Craig Murray Defence Fund Launched 754


My Defence Fund has now reached over £75,000 from almost 5,000 donors. I am extremely grateful to each and every one. Work is now proceeding apace with the legal team. If charges are brought against any of the others who have been threatened by Police Scotland or the Crown Office over this case, including the journalist whose laptops and phones were seized by police, the funds will be made available to their defence also.

Original Post (from 24 April, with further update below).

I know of four pro-Independence folk who were last week phoned or visited by Police Scotland and threatened with contempt of court proceedings over social media postings they had made weeks back on the Alex Salmond case. Then on Monday, a Scottish journalist I know had his home raided by five policemen, who confiscated (and still have) all his computers and phones. They said they were from the “Alex Salmond team” and investigating his postings on the Alex Salmond case. He has not to date been charged, and his lawyer is advising him at present to say nothing, so I am not revealing his name.

Then on Tuesday morning, a large Police van full of police pulled up onto the pavement right outside my front gate, actually while I was talking on the phone to a senior political figure about the raid on my friend. The police just sat in the van staring at my house. I contacted my lawyers who contacted the Crown Office. The police van pulled away and my lawyers contacted me back to say that the Crown Office had told them I would be charged, or officially “cited”, with Contempt of Court, but they agreed there was no need for a search of my home or to remove my devices, or for vans full of police.

On Thursday two plain clothes police arrived and handed me the indictment. Shortly thereafter, an email arrived from The Times newspaper, saying that the Crown Office had “confirmed” that I had been charged with contempt of court. In the case of my friend whose house was raided, he was contacted by the Daily Record just before the raid even happened!

I am charged with contempt of court and the hearing is on 7 July at the High Court in Edinburgh. The contempt charge falls in two categories:

i) Material published before the trial liable to prejudice a jury
ii) Material published which could assist “jigsaw identification” of the failed accusers.

Plainly neither of these is the true motive of the Crown Office. If they believed that material I published was likely to have prejudiced the jury, then they had an obvious public duty to take action BEFORE the trial – and the indictment shows conclusively they were monitoring my material long before the trial. To leave this action until after the trial which they claim the material was prejudicing, would be a serious act of negligence on their part. It is quite extraordinary to prosecute for it now and not before the trial.

As for identifying the failed conspirators, I have done less than the mainstream media. But plainly the Crown Office, or whoever is pushing them to this persecution, had no genuine interest in protecting the identities, otherwise why did they tip off the media that I was being charged, and thus guarantee further publicity? If protecting the identities was their motive, to tip off the media would obviously be counterproductive.

But what proves that the Crown Office is acting from base motives and not those stated is the one-sided nature of this. Only supporters of Alex Salmond – the Alex Salmond found innocent by the jury – are being pursued by this continuing Police Scotland operation.

There are literally thousands who put out “Salmond is guilty” “Salmond is a rapist” “Salmond is a pervert” posts on social media before and during the trial. Not one has had the police knock on the door. The Herald published absolutely deliberately, the day before the trial, a montage of Alex Salmond amongst photos of mass murderers. They have not been charged. Every newspaper published “jigsaw identification” information which I withheld. They have not been charged or investigated, despite the evidence brilliantly compiled and presented to the Police.

No, this is a blatant, one-sided political persecution. That much is entirely plain. I have therefore decided, in the interests of open justice, to publish the entire indictment against me (with a single sentence redacted where I think the prosecution were excessively indiscreet). Neither the indictment nor the covering letter is marked confidential or not for publication. It is, so far as I know, a public document.

The Crown have very deliberately not included the names of any of the failed conspirators in the indictment and instead refer to the women by their court allocated letters. That is a plain indication to me that this is a public document drafted specifically with publication in mind. Otherwise the document would have more naturally used the names and not the alphabet letters.

More fundamentally this indictment is the basis on which they are attempting to put me in prison – in fact the indictment specifies up to two years in jail and an unlimited fine as the punishment sought from the court. I think the public interest, and my own interest, in it being public is very substantial.

The state believes it has finally discovered a way to put me in prison without the inconvenient hurdle of a jury of my peers. Contempt of Court is just decided by a judge. It is extraordinary that you can go to jail for a substantial two years with no jury protection and no test of “beyond reasonable doubt”; and on the whim of a judge defending what he may view as the dignity of his own office. This really is the epitome of bad law. To use it against freedom of speech is disgusting.

So here is the full indictment against me:

redactedcaseagainstcraigmurray (1)

If the indictment contains anything they did not wish to be public, well, I didn’t force them to serve it on me. From my side, the proceedings against me will be entirely open. I will remind you that you may find all or part of the indictment initially convincing; but you are yet to see my point by point reply, which naturally I shall also publish in due course.

[UPDATE

Pending the outcome of the trial, and on legal advice, I have redacted from the indictment those sentences complained of as aiding identification of a witness, and have redacted same sentences from original blog posts. My position is firmly that they absolutely do not they do not contribute to likely identification of witnesses, and the mainstream media did that to a far greater degree than I.]

The purpose of this operation against free speech is a desperate attempt to keep the lid on the nature of the state conspiracy to fit up Alex Salmond. Once the parliamentary inquiry starts, a huge amount of evidence of conspiracy which the court did not allow the defence to introduce in evidence during the criminal trial, will be released. The persecution of myself is an attempt to intimidate independent figures into not publishing anything about it. The lickspittle media of course do not have to be intimidated. To this end, I am charged specifically with saying that the Alex Salmond case was a fit-up and a conspiracy in which the Crown Office was implicated. So I thought I would say it again now:

The Alex Salmond case was a fit-up and a conspiracy in which the Crown Office was implicated, foiled by the jury. If Scotland is the kind of country where you go to jail for saying that, let me get my toothbrush.

Before then, I am afraid we have to fund my defence and I shall be very grateful for donations to my defence fund. My initial target is £60,000. I shall post daily updates on total reached, but I shall be using my established funding channels and not involving a crowdfunding website. I do not intend to fight this battle entirely on the defensive, and some of the funding may be put to launching actions against the Crown or others.




Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

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

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

754 thoughts on “Craig Murray Defence Fund Launched

1 2 3 4 12
  • thomas

    Donated, and I’ll donate again next week, this is nothing more than a disgusting abuse of power, They are raging that they didn’t get salmon so their going for you Craig, what a vile insidious group of people, they makes me sick.

  • Philip

    “Humbly sheweth…” What a joke!
    Never mind the 21st…when are the courts going to join the 20th century!

    That indictment is an embarrassment. It is so addled it indicts itself…perhaps some human rights campaigners from Uzbekistan could send a petition to the UN asking a special rapporteur to investigate politically motivated selective prosecution in Scotland.

    • Ron+Carr

      Yeah, I noticed that too, was kind of funny when they started talking about blogs.

      • Mary

        Somebody send them the definition of the word.

        justice
        noun
        1.
        just behaviour or treatment.
        “a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people”

  • stuart mctavish

    In presenting a spurious cqse grounded in bias and inuendo (not disimilar to the technique used in the Salmond trial itself) it is arguably the petitioner(s) that hold(s) the court in the utmost contempt.
    Paragraph 71, which submits that undisputed (and possibly irrefutable) commentary from articles published on 23 August and 18 January, could “interfere with the course of justice” is particularly repugnant.

    • Piotr+Berman

      I read it only until that point. The owner of this site is guilty of not removing posts and comments that appeared prior to the court order. By the way, since media commentaries and comments from the public are common place in high profile cases, in USA the jury is usually instructed not to read and view such material — as long as they are on the jury, I never heard about barring the posting of the opinions about investigations and prosecution, just about interviewing the prospective jurors is they have any formed opinion about the case etc. Similarly, having low opinion about law enforcement or some aspects of it is still legal this side of Bosphorus — at least I had such impression.

      I donated an equivalent of 10 months of my recurring support. I hope that Craig will go through this affair in good spirits, disgusting as it is.

      • Penguin

        No action against mackay of the herlad and his deliberate linking of Salmond with mass murders, paedophiles and child killers. All the proof you need that this is N Sturgeon taking revenge.

  • Mary

    Relevant. If confirmation was needed –

    77th Brigade employed. Confirmed by Carter.

    VIDEO: CHIEF OF STAFF CONFIRMS ARMY ‘NON-LETHAL WARFARE’ GROUP ACTIVE ON UK POPULATION DURING PANDEMIC
    24/04/2020
    77th Brigade meant to be involved in overseas ‘combat operations’ but name-check during press briefing shows resources turned inward on UK

    The UK’s Chief of Defence Staff, Sir Nicholas Carter, has confirmed live on television that a secretive disinformation brigade formed to carry out ‘non-lethal warfare‘ on overseas targets is operating on the UK population during the coronavirus pandemic.
    /..
    https://skwawkbox.org/2020/04/24/video-chief-of-staff-confirms-army-non-lethal-warfare-group-active-on-uk-population-during-pandemic/

  • Ronnie

    I am left in despair with the way Police Scotland has handled the Alex Salmond Case and now this case against Craig Murray !
    Loved the clarity of your posts and reports from the High Court during the Alex Salmond case – I in no way could have jigsawed the identity of the accusers , and I doubt 99% of the Scottish Public could either!
    Wishing you well Craig !

  • Rab Alexander

    Happy to contribute to your defence against these trumped up charges, I actually expected this to happen sooner and was gratified that I was wrong. So much for that idea I wonder what this vendetta is costing the taxpayer. Keep your chin up,shoulders back in Alex Salmod style and you will come through this vexatious prosecution.

  • Out+of+Affric

    Craig,
    Along with Alex Salmond; Alex Neil; Kenny MacAskill; Mike Russell (subsequently reinstated), you fall into the category of ‘grey’ men – summarily dissed by the Scottish Government.
    Contrast this with the ‘feckless’ Leslie Evans and the ‘stone cold clanger’ Catherine Calderwood – both of whom are part of the sorority imperative.
    Unbelievably, the former remains in post, and the latter has been subjected to a toe-curling press conference which never should have happened. There are other members whose visits to the nail bar have been curtailed – their fingernails must be suffering so badly.
    This skewing of priorities is now embarrassingly Third World. No wonder we are a colony.

  • David

    I’m in serious danger of being embarrassed to be Scottish, on top of already being embarrassed to be British (for now…).

  • Mike Ralston

    ATB Craig, just bunged the fund £100 which won’t go far, but I’m retired and need to live! Watching with interest and horror .. Mike

  • A Stuart

    We cannot allow this, my goodness Craig we have a duty to get the truth about what’s happening out there.

  • ThereisaGod

    The “great and the good” are not as we are advised to imagine them. They are vicious, spiteful little worms.

  • Mike Ralston

    Donated Craig, not a lot but I’m retired & need to live in my means…will be following with interest and horror…this is USSR-type behaviour!

  • John O'Dowd

    Additional payment made. I’ll contribute more as regularly as I can – in the hope that this disgrace can be remedied by wiser counsel – before it gets anywhere near a court.

    This is utterly shameful. I do hold this whole legal racket in utter contempt.

    Never thought I would ever say that!

  • Jackie

    I don’t disagree that contempt of court being without jury and the lack of prosecution against mainline media is pathetic, but there’s no way you could say you’re not in violation of the orders. How exactly can you explain away the quotes given in the letter as anything but revealing?

  • Stephen

    So angry when I read this story this morning. I’ve followed the blog for a while now and had my eyes opened on a few matters. Your coverage of the Salmond trial was insightful and concise as always. Clearly the establishment see you as an enemy of the state and would like nothing more than to shut you up for good. They will fail in the end and you will be vindicated. Good luck and a small donation (what I can afford) on it’s way.

  • sheila

    I so appreciate your honest work throughout the trial. Have donated a small amount, and will keep updated with what transpires, looking forward to there being a quick end to yet another ridiculous move from Police Scotland.
    kind regards

  • Derek Rogers

    You sound as though you’re relishing the fightback – good on you! What with Salmond’s revenge, the political backlash over the handling of coronavirus, and your impending attack on the Scottish judiciary, it looks as though it’s going to be a good summer for the Indy movement. You bring cheer to the weary peasants! Donation on its way.

  • jennifer+Allan

    Craig – I never read any of your blogs before the trial and am certainly not ‘au fait’ with the inner workings of the SNP or the persons involved. Before reading your blogs I had quite independently come to much the same conclusions about the Salmond trial, just from reading the charges and the press reports. One of the two serious charges had my family falling about laughing-because of the sheer impossibility of it .I won’t republish the charge but I’m sure you know which one I am referring to.

    The indictment against you goes back a long way and I cannot comment on your pre-trial blogs, but the ‘nitty gritty’ appears to revolve around whether your blogs included information which could be used to identify the complainants. Obviously I have no idea who they are, but equally I am quite sure that persons with knowledge of the inner workings of the SNP will already have worked out exactly who they are just from the charges. Also, the trial reports in the press and media, contained much the same ‘clues’ as published by yourself. Much has been made about a few anonymous comments below your blogs, by anonymous persons claiming to have identified complainants identities from clues in your blogs. This evidence is ridiculous and ought to be inadmissable in a court of law. These persons could be anyone, including persons who were already aware of the identities. However, make no mistake you are up against an administration prepared to spend huge amounts of public money on court cases.

    Your best defence is publicity. If it is OK for these people to inform the media about the details of your indictment, then make the most of it. Politicians and even Judges are afraid of ‘the court of public opinion’. I will make a donation and I hope many others will do the same. Most of us ordinary citizens don’t want our beautiful country to be governed like an oppressive totalitarian regime.

    • Johny Conspiranoid

      Your best defence is publicity but it remains to be seen what kind of publicity it will get, or if it gets any.

      • Jjennifer Allan

        The following is from the BBC report on Craig’s indictment:-
        “Alex Salmond trial: Blogger faces contempt of court proceedings
        24 April 2020
        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52412137
        “The women who made the allegations against Mr Salmond included an SNP politician, a party worker and several current and former Scottish government civil servants and officials.”

        Plenty of ‘clues’ there to the identities of those complainants. Those persons ‘in the know’ will have no difficulty in working out who they are. In less than a day Craig’s court defence fund has already amassed more than £30,000. The ‘publicity’ is working. Keep it up Craig.

        • Penguin

          Every so called journalist in Scotland published the same details. Daniel gravel explicitly identified one of the women. No punishment for the Yoon Scotophobic feminazi though.

  • Brenda Foubister

    Dear Craig – I wish you all good luck with your defence and I’m very happy to contribute to the fund.
    A’ the best.

  • Donnie

    Hi Craig, so who is at the top of your list for doing this to you. SNP, Whitehall, Crown Office or or all three. Or are there other forces at play here.
    I had a feeling the establishment in Scotland wouldn’t want you escaping without some sort of retribution for outing the forces in the higher echelons of the SNP and the Whitehall civil servants that are gunning for Alex and now you.

    • Shatnersrug

      Hmm I think it’s a collections of numbskulls, not least the Americans and their desire to get Julian on American soil, Craig is probably one of the most famous faces of the alternative media.

      What’s interesting about this is that, the state are responding to and railing against the alternative media now, this is a sign that they can no longer ignore us. Believe it or not this is actually a good sign.

      Craig buddy, be as public as you can be – I’ll send you some more dosh later

      S

    • Squeeth

      This is the most on-topic post in the thread. read it again.

      Then there were the quiet orders, the orders that were not published, that were within the bureaucracy, that were oral. Finally, there were no orders at all.

      Everybody knew what he had to do.[39] Geddit?

  • stuart mctavish

    According to paragraph 3, the section 11 order only applies to the legal submissions that took place between 14:20 hours and 14:25 hours on 10 March 2020!

    Even more intruiging is paragraph 65, which seems to imply that contempt occurs when an event creates a substantial risk that justice is impeded or prejudiced in consequence, when viewed in the context of the time taken for the allegations to be dismissed (or not proven) and the old adage about justice delayed being justice denied..

  • Merkin Scot

    Craig, the Spartacus Troops were there many years ago. Hang tight. I ‘spoke’ with one of the stupid woke types yesterday who sought to traduce you. No knowledge of you or the situation. Lovely lassie, lovely family. No gumption. That is what we deal with.

  • Loftwork

    I had hoped the Scottish judiciary was better able to resist the blandishments of the state than its English counterpart. It is, however, bringing the judicial system into disrepute to harrass someone for reporting a trial. The notion that this is about constructive disclosure of the identities of false accusers is ridiculous. If enough construction of gossip creates enough suspicion, ‘guilt’ becomes both axiomatic and entirely subjective. Such state abuse of process is a testimony to its immorality and desperation. Let’s hope the Streisanding is ferocious and the financial support is like Chelsea Manning’s (yet another contempt case, how unsurprising)..

    • Piotr+Berman

      We need Craig to have a good lawyer, not an appointed lawyer. Additionally, as already disclosed by the media, Craig may be insufficiently poor to qualify. Moreover, perhaps some of his harassed friends lack the means to raise defense money, and/or one may need to combine cases into a pattern of political repression

  • Robyn

    It’s not just the financial toll, which I hope can be borne by Craig’s supporters, it’s the emotional toll. Even in the happy event that the full amount is raised, there must be an extremely high level of anxiety at the prospect of two years in prison.

1 2 3 4 12

Comments are closed.