Tommy Sheridan calls in the ‘allies’ to give their subjective opinion on the secret sex tape confession, they say not him, and claim that as fact!!!!

Dear All

It seems that in the hit trial of Tommy Sheridan you can split the ‘for and against’ via political party.

If you are a member of the Scottish Socialist Party then Sheridan said he visited a sex club.

If you are a member of Solidarity (ex SSP) then Sheridan didn’t admit visiting a sex club.

The trial rolls on, who to believe?

Now, two political allies of Tommy Sheridan have took the stage to claimed the secret video in which he allegedly confesses to going to a sex club does not have the former MSP.

If the tape is not really that would mean the News of the World shelled out £200k on a dud.

And the person who paid for it would therefore be a ‘fud who bought a dud’!

In Scotland being taken for a fud is a heinous crime.

Imagine standing in a Glasgow street and someone shouts out:

‘Hey you ya fud!’

You wouldn’t know where to look.

Ian Fitzpatrick and Philip Stott say they were both certain Tommy Sheridan is not the man whose voice is captured in the tape, they reason this out partly because they did not recognise the accused as someone who swore so much.

In every day political life most people wouldn’t be speaking ‘feck this’ and ‘feck that’, ‘hey you ya big bastard’.

Stick their neck under the political madam guillotine it could be another situation all together.

People lose the rag as exhibited by John Major who famously said on a live feed on air of some Tory Cabinets who were euro sceptic:

‘three of the bastards are sitting in the Cabinet’

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/major-says-three-in-cabinet-are-bastards-1486997.html

So, under pressure people will be loud and expletive.

Fitzpatrick who is an IT specialist proceeded to tell the court he had socialised and worked with Sheridan since 2002 and had viewed the ‘confession’ video when it was published by the News of the World in October 2006.

Sheridan asked the witness:

“We have heard four Crown witnesses who have stated that it’s me in the video. Do you agree with them?”

The witness replied:

“Absolutely not. Just in so many ways it’s just not you. Knowing you for the length of time I have known you, I just know for a fact that it’s not you.”

Actually, he doesn’t he is using subjective opinion which isn’t a fact, more like an educated guess.
Fitzpatrick wasn’t at the event, wasn’t involved in a forensic analysis and can present no factual evidence to back up his opinion.

And it is only opinion.

Poor man’s Lord Denning, Advocate Depute Alex Prentice QC then got up to ask if Sheridan “had a similar sort of voice” to the man in the video.

The witness said:

“I said it’s not him in so many ways. The tone. The things that absolutely struck me is I’ve never seen his behaviour like this, the pauses, the swearing. He is someone who knows what he is saying, in an eloquent way.”

Alex Prentice QC must be praying that this trial will be over soon, he has taken a hell of beating.

One thing he wants on his xmas list is a Sheridan conviction so he can enjoy his xmas dinner in peace.

A section of news clip shown to the court yesterday contains Sheridan telling the camera:

“I can categorically deny that I was involved in that tape. They may have my voice and they may have inserted my voice, but then again, who framed Roger Rabbit?”

Judge Doom but he isn’t a player in the Sheridan case.

Sheridan continued:

“I certainly was at no meeting in relation to the creation of this particular audio tape. At the end of the day, what they have done, is concocted and spliced a version of the tape that may include my voice and certainly includes someone else’s voice.”

Then a Mr Stott of Dundee had a go, he said he had known Sheridan for almost 26 years and listened to him speak at “hundreds” of rallies and meetings and socialised with him on many occasions.

He said after watching a section of the secret video:

“The voice I heard was certainly not yours. I am absolutely certain about that.”

Has anyone noticed that both Fitzpatrick and Stott both use the word ‘absolutely’, if I was a juror I would be concerned that these two people may have spoken to each other since they are using the exact same wording!

I am a suspicious type and I would want to know how many other Sheridan witnesses used this particular description as well.

I would be concerned that people were being ‘coached’.

Prentice, on cross examination, said:

“Do you agree that it sounds like Mr Sheridan.”

The witness said he did not and let us remember he is just a punter no matter how many times he has heard Sheridan speak..

Stott added:

“I would probably describe it as a poor caricature.”

So do Fitzpatrick and Stott take us anywhere or further forward in the discovery of the truth?

I would say no!

I view this as ‘rally round the flag’ and I am surprised that Prentice isn’t exploiting this line.

The trial continues and Sheridan and his wife both deny all the charges against them.

You could make a gritty Glasgow movie of this in the vain of ‘a sense of freedom’.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University