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
Judges turn bread and wine into the body of Christ. Call out a priest for this and you will likely get a deep discussion, that will include nuance and doubt. Call out a Judge and you will get a hand on the throat and a knife in the back. The worst crimes are always made legal.
An american ex-lawyer.
@Craig
“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.”
Yes. More importantly, it shows that charging you is an abuse of judicial process.
Take a look at the Michael Randle and Pat Pottle case. They were the guys who sprang George Blake from Wormwood Scrubs prison and were charged more than 20 years later. They argued that the prosecution was an abuse of process because the state authorities had known for decades that they had done it and had decided not to prosecute them. Their argument wasn’t accepted by the judge, but you may like to look at it and consider how it might help your defence in the Scottish jurisdiction.
…. that’s why jury trials are so important. The argument was not accepted by the judge, who basically ordered the jury to convict, but the jury returned a `not guilty’ verdict.
The jury was right, the judge was wrong.
… and I seem to recall that Michael Randle and Pat Pottle defended themselves.
@Craig
Why haven’t they sought an interim order requiring you or your webhost to remove the article “The Alex Salmond Fit-up”? That’s very easy for them to do.
They are absolutely taking the piss.
Most reasonably intelligent followers of this matter will be able to guess correctly whose office this attack on you comes from. The holder of the said office is going to be in damned lot of political trouble and will probably get even more “troubled nights” when the identity of one witness in particular is made public.
Hello N_,
I have not a clue who any of the alphabet sisters in collusion are, and had no interest until this:
>>and will probably get even more “troubled nights” when the identity of one witness in particular is made public.
You have piqued my interest. It’s like reading a conspiracy novel. I guess I’ll have to wait until either Craig or Alex S. reveal all.
Interesting read indeed!
I have just read thru the entire indictment and it would appear you have a serious legal “fan club” of sorts. It would appear that you have single-handedly embarrassed everyone involved in the prosecution and freed AS by using subtle literary techniques and code to tell everyone everything that was supposed to remain hidden.
Well in any spectacular embarrassing failure, someone must be made to blame and targeting you may suit some people in several ways…………BUT;
1)Who really benefits from bring this embarrassment of “justice” back before the courts and public?
2)What will be gained by making a public example of you, when one could not be procured against AS?
There are many things I do not understand about Scottish Politics, but again who in the Scottish power structure will ultimately benefit from your very public misfortune?
There is far more to this Craig, keep digging as it is obvious from the indictment that there are those on the inside that both fear and secretly admire you!
James, you are missing the point.
Just because Craig is dragged before the courts, it does not follow that that prosecution will be made public in a way that will embarrass anybody: MSM are unlikely to publish anything evenhanded, let alone objective.
I don’t think the idea is to make (very) public example of Craig – the idea is to make him concentrate on something other than blogging – get him to worry about mony – mess up his plans – get him stressed etc.
Craig, born on a wrong side of railway tracks , was admitted to a very exclusive club, but broke, and keeps breaking the rules, by speaking out in front of the servants (i’m mixing my metaphors here, I think). And people that Craig rubs the wrong way are only human.
If I have observed anything about Craig, he will find a way to make this public in a way proportionate to the prosecutions desire to keep it secret………hence his statement, ” I do not intend to fight this battle entirely on the defensive.”
@ Eva Smagacz April 25, 2020 at 18:39
‘…And people that Craig rubs the wrong way are only human.@
With some of them, that’s questionable.
Alex Prentice QC .
Dave Llewellyn
Someone has cooked this up when everyone else was out of the office due to CV. When they get back words will be said.
At one point in his reporting the case, Craig called Prentice odious. Regardless of what one might think of this judgement, it does introduce an element of personal animus. In such a situation, the fact that Prentice has signed off this indictment would seem to be entirely inappropriate, but it provides further insight into the sanctimony, petty vindictiveness, sense of entitlement and lack of appropriate separation of powers that characterises the Scottish establishment and civic society. That a senior law officer should think this is in any way OK is deeply worrying
Prosecuting Craig for not revealing any names, but reporting the facts about the accusations will simply set a precedent to allow the courts to shut down any publicizing of the facts of the matter at any future trial where people’s identities are secret.
You can’t get around the idea that if you report the facts of the case, even without the names of the accusers, your report will put them in a certain place, at a certain time, with certain people – to do with the accusation. If you report vague mistruths, this doesn’t have to be the case.
The state already has a weapon (false sexual assault claims), where the attacker gets to be anonymous, now it will upgrade this weapon so that the court proceedings would be – at least for the politically motivated ones they are interested in – off limits to journalists reporting whatever truth the state wants buried, aside from whatever fake news they are happy to release via their stenographer.
It’s just a shoot the messenger tactic to lower the already low bar of accountability for public officials.
“Brevitatis causa”!
I have read shorter novels.
Craig, I think you are a star, even if you are as guilty as hell. I might even send you some money, and I rarely do that.
Tony
I couldn’t work anything out either, as so many others have said. I’ve sat through every episode now of both ‘Bagpuss’ and ‘The Magic Roundabout’, as recommended and I’m still none the wiser. Unfortunately it still seems only those in Holyrood Bubble extremist Wumminists wing, could ever have an inkling, in which case they probably already knew who these personalities were anyway. I think ‘Crystal Tips and Alistair’ (I have, at last, the box-set now) in combination with the above, plus playing the greatest hits of Supertramp backwards is the key to it all, though I never was much good with allegories and might still be struggling.
I too, played the game. With as little success as your good self. I thought it would be as easy peasy as a simple crossword clue. If the intent was to reveal, then the reality was something else. It really didn’t. I still, weeks after the trial, haven’t a clue! Not that I have gone looking, heaven forfend! For knowledge could result in a jail sentence, and I’d really like to avoid that!
I don’t understand how it came to trial with ridiculous accusations such as hair pulling. If that was a common joke for the entire office, then how did it suddenly become Salmond’s sexual harassment?
Either the lady was suffering daily harassment from the entire office, or she is lying that Salmond’s gesture had a sexual connotation. I’m unable to find the third option
I can suggest a “third option”, Tatanya, but I want to be clear that this is just a guess from a USA resident based on general understanding and experience.
Also, although I know very well that you are perceptive and wise enough to make this disclaimer unnecessary, please understand that I am by no means endorsing, defending, or approving of the option I am outlining:
The identity-politics ideologues who sanction such “ridiculous accusations” would assert that even if a certain behavior or attitude is widespread among a group, it is “different” when a person of authority joins in. This is because the latter is in a power relationship with the victim.
According to this logic, if and when the uncommon Salmond joins in the common joke, because he holds power over the subject of the joke he is committing a non-consensual assault. There is an existential, fixed “power relationship” in which Salmond is superior (one-up) and the curly-haired lady is inferior (one-down).
“Non-consensual”, BTW, is an ideological presumption; that is, it matters not if the victim has or expresses no special objection to Salmond’s joining in the joke in the event– under the identity-politics rubric, if the victim seems to tolerate, enjoy, or even encourage the superior’s participation in the innocent joke, it is because she is not “freely” assenting, but is a submissive thrall to the power relationship.
It gets worse: since Salmond’s “crimes”, the basis for the prosecution, is that he is allegedly a serial sexual abuser, any “inappropriate” physical contact with the victim is perforce sexual in nature. Thus, the hair-pulling is equated with the unfortunate and deplorable spontaneous “cuddling” in which Salmond admittedly engaged.
Identity-politics ideology, and the laws and regulations that flow from it, employ what otherwise are rationally condemned as impermissible double-standards; in fact, this ideology and jurisprudence is all about promulgating and enforcing multiple standards.
It’s hard to believe, I know. 😉
Well, it’s not hard to believe, actually I can feel it, because I am a woman and I, too, went the way of junior (female) personnel subordinate to the senior (male) boss.
I perfectly understand all these games of subordination, I understand how template patterns of “male” or “boss” behavior can be interpreted as “dominant” or “sexual”. But this only works with very young and naive girls who are in a very highly dependent position, and even with that, it could work in Russia in the 199x, and even then, not with all the young girls.
And yes, one needs something more substantial than a joke with curly hair, played in the presence of third parties, to accuse of sexual harassment.
I have already spoken out on this subject in earlier threads. I’d also prefer my boss to keep his hands to himself and not make some gestures, because these gestures are unpleasant and annoying. But really, these gestures are difficult to qualify as sexual harassment.
A simple dialogue – “I don’t like it, don’t do it anymore” – “ok, I promise, I won’t” – it’s enough to solve the misunderstanding.
I think you put that rather well.
The problem with these assertions in the negative is that it takes only one assertion in the positive (whether or not truthful, let’s say by an anonymous) to spell trouble.
Tony, you do know there are over 70 ways to spell Alastair?
Yeah, did you know that the Eskimos have over 100 words for snow; the Scots have over 100 words for shite 😀
Stuck some money in the pot, Craig and glad to do so. If it wasn’t for you and what you do most of us would only have half the story and the truth would never see the light of day. We can’t rely on the paid propagandists of the MSM. Keep strong, stay safe and I stand with you.
This, it seems to me, calls the Scottish Justice System into disrepute. I think we need an investigation into who thought this was motivated by a clear call for fairness, rather than vindictiveness. They, not you, need to answer.
In an era of citizen journalists, perhaps our judiciary hasn’t caught up yet?
Again I am in agreement with you, Douglas. Look to 77th Brigade and pretty much anyone in the Whitehall Establishment that would deny Scotland her freedom. Salmond and Murray are Dreyfus and Zola 2020.
I agree , they are targeting people on the side of Mr Salmond who have done less of what Mr Murray is accused of , than many journalists working for national newspapers and the BBC have done.
A Prentice is most senior in the Scottish procurator fiscal office and has seen fit to bring what are now seen as ridiculous charges against A Salmond and is doing the same again in bringing these charges against Mr Murray .
Somewhere in the Scottish legal system someone will surely speak out against these actions being brought
Concur entirely with all the expressions of utter disgust.
One wonders if UN observers will be in attendance should this matter proceed further.
Anyway look on the bright side Craig, if they are stupid enough to create a martyr you can spend your time radicalising the other inmates.
As for those encouraging this course, hole stop digging, ring any bells?
Tertullian said the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church.
Are you liking it now Mr Prentice ?
I think the attempt at a contempt of court action signifies that the ‘cabal’ at the centre of the these legal processes is both in deep panic and also profoundly stupid. The standard advice when in a hole is ‘stop digging’.
The cabal are doubling down on a bet which they have already – disastrously – twice lost. Why?
Because what must now happen in a state in which the rule of law applies would be a prosecution for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and individual prosecutions for perjury. And not just a ‘normal’ conspiracy by criminals, but a conspiracy by the Scottish government itself to send a political opponent to jail on trumped up charges. Banana republic niveau: usual in countries without an integral legal system.
While the Crown Prosecution Service is part of the Scottish Government, it is also – hopefully not just theoretically – independent. The cabal is desperately seeking to a create space in which the Lord Advocate and the CPS will not need to prosecute: by painting the verdict of the jury as simply inexplicable, by creating sympathy for the ‘victims’ (the cabal), by suppressing the real story, by scaring opponents, …
I have little doubt but that the Lord Advocate and the CPS are under intense pressure from wide sections of the Scottish legal profession who are well aware of what is at stake: nothing less that the credibility of the Scottish legal system, and the rule of law itself.
Joe, you are spot on about the depth of unhappiness about this in the Scottish legal profession.
Attempting to discredit the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates (MSM ‘journalist’? Private investigator? MI5 itself? – it is hard to tell the difference…) may have been a step too far. It was effectively a declaration of war on the Scottish legal system. Even (especially!) the North British wing of the Scottish legal profession will have to defend their reputation and independence.
You are probably quite right, Joe; and it’s essential to be aware of that political dimension of the matter.
But some of us just prefer to think in terms of truth and falsehood. In this case, Craig is accused of telling the truth – and, worse still, publishing it to the four corners of the Earth.
His offence, in principle, is just the same as Julian Assange’s. Namely, making known the crimes and conspiracies of people in high places.
They believe that their office should protect them from the truth. We don’t. It’s as simple as that.
Let’s hope that legals in Scotland do more than feel unhappy as they take the money….
Of course it should be remembered, before the Salmond trial commenced, Lady Dorrian decreed all evidence pertaining to a ‘conspiracy’ against Alex Salmond was inadmissable. The jury were instructed to stick solely to the evidence presented in court, when deciding their verdicts. There was an abortive attempt by the defence lawyers to introduce conspiracy evidence, via a witness who had received some e-mails. This was stamped on by the prosecution and the court was cleared whilst legal arguments were put to the Judge, who disallowed this evidence. Craig’s blog states clearly he was unable to report these legal arguments.
Yes, Alex Salmond was plainly vexxed, this and other evidence of a conspiracy against him was disallowed, but he should be grateful to Lady Dorrian. There’s no evidence the jury members were in any way unduly influenced by any of the conspiracy theories doing the rounds long before the Salmond trial. The Jury did a good job and any attempts by establishment or other interests to claim otherwise would look perverse, and would not stand up to any kind of legal challenge, without undermining our entire legal system. Besides, the Scottish Parliament had already decided to hold an inquiry into this.
This should mean every pre-trial word on Craig’s indictment pertaining to a Salmond ‘fit-up’ or similar, is irrelevant to the charges against him. These should be deleted from the indictment forthwith. The ‘Yes Minister’ parody would go down well in the Edinburgh Fringe -too bad it’s been cancelled.
Well, having read the indictment, the case seems to depend on some commenters, on the blog and on twitter, having declared that they’ve guessed the identity of one or other of the complainers, without actually exposing their guesses. The ordinary person, such as me, has no idea. Well, commenters are free to say to say anything they like. What they say is not necessarily the truth; it can be any sort of exaggeration or simple lie. It is, most of the time. I, for example, don’t hesitate to troll, if it suits me (though I personally try to stay within the limits of the truth). Depending on what commenters say is a very weak case, to my mind. If the law allows that as contempt, there’s a problem in the law.
I agree, Laguerre, anyone on the Internet can boast that he has a 20 inches long penis, but that isn’t necessarily correspond to reality, right? I believe that the trial on Mr. Murray is in fact a great chance for people like you and me to finally find out the names of these witnesses.
I have an indecent desire to look at the witnesses’ photos and make sure that they are as attractive as they presume. My bad, indecent desire, but what can I do, Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto 🙂
Hi Tatyana
I thought Russia had long measured things in cm and metres, not inches, An inch, I understand is the length of a royal penis from long ago.I wonder what loyal flunky got to pull it straight(Nicholas Witchell? resident BBC royal toilet brush), to allow the application of the ruler.(pun not intended).
Thanks for your contributions regarding sexual politics.ORT’s comments also seem interesting.
Seems to me to be a high risk strategy(to have another round with this issue-AS) for the crown, but with so much at stake for the legal establishment in North Britain I would expect some serious dirty work.
Craig- beware and be braced. I think you need to have some very good strategists on your side.It is worrying that this goes on the say so of a judge. Reading the indictment I think it will be quite difficult to provide a point by point rebuttal. I also suspect an intrinsic bias which will be impossible to neutralise.
I too have been unable to attach names from the clues but for people who are familiar with that SNP coterie and their civil and otherwise servants, it must be relatively straightforward. I think I could do it simply from a list of employees/ spads and assistants and brief biographical notes such as ages and educational background.The fact that I am pretty sure I could do this without the benefit of the blog posts
suggests that might be one line of defence.- that the most basic information would permit identification.
I was contemplating the issue around sexual politics last night as I lay in semi-slumber.This whole area of thought is ripe for revisiting and revising.I think the current ideas are remarkably fragile and may need to be teased apart by the forensic attention that a case like this can provide. I DO think we need to look at some of the (legal) assumptions that have motivated this entire fiasco.
The serious point here is that if the legal system is revealed to be meddling in politics and to be a ‘bad actor’ the whole foundation of a civil society could break down .Faith in the legal system to act impartially and dispassionately is absolutely key to the maintenance of good order. In terms of the independence movement the distinctive nature of the Scottish Legal system and the Scottish Education system provide two of the pillars that define an independent state Other pillars are the parliament and electoral system and finally the currency and trading arrangements. One can imagine that if the distinctive legal system was to fail in some way, powers would revert to Westminster and we might find ourselves subject to English judges and English process.Thus independence, far from being promoted by the discrediting of the legal system, could be made much more difficult.
Indeed, Laguerre. I, too have not the slightest idea who those people are – and, what’s more, I don’t care in the slightest. I probably wouldn’t recognise any of their names anyway.
All I know about them is they conspired painstakingly together to tell a pack of lies in order to have an innocent man convicted and imprisoned.
That such people should have their names kept secret during the trial was surprising. That they should have their names kept secret after the “Not Guilty” verdict – by which the jury declared them to be deliberate and knowing liars – is astonishing, and seems quite incompatible with any idea of natural justice or fairness. If fairness and justice can be mentioned in the same breath, in Scotland today.
The indictment reads to me as a rambling document employing a scatter gun, ‘more of’ approach which perhaps could be summarised in the comment by Craig Murray and quoted in the indictment without any apparent recognition of the irony of so doing:
‘attempting to somehow cobble together the pile of mince they have as ‘evidence’ into some sort of case’.
The context second time round gave me even more of a laugh than when I saw it first time.
The main thrust of the document seems to be breach of the court order of 10 March preventing identification of the accusers. Yet the indictment includes reference to Craig’s website articles produced before 10 March. Presumably the basis for doing so is that they could be taken to represent a case yet to be brought. Their evidence appears to be that some commenters speculated a link between the articles and the upcoming Alex Salmond case. The document appears to imply that wrongdoing is also aggravated since Craig Murray is, by his own admission, widely read.
In respect of such matters before 10 March to which the indictment refers, is the apparent accusation of breach of the court order therefore reliant upon:
i) The articles being an accurate representation of what the future Alex Salmond trial turned out to be. If not then how could the articles be considered to prejudice the trial. If so then should not the Scottish prosecutors be investigating attempts to pervert the course of justice by the accusers and their organisers
ii) Revealing information from personal knowledge that may later become banned under a court order
In respect of matters post 10 March the indictment centres on Craig’s reporting of issues raised in the trial and his subsequent discussion of those issues along with commenters speculation. If a trial purports to be public, should the onus not rest with the court to state explicitly which specific court proceedings should not be revealed. Indeed as does the court order gagging reporting of proceedings over the 5 minute period on 10 March – an order quoted in the indictment yet against which I cannot identify an accusation of breach.
A pertinent example is Ms D’s hair. It is revealed by the state that Ms D had hair since the published charge against Salmond was the henious crime of its touching. Such knowledge assists her identification by elimination yet is judged admissible for public consumption. It was material to the defence case (and I believe raised as evidence in court) that it was a particular type of hair, curly, that invited and regularly produced touching. Such knowledge assists further identification. If it is judged that this court evidence should not be publicly revealed (as does the indictment) then should the court not be the judge and specify its gagging during the proceedings.
As a UK resident, this makes me feel sick. As someone who has always wanted an independent Scotland, this makes me angry and a bit confused over where to go next. The SNP are not to be trusted as I suspect they are now controlled by the UK establishment.
We now need a new path. Hope my donation is only one of many – there’s more than independence at stake here.
Thanks for being a principled and dedicated individual. You’ve made enemies in powerful places but that’s because you’ve become powerful in your own right.
JOML
If you have the stomach try reading the labour report. It’s a ode to a corrupt managerial class that operates in every institution in the UK from city high finance to the civil service in both Scotland Wales N. Ireland and England, to the permanent staff in all political parties. I’m sure there is a degree of secret service infiltration, but what is so depressing is an entire class of people that believe loyalty to western power excuses any corruption, it’s utterly shocking to me that this appear to be a majority view of the bureaucratic class not just some miscreants.
That is absolutely my view too and the situation is deeply depressing. If there’s a political party truly interested in representing the people then I’m yet to discover it.
As a retired Scottish police officer, I am more than uneasy that the Service appears to have become little more than the enforcement arm of the Civil Service. I am loath to criticise our Scottish Government but it also seems pretty inconceivable that the open-ended remit and the selective actions of the Alex Salmond Team, are not being sanctioned from on high.
Indeed. The glaring question is, why the Hell is there still an Alex Salmond team?
Indeed.
The fact that this “team” is still operating after the trial is very strange indeed.
It reeks badly of vindictive and vexatious intent.
As others have mentioned they are the ones, together with the Crown Office, who are damaging the reputation-in the public mind-of their respective offices.
More than happy to donate.
A permanent Alex Salmond team that will forever look for things in his past and spy on his actions in the future waiting to pounce ,the procurator fiscal suited and booted ready to jump into action papers in hand already typed up with spaces waiting to be filled with such garbage as we seen in A Salmond recent case and this here C Murray case.
Prentice , Wolfe , interesting history of cases that had strange evidence and strange outcomes and I always find it odd when high profile cases that have so much authority and money behind them hang on unbelievable evidence supported by witnesses we know little about.
The police are mostly incapable of ordinary speech.
They are not any part of any non-existent Salmond Team. That was a direct lie, which was useful to inform you easily what they wanted from you without telling you they were working for a Whitehall anti independence team.
When they asked their superiors how they should introduce themselves this is what they were told to say.
Bless ’em. They joined the force to fight crime and ended up working for criminals.
“The glaring question is, why the Hell is there still an Alex Salmond team?”
A very fair question; right up there with “Why the Hell is there no Tony Blair team?”
If you put the two questions together, you begin to get an inkling of the true relationship between politicians and the “justice system”.
Spot on Dave. We will angle for truth though.
The link to the details of the case did not work just now Sat 25 April 20.38. It goes to a ‘page not found’ error. I am using an apple mac laptop with chrome
Hmmm – it generally works if you click on the link within the article, but not if you paste the url, others have found.
I’m on Windows OS and just tested this in Firefox and Opera browsers. Works fine for me. Try copying and pasting this URL into your chrome directly:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/caseagainstcraigmurray230420.pdf
Rest assured I’ll be giving a few quid. Thank you for your I think honest reporting.
Craig, donation sent.
When truth speaks to power
I’ve chipped in to the defence fund Craig, because I am as shocked by your indictment as anyone else. I don’t know why I was so shocked, because your descriptions of what has happened to Julian Assange, should have inured us all to the vindictiveness of the British establishment.
I guess I naively thought that the Scottish establishment would be a step above the UK establishment? As one of the folk who conversed with you online, being named in the indictment was a personal shock as well.
Arm yourself with the best legal team you can, Craig, because I’m sure that all thinking folk will continue to dig deep, if the cost of this exceeds your estimate. We may consist of ordinary folk, who are not wealthy, but when we all put a helping hand forward, we outnumber the establishment by a considerable margin….
Well said, Alex.
We’ll chip in as much as is necessary in large numbers to battle this abomination. Their North Britain is NOT OUR Scotland.
We are many, they are few!
As a very great Scot once said:
“We say No and we are the state? Well we say Yes – and we are the people.’
Good luck.
Delighted to put something in the kitty Craig. You clearly have ‘them’ confused, hapless and on the run. Institutionalised oppression of this nature will nevertheless be with us until independence, and afterwards too if we allow it. Oppression and deceit is all the UK ‘union’ charade has ever delivered for Scots, and thankfully many more people now recognise this.
Let me know an address I can post my new book to you, coincidentally entitled: ‘Doun-Hauden (i.e. ‘Oppression’): The Socio-Political Determinants of Scottish Independence’. I like to think it may perhaps be the definitive academic work on the subject.
Hi Alf,
Where can I get a copy of your book?
Where is it on sale?
Scrub that Alf, Found it on (the hated) Amazon.
Keep well, John
I was shocked to hear that now there’s this strange aftermath to the Alex Salmond trial? I just read it over at the moonofalabama, someone mentioned Craig Murray has a defence fund up. “What now?” is what I thought and I never could have imagined that they’re trying do bring Craig Murray down in the wake of a concluded trial. Just incredible.
Anyway, I just made small donation. I’m below average I’m afraid, but it’s the end of the month. So I’ll go back next week and make another donation.
This really has the evil stench of the Deep State about it, the psychopaths merrily at “work”.
Though I had the privilege of working in Scotland for a while and though I know the judicial system is separate from England’s, I’m not too familiar with it. So when you say the Crown Office, is that a UK Crown Office or is this an entirely Scottish affair?
Britain seems like a strange place these days, what with the treatment they’re giving Assange, the legal farce regarding the Skripals, and now this on top of everything else.
Keeping my fingers crossed and sending my regards from Germany!
Andre Kaminski
” Britain seems like strange place these days ”
Don’t worry, after 1066 we had many centuries of Dark Ages.
We have had very right wing coup, aided by technology in the electoral administration. Nobody knows how many centuries will pass before we come back , blinking , into sunlight.
Universal spying has a strange resemblance to the Doomsday Book. They’ve even introduced Universal Credit, which basically logs everybody’s economic activity in real time.
Opposition to the regime is being culled and curtailed.
This case , the Salmond double bind, is an example of the new Britain. False accusations are made by women , who are then protected AS IF they had actually been sexually assaulted.
In the same way , the electoral system is secret, so when it is abused by a rogue government, nobody is allowed to investigate.
Be patient please for a few hundred years … blip… sorry the line was cut…
You only need to look at the paucity of substance in the intelligence reports which were used to back up Tony Blair’s support for the invasion of Iraq, to see this is not new, and I am sure little has changed over centuries apart from the communications technology and therefore the highly refined methods of truth distortion and manipulation.
But the following is I hope also, a timeless truth:
Even a single virtuous act overcomes many evils… a small good action can overcome a great wrong; it is highly efficient.’ (Gampopa, ‘Gems of Dharma, Jewels of Freedom,’ Altea, 1994, p.135)
Quoted in the MediaLens article about Nils Melzer’s analysis of the campaign against Assange:
https://www.medialens.org/2020/burned-at-the-stake-the-un-special-rapporteur-on-torture-demolishes-the-fake-claims-targeting-julian-assange/
“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.”
What possible use would this journalists computer and phone be if they were investigating his postings? Surely his postings would have been posted. Surely they would be in the public domain. Why is there still an Alex Salmond team? Is there still an active investigation?
No posts for years then 2 in 5 minutes.
Sorry, where is the link for the defence fund?
“What possible use would this journalists computer and phone be if they were investigating his postings?”
If the actual object was to stop him operating as a journalist, then removing his ‘phones and computers would be quite a useful thing to do.
“If the actual object was to stop him operating as a journalist, then removing his ‘phones and computers would be quite a useful thing to do”.
Or to put the fear of God into him. Most people do not have the legal knowledge and resources that Craig (through necessity) has acquired over the years, and are helpless against such bullying.
I certainly hope that most of the defence is fought on the offence – the best defence being a good offence… and all that.
I would continue to donate to that cause.
We need a movement and organisation that is solely dedicated to ongoing legal litigation against criminality by government officials.
Too often the bureaucrats get away with egregious breaches because it is too hard and expensive for regular folk to hold them to legal account. Make the Bast**ds pay in time and money, until they are more afraid of us than we are of them. A few wins and ‘Damages Awards’ would help fund it too.
If all their time is tied up being in Court trying to justify their actions, it makes it hard for them to be causing trouble elsewhere – and it is a terrible PR look as well, having all their actions placed under a media spotlight, regardless of whether of not they are convicted.
I can’t imagine it would be good for their career prospects either.
It is essential that their actions are not cost free.
We need a WikiSue, to work alongside WikiLeaks
Long time avid reader and lurker Craig. I pay a tiny subscription due to financial constraints and would like to contribute much more if I could.
I’ve learned so much here from you and a few intelligent members in the comment section. Also learnt a great deal from the paid trolls who attack you, their dark tactics and noticeable traits.
Will be contributing to your defence fund and will urge my friends and family to do the same. Keep up the good fight. Although I am English (but 80% of my family live in Caithness) I am a big supporter of Scottish Nationalism. But the SNP have lost my support and my family’s. Hope a new movement will emerge who strive for true independence and who prioritize the needs of the working class.
You were the only public figure to my knowledge who identified what was afoot in this case and have been completely vindicated. But the plotters are terrified now that the whole lot is going to come out about who was involved and ultimately directing it. When AS starts pointing the finger some very important careers are going to be in severe danger, so they are trying in advance to remove any influential voices of support. I am worried but the fact many establishment hacks went further in identifying the alleged victims gives me hope.
Indeed Ian..And Craig’s intention to Fight Back
” I am worried but the fact many establishment hacks went further in identifying the alleged victims gives me hope.”
What difference does that make when there is no jury? The prosecution’s case can be as flimsy as a house of cards, but, if the judge can be squared beforehand to give the “right” verdict, then it will all be simply theatre.
Bayard…exactly, I hope Craig’s defence team don’t rely on the old ‘other people did it too excuse’, it never works, look at the Tommy Robinson contempt of court case, part of the defence was that he had merely read out what the BBC had reported in the media that morning. Concentrating on whether other journalist may have committed CoC is just a distraction, the focus should be on demonstrating Craig’s words never were ‘jigsaw’ pieces in the first place. It’s highly possible the indictment is intended to create a journalistic chill over the AS debacle, my guess is the trial won’t go ahead, it’s a can of worms they don’t really want to open.
“You were the only public figure to my knowledge who identified what was afoot in this case and have been completely vindicated”.
When there is only one solitary candle flickering in the darkness, how tempting it is to the forces of evil to snuff it out.
Craig’s prospective prosecution is more likely linked to things down south, where trouble is brewing for corrupt judge Vanessa Baraitser. The Julian Assange case is actually far bigger than Alex’s case because of the international ramifications and the intervention of the intelligence services in the legal process. Craig did a brilliant job of bringing international focus to a corrupt system and the brutal Belmarsh torture centre.
‘Assange attorneys look again to postpone extradition trial over coronavirus: WikiLeaks
Saturday, April 25, 2020
Lawyers for jailed WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange plan to push once more on Monday to have his extradition trial postponed because of the ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic.
/..
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/25/julian-assange-attorneys-look-again-to-postpone-ex/
The most sage words spoken since New Year; quite so, Monster.
No money from me, Craig, but almost limitless Dimple and all support in re JA. You’ve hardly been surprised by this, in view of 2003 (and I’m not referring to SARS), eh?
A truly shocking state of affairs when reporting on the failed attempt to convict Salmond should provoke such a response from the state says everything you need to know. Despotic tyrants hiding behind the facade of democracy, rule of law and free speech.
I read all of the posts about AS, and the view that he was being fitted up expressed by Craig hardly constitutes contempt, when compared with alternative statements generally made in the MSM. As far as Craig’s reporting revealing the identity of some of the complainers, as an average member of the public, I still have no idea who they are.
If you already know who they are, then that is completely different. You can make some small reference seem to disclose their identity, only because you already know them.
Throughout history, when Country A wanted to attack Country B, it would look for some excuse to do so, a “casus belli”. The facts of the case were immaterial, the casus belli was just following the rules for the sake of appearances.
The most famous casus belli is probably a man called Jenkins’ ear, the “loss” of which “caused” the War of Jenkins’ Ear. This CoC charge is simply another lost ear. The facts that Jenkins wore a wig that made it impossible to see if he still had two ears and that no-one who didn’t already know who the “victims” were could identify them from what was written are both irrelevant.
Statements made by the MSM suggesting that Alex Salmond was guilty (of which there were literally hundreds) should of course be regarded as far more serious than any statements suggesting his innocence. It is one of the oldest and most respected principles of British justice that an accused person must be deemed innocent until proven guilty. The decisive moment in the trial of Alex Salmond came when the jury delivered its verdict. Before that moment he was deemed innocent; after that he was proven innocent.
“That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved”.
Benjamin Franklin, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.—The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Albert H. Smyth, vol. 9, p. 293 (1906).