never lived in Corkerhill and had never worked in such a council project.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/the-m77-now-corkerhill-residents-are-to-claim-compensation-the-road-that-leads-to-court-1.669966
Back in 1995 while a Councillor Tommy Sheridan was arrested in a protest against the M77.
The protest wasn’t a ‘council project’.
I would suspect that the jury will have to give her evidence serious consideration.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
One of the hallmarks of the Tommy Sheridan trial is it is like a rollercoaster, one minute Tommy Sheridan is doing well, the next he is getting his arse kicked into orbit by witnesses.
For the jury this case is a minefield, who do you believe Tommy Sheridan or the Crown’s witnesses?
And the Crown has plenty of witnesses but with the drawback that some of them have been paid by the NOTW.
But the most damage being inflicted on Tommy Sheridan is from witnesses who are independent of the political dogfight between the SSP and Sheridan’s Solidarity mob.
Pamela Tucker for example, she has told the High Court that she saw Tommy Sheridan at a swingers' club in Manchester.
And that she recognised Tommy Sheridan because of his involvement with fighting against the poll tax.
Pamela Tucker has told perjury trial at the High Court in Glasgow that Sheridan and a group of his friends went back to the flat she was staying in for a cup of tea.
And now to damage she is claiming Sheridan was with another man and two women, one of whom was called Anvar.
She said:
"I saw Mr Sheridan. He was picking some people up at the club. I asked him back for a cup of tea before he went back because he had a wife. Of course I knew who he was, because of what he did with the poll tax and stuff."
Ms Tucker also claims that she and Sheridan left to get pizzas.
Might you it would be ironic if Sheridan was sunk by a simple ham and mushroom pizza.
For his part Tommy Sheridan is denying her claims.
He said:
“I am going to suggest you are either confused, very confused, or you are lying, as I have never met you and have never been in Cupid's club. Do you understand?”
I fail to understand why Sheridan thinks that acting like a patronising bastard will play well with the jury. It won’t and might have quite the opposite effect.
To his credit however Sheridan didn’t pursue this witness too much and left it with she is confused, which is a tactic when you want a witness out of the witness box quickly.
One part of her evidence interests me; she said she had worked with Sheridan’s father in the "Corkerhill Project."
Sheridan then steered the conversation in the direction that his father had never lived in Corkerhill and had never worked in such a council project.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/the-m77-now-corkerhill-residents-are-to-claim-compensation-the-road-that-leads-to-court-1.669966
Back in 1995 while a Councillor Tommy Sheridan was arrested in a protest against the M77.
The protest wasn’t a ‘council project’.
I would suspect that the jury will have to give her evidence serious consideration.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
3 comments:
Pamela Tucker
Did Tommy...
Dear Conan
Really?
I never knew that politics was such a hotbed of sex.
What is the best political party to join for picking up crumpet in your opinion?
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Has to be the Tories.
Mind you, daddy owning half of Berkshire probably helps.
Next, the SWP.
Mind you, daddy owning the other half of Berkshire helps.
Post a Comment