Tomorrow is Another Day 322


I have received very many messages waiting for my take on the Alex Salmond acquittal. There is much to say and a need to take serious decisions about exactly when to reveal various crucial elements of information, because while the truth is vital, there can be a legitimate question at which moment it does most good. The most stunning information is in danger of being swamped by COVID-19 at the moment.

Secondly, you will not perhaps be surprised to hear that there has been some serious happiness in the Murray household today. This subject is best tackled stone cold sober.

It is tonight worth reflecting that people seeking to still cast aspersions are attacking the jury, who were diligent and contained nine women whom they are disparaging. Nine women on a jury drawn from No voting Edinburgh. A jury who for the last few years have been, like everybody else, indoctrinated with the rubric that it is a terrible moral wrong to doubt the word of an accuser making any sexual allegation #Ibelieveher.

I was worried that this was James Stewart of the Glen before a jury of Campbells all over again, but this jury looked carefully at the actual evidence before them, evidence that was – and still is now post verdict – in no way reflected fairly in the highly selective coverage of the mainstream media. That jury came to the only decision available to honest and sensible people.

But I want to make one thing quite clear. This is not a case where the major accusations failed because of the difficulty of proving what happened with two people alone in a room. In such cases it is often right to feel real and profound sorrow for the accuser with no means of proof. This was a case where there was very real evidence, from third party after third party, of certain accusers telling definite and deliberate lies. A case where eye witnesses stated categorically that claimed events did not happen. A case where eye witnesses testified people were not physically present when claimed. A case where witnesses testified that reports had not been made, and policies not instituted, as claimed by the prosecution.

A limited amount of evidence was also heard of some of the accusers conspiring together with others, including through a Whatsapp group created for the specific purpose, to fabricate and forward those lies. The vast bulk of evidence on this specific issue of conspiracy was excluded by the court both in pre-trial hearings and by dismissal of witnesses or evidence in the trial itself but, as Alex Salmond indicated from the court steps, will be out in due time.

It is also important to note that two thirds of the accusers – and indeed precisely those two thirds who were involved in lies, fabrications and conspiracy – were and are senior members of the SNP, very much part of the party machine, very much close to the leadership and especially involved in the non-independence related agenda that has taken over the party. With one exception, they are in highly paid party nominated jobs now with the tab picked up by the taxpayer. What we learned in the trial about careerism and self-promotion among those earning a very fat living out of the party’s current domination of Scottish politics was really very unedifying indeed.

That a party which has such a wonderful and committed membership – a membership who make me proud to be a member alongside them – should play host to a parasitic and highly paid professional elite with no discernible interest in Independence is a truly remarkable phenomenon. What we saw revealed in court was a procession of members of the political class who would just have happily have made their careers in the old corrupt Scottish Labour Party if it was still in charge. A major, major clearout is needed.

Now where did I leave my Lagavulin? For once, I feel I have deserved it.

This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so actively. Truth shall set us free.

——————————————

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



 

Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.


322 thoughts on “Tomorrow is Another Day

1 3 4 5
  • Sam

    Imagine if the Crown had used prerecorded ‘evidence’ against Salmond. Surely these measures to ‘protect victims’ have to be rolled back?

    • Vivian O'Blivion

      Huh? The Crown DID use prerecorded evidence against Salmond. The “celebrity guest” at the infamous dinner (Ken Stott but for some reason we’re not supposed to reveal his identity) gave “evidence” via a prerecorded Skype interview with the Polis. Stott was therefore not cross-examined by the Defence team, while the defence witness testifying that Woman H wasn’t present was given the fifth degree by the Prosecuting team.
      Stott was apparently self isolating due to Covid-19. Big question nagging at my inadequate mind. If the Polis could manage a prerecorded Skype interview, why not a live, Skype feed to the Courthouse allowing cross-examination? Perhaps the jury asked themselves this question also.
      To quote Gordon Jackson QC “That stinks. It absolutely stinks.”.

  • Vronsky

    Knowing how to behave with women at work is tricky. I once worked with a large semiconductor company in a technical capacity, and many of my colleagues were women. I mentioned this to my sister and she asked how I felt about it. I said that as far as I was concerned they were just other engineers. You won’t be very popular, she said.

  • jake

    Majority verdicts are all that’s required in Scots Law.
    Now while it’s true that 8 out of 15 can can get someone acquitted, so too it only requires 8 out of 15 to get someone found guilty.
    Simply put, it’s easier to get a conviction with a majority system than a system that relies upon a unanimous verdict. That being true there are compensatory mechanisms ( corroboration, rules of evidence etc) that serve as a counter-balance to facilitate a fair and just outcome. The extent to which these compensatory mechanisms work will always be a matter for debate and speculation.

  • N_

    Will Alex Salmond now team up with Tommy Sheridan to start the Innocent Swordsmen’s Party?

    • Cubby

      N

      You got absolutely everything wrong about the trial. Humility and learning from mistakes are obviously not your strong points. Come to think of it it is not evident what your strong points are.

  • Lawrence Anderson Burley

    I have a question for commentators here more experienced than I in Scottish politics.
    What is the problem with this Alex Bell?

    I read today an article he penned on March 25th in The Courier (picked up in Daily Record) in which he denounces Alex Salmond as “sleazy.. creep”, gives a grotesquely biased, borderline scurrilous, account of the trial, referring to “powerful testimony” by the witnesses, highlights (then draws lurid conclusions from) Gordon Jackson’s statement that Salmond “could have been a better man”, rubbishes any evidence of conspiracy among the upper SNP echelons, and ‘builds’ his case against Salmond as a man haunted by “core insecurity” for which he over compensates, to the greater damage to Scotland … et j’en passe!

    https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opinion/alex-bell/1222015/alex-bell-when-your-best-defence-is-im-sleazy-but-not-criminal-its-nothing-to-smile-about/

    Yet this man was press secretary to Alex Salmond in 2011. And he was called as a defence (not prosecution!) witness at the trial. Why? Why was the testimony of such a biased personage needed by the Defence, and what happened to him since working for Salmond?

    Genuine question. I’m perplexed. Grateful for enlightenment.

    • Cubby

      Lawrence Anderson Burley

      When Bell said – “when your best defence is I’m sleazy but not criminal” – he must have been talking about himself.

  • Nick

    Bravo Craig, your efforts are greatly appreciated, would that there were a few more of your ilk.

  • Skye Mull

    Final para from a Spectator article (paywall).
    “Whatever his opponents inside and outside the SNP may think of him, he has a compelling story to tell. He has cleared his name of serious charges. His assertion that he was a victim of a political conspiracy now appears to carry the imprimatur of a High Court jury. Alex Salmond is back from the dead and he will have his revenge.”

    Will the sturgeon in the weeds lunge out as the salmon cruises by?

  • Alastair Stuart

    .
    Dear Craig,

    Your article on “Tomorrow is Another Day” that caused several of us sleepless nights is helping with remedial action elsewhere.

    Having read several of your posts in another’s place, I do not wish to probe in matters that may well fall within the sub judice rules. However, I responded to your substantive points and link that post here as a courtesy…

    https://tinyurl.com/WoS-Innocents-and-Miscreants

    Kindest wishes,

    Al Stuart.

  • Mary

    Now the PTB in Edinburgh are pursuing Alex Salmond’s lawyer for allegedly revealing the names of two of the female witnesses. Somebody must have tailed him and reported it.

    Alex Salmond’s advocate to be investigated
    The advocate who defended Alex Salmond and saw him acquitted of 13 sexual assault allegations, has referred himself to the legal complaints body after he was filmed on a train revealing the names of two women involved in the trial.
    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmonds-advocate-be-investigated-2521746

    I am not registered with the Scotsman so cannot say what followed.

    • Mel

      Gordon Jackson is not the most discreet of lawyers. I have overheard him having conversations several times. On a train, in a restaurant and with a Councillor in a square as two examples. He is easy to listen into because he has such a loud voice. I have also overheard Nicola Sturgeon too. Obviously, I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the conversations.

1 3 4 5

Comments are closed.