CORRECTION I published in error that 73% of those who know identities of Salmond’s accusers learnt them from mainstream media. The correct figure is 66%. I aggregated broadcast and newspapers but these were not exclusive questions. In fact the percentage of those in the know who cited broadcast, newspapers or both as their source was 66%.
We are looking for potential witnesses who would be willing to give a sworn statement, and if necessary swear on oath in court in my trial for contempt, that they followed my reporting of the Alex Salmond trial and were unable to work out any of the identities of the accusers from my reports. It is particularly helpful if you can say more than this in one of two ways:
Firstly, if you can say you were unable to work out who the accusers were from my accounts, despite yourself possessing some specialist knowledge, that would be helpful. Such specialist knowledge might include having held office in the SNP, having dealings with Alex Salmond and his staff, or having been a relevant civil servant.
And/or secondly, if you can say that you were unable to work out any of the identities from my reporting, but were able to do so from other reporting, and name the source.
I hope it goes without saying that I only want people to come forward who can genuinely do so in truth, and be prepared if necessary to swear to that.
I was very careful in my reporting not to “out” any of the identities, and I am happy to say that I can now prove that I had no significant effect on popular knowledge of the identities of the failed accusers. I took the unusual decision to commission an opinion poll on the subject from Panelbase, one of the UK’s leading pollsters. This was made possible using funds you provided with the defence fund, and I hope you will agree it is money well spent. We will seek to submit the poll as evidence in court.
You should realise this was at risk. I was committed to publishing the poll, whatever its results. If it came out saying that only a few people knew the identities, and they all learnt them from Craig Murray, I would have had to admit to that. But in fact, this is not what the poll shows at all.
It is important to note that my questions were an add-on to a Panelbase poll using their absolutely normal methods for sampling Scottish public opinion. They surveyed 1086 people and applied their standard weightings to the results.
The finding is stunning. 8% of the adult population of Scotland believe they know the identity of one or more of the failed accusers. That means over 350,000 people know, or believe they know, identities.
Of these, 74% learnt the identities from TV and newspapers. 29% learnt from independent websites or blogs. 19% learnt from friends or contacts. (You could of course learn from more than one source so this adds to more than 100).
We then asked an open question, giving people the opportunity to name the specific media from which they learnt the identities. There were a limited number of responses, so I give here the number of people who named each source rather than dress it up as a percentage:
Can you name a specific broadcast, newspaper or website source from which you learnt or deduced the identities? (there were no prompts, an open answer)
Scotland on Sunday 3
Sun 3
Guardian 2
Daily Record 2
BBC 2
Scotsman 2
Times 2
Herald 1
Telegraph 1
John James blog 1
Channel 4 1
ITV 1
Craig Murray blog 1
Press and Journal 1
National 1
Financial Times 1
Daily Mail 1
Can you name the specific journalist or blogger you had learnt or deduced identities from? (There were no prompts, an open answer):
Dani Garavelli 4
Severin Carrell 2
Magnus Linklater 1
Paul Hutcheon 1
Kenny Farquharson 1
Kieran Andrews 1
David Mackay 1
Mure Dickie 1
(Nobody actually replied Craig Murray or John James to this question, but given each had his blog mentioned once as a source it would probably be fair to add both with 1 each).
Dani Garavelli tops both lists, because her article on the case was published in Scotland on Sunday. As that is the Sunday edition of the Scotsman, that unionist rag is well ahead as the prime source of knowledge, with the Murdoch stable of the Times and Sun combined not far behind.
Plainly, it is unsatisfactory from the point of view of the law that 350,000 people know identities. Something which 350,000 people know in Scotland is not a secret, and has achieved the critical mass required for anybody who actually wants to know to be able to find out just by asking around. I strongly suspect that the large majority of those who do not know, do not wish to anyway.
But equally plainly, it is not my fault that 350,000 people know. It is overwhelmingly down to the mainstream media, as the poll shows. The simple truth is that, in a trial where a number of very politically powerful figures conspired together to bring false charges against one of the most famous people in Scotland, anonymity was always going to be extremely hard to protect. You can’t expect it to work as it rightly would in protecting the identity of a worker in Dundee attacked by a stranger. The poll shows that it did not work; and it proves that is not my fault.
I assume the single individual who mentioned me as the source was acting in good faith – though it is worth noting that the polling was carried out after every newspaper in Scotland had run the story that I am being prosecuted for contempt of court for revealing identities. In that circumstance, that I am not more prominent is remarkable and must reflect a truth.
The charge of “jigsaw identification” is very difficult to refute. As soon as you publish anything at all about the evidence in a case, there is of course the chance that is the last piece of information that an individual with particular knowledge needed to work out an identity. Let me put if this way. If the jigsaw is a face in 1,000 pieces, if your information contributes 12 pieces out of 1,000 you may think you revealed nothing. But you cannot guard against the person sitting at home who already has 800 pieces and can make a guess now your 12 filled in an area.
My lawyers advise that for me to say others were guilty of jigsaw identification is not a defence, any more than if I were to rob a bank it would be a defence to say somebody else did it too. But what this poll shows conclusively is that in practice anyone who reported on the trial could be accused of jigsaw identification.
Nobody can look at the above data and say that the obvious course of justice is to prosecute Craig Murray and nobody else. Is there a single person who honestly believes that it is a coincidence that they are prosecuting the only journalist who fairly reported the defence case against this government led fit-up? That they have chosen to prosecute the political dissident and whistleblower and not the mainstream media who were collectively responsible for far more identification? The selectivity of this prosecution represents an Article 6 abuse of the European Convention on Human Rights.
There are of course two strands to the indictment against me, insofar as anything can be deduced from that incoherent document. One is jigsaw identification. The other is reporting likely to influence the trial. I have just demolished the first strand; you cannot possibly prosecute me and not the mainstream media. I refuse to take the second strand seriously. If they genuinely believed my reporting could influence the trial, they had a public duty to take action before or during the trial, not months afterwards. This is very plainly a political persecution.
A final note. With over 5,000 people having contributed to my defence fund, I do hope you will forgive the lack of personal replies to thank you. I am really quite overwhelmed and humbled by your kindness.
You should also know that, as it was never my intention to identify anyone, I have pending the outcome of my trial temporarily censored those sentences in my articles complained of by the prosecution as causing jigsaw identification, even though I strongly deny that they do. Prior to receiving the indictment, I had no idea precisely what the complaint referred to. I have also censored the indictment of its references to the same material. I do not believe there was any problem with the originals; but it is a very few sentences and my lawyers rather insisted. I hope you will not feel I am too cowardly in this.
I have refused to censor those larger passages the Crown complain of where I state that the charges were a fit-up and a state sponsored conspiracy. I believe here there is a vital argument of freedom of speech, and I will not bend.
With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible.
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:
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.
Brilliant piece of work Craig . It will be interesting to be a fly on the wall of Dani Garavellis lawyers when they read this,
She was still banging on last weekend. I won’t copy the link here to avoid giving her more reads but she is a nasty piece of work.
I don’t know. Craig rewrote her whole article as he took the whole thing to bits and given that Dani Garavellis article is mentioned 4 times its 4 to 1 times more likely that the one reference made to Craigs blog was actually her article being reposted in his forensic desiccation of it..
I could realistically swear that I hadn’t a clue about the identity of any of the women, either on the basis of what you said, or any other sources. I did try, but I failed.
Just to add, I am completely unaware of Dani Garavelli.
Craig, I worked at a reasonably senior level in the SG and I have tried and tried to work out who the alphabet sisters are and have been unable to do so. Most definitely not from what you have said although I followed a few leads from other reports but frankly had better things to do and gave up.
I still cannot understand why anyone is allowed to bring a charge against someone but the accuser can remain anonymous but not the accused where is the justice there ??? It is against the law of fair play and common justice I mean that alone is a stitch up I can say that I read your articles on the case and I still do not have a clue who these people are the whole thing smells they are just trying tu justify the unjustifiable and dig a deeper hole for theirselves and honest people’s contempt for them
They were given anonymity as part of the agreement with sturgeon. Anonymity meant they could commit perjury with no worries about ever being prosecuted. Until and unless the judge lifts the anonymity order then half of Scotland’s police will have to spend the rest of these women’s lives persecuting people naming them.
Joe Biden has been accused as well. Now, I don’t know whether that accusation is true or false, but I have noted an interesting difference to the Salmond case: the accuser is not hiding behind anonymity.
They like things out in the open Stateside. Harvey Weinstein’s accusers were out in the open. Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser too. Maybe we could learn something from the Yanks.
Biden is NOT the candidate.
They will switch him out before the formal nomination deadline. The Tara Read allegations may be given as the reason, but that is not the real reason, Biden is merely a decoy, to absorb time whilst they hope to sink Trump with “trumped (sic) up charges, or allegations”. So far all their efforts have been shown to be treasonous lies, General Flynn’s exoneration will just be the first domino to fall, there are hundreds of thousands to follow as the 180,000+ sealed indictments indicate. Allegedly, Prince Andrew is on the list, as are other high heid yins. As Saint Mallachy stated, francis will be the last Pope, I think he will be right again, as he’s allegedly on the list.
WWG1WGA
Q
Good luck Craig, you opponents are very dangerous people, here’s a few of them at work?
I know it’s very popular on this site to be sceptical of lockdown. My neighbour is a doctor at royal free, I finally caught up with her this morning, she said FWIW that the situation is much worse than is being reported.
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-05-07-revealed-how-britains-profiteering-spymasters-ignored-the-countrys-biggest-threats-like-coronavirus-and-endangered-the-public/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Illuminating article. Seems the only security they were interested in was financial security. Combine that with a Boris Johnson government and it becomes clear why UK leads the death count.
I think that’s what mi6 was set up for myself wasn’t it? It’s only ever been about protecting ‘our’ oil from Biafra to Iraq. In Craig’s book it’s quite clear that Alex Burns main job is to nick stuff for Britain and generally fuck stuff up for Russia. No money to be made preventing a pandemic – there is in clearing it up though
Shatnersrug,…’there is in clearing it up though’ you state correctly. Perhaps a few new quid in preparing for any/many more? e.g. How much does Gates the vacuum salesman charge for his alchemical juice per squirt?
Allegedly Gates vaccine is $1,000 a dose, Hydroxycloroquine is 63c a tablet and Azithromyathin 80c.
Roll up, roll up choose your poison.
I meant their own personal financial security.
Much as though I agree security chiefs are involved in dirty doings, the link doesn’t have anything to connect that with the coronavirus crisis. If your doctor neighbour is overstressed, and thinks the situation is worse than being reported (true), it is a product of recent political decision-making, not of the failure of the intelligence services to warn in advance. Nearly all the European countries were caught out. France, the case I know best, was in that situation, but they reacted quicker than UK.
The following article by John Lichfield, a long-time Paris correspondent, generally a clean bill of health to French policy:
https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-frances-strange-defeat/
Yes, everybody should have listened to the early warnings, but nobody, across Europe, did. Britain wasn’t alone in that.
It is directly related to the covid crisis because they were told tor years a pandemic was the no. 1 threat facing thr country and did not act 9n.it. that 8d the whole point of the article.
East Asia reacted fast and decisive on the real covid19 treat, as they had institutional memory of previous virus events.
In the West most were busy “fighting” fake treats like WMDs in the ME, Russia, CO2, N2, North Korea, Shia. No time for a real and fast virus, only endless slow bureaucracy and ignorance.
P.S.: I also wanted to find out some names of these “Alphabet” women but got nowhere and gave up after an hour.
Think Lynchburg. Think Rory McGrath. Think about how many redheads had access to Bute house and wore a sling on the dates mentioned in the trial. Or just ask any “journalist” since they all know. Threaten to expose them as paedophiles until they spill the names. Most of them are so you’ll be on to a sure thing.
Shatnersrug, it is a shame we don’t have accurate reporting. I can well believe that the situation is really bad at the Royal Free. Meanwhile, though, my neighbour is an a&e doctor here in a city outside london, and said it is really not too bad here at all. Perhaps there is massive variation across the country. I am not saying it is clear what to do about this.
I think anyone who considered whether Ms. Sturgoen misled Parliament as to when she first heard of any allegations against AS would have an interesting path to follow. However, I believe, the suggestion that she did mislead Parliament was first aired within Holyrood.
Within minutes of Alex’s acquittal James Matthews of Skynews referred to that in his broadcast. I have searched high and low for that video as it quite blatantly identified a witness whose name I knew from sitting in court every day and I thought that it would ue useful for Craigs defence. Skys lawyers obviously had the same idea as there is no sign of it anywhere in any of the usual archives. He made reference to the misleading parliament that led me to go looking at when that might have been and that opens another massive can of worms that I won’t go into on here given the current circumstances but you can bet I will be passing the information on to Alex Salmonds lawyers for the parliamentary enquiry.
Well Craig can demand documentation, including videos from SkyNews, given you have knowledge of the report. They would be criminally liable if they did not hand over the relevant footage.
I believe that the prosecution of Alex Salmond was a state-sponsored stitch-up.
I believe that this prosecution of your good self is a state-sponsored stitch-up.
There’s definitely an air of “if we can’t get salmond then we’ll go after his supporters” vibe about it.
Good luck finding your witnesses Craig. Choose carefully.
Just a thought, surely for you case to proceed the Alphabet Sisters must now be stripped of their anonymity otherwise the prosecution can never show anyone worked it out correctly.
Wise words, Bill. I’m sure Mr Murray will be extremely careful about Greeks bearing gifts. He certainly doesn’t need a ‘plant’ on the inside ready to do him harm, which is not beyond a possibility given what we have learned so far.
Well, I am just a mere citizen. If Craig were to cite me, I would say what I said above:
” I could realistically swear that I hadn’t a clue about the identity of any of the women, either on the basis of what you said, or any other sources. I did try, but I failed.”
And
“Just to add, I am completely unaware of Dani Garavelli.”
Is that adequate?
That is a very good point. Otherwise it boils down to somebody’s evidence free opinion.
Strongly consider finding new counsel , Craig. I was assured by legal minds on here it is no defence at all to show MSM identified the plaintiffs much more clearly. You know the quality of the legal (and scientific) minds commenting here, so please abandon your strategy.
Oh I don’t know,”It was a big boy done it and ran away” always worked for me.
Incrimination is not the same as, “I wisnae the only wan.”
You are right of course but Craig fully understands that.
It wisnae me. A didnae dae it.
If we were on twitter I’d give you a like
I would be happy to provide an Affidavit and/or give evidence on your behalf Mr Murray. I have been practising as a solicitor in Scotland for more than 30 years in the civil courts. I like to think I can separate fact from fiction by the application of reason. I also like to think I know what justice looks and feels like.
A very telling result, but what’s the betting that the judge is persuaded its inadmissible as evidence. I heartily hope your innovative defence works and I am happy my donation is being well spent.
I agree, inadmissibility is the danger.Too often we pin our hopes on the killer blow that comes to nothing or rebounds.
The story we are convinced will free us instead convicts, gives the court the hook to hang its judgement on.
The sober approach is, does the the prosecution have precedent in support or is pique ploughing a new furrow.
If this is a novelty, is it beyond the pale, an extrapolation beyond reason?
From reading Craig Murray’s blog, I haven’t learned of the identities of the women involved.
Personally, I don’t even see the point in trying to identify the names of the women involved.
Usually, the one/s with the real power don’t get their hands dirty, they get mugs to do it for them. So the mugs are the ones who take the rap if it backfires.
The bigger question is: who had so much power and influence and stood to gain from preventing Alex Salmond returning to front line politics ?
An actual member of sturgeon’s cabinet who spend Millions of pounds of our money buying and rewarding favours made false accusations in court as part of a conspiracy to destroy a previous First Minister of Scotland. And you don’t think we should know her name? Mkay.
I hope the Crown see sense and drop this! It is an embarrassment to our Great wee Country.
I couldn’t figure it out even when given various clues and where to look even after the trial.
But i don’t fit into either of Craig’s categories.
Rev said that 2 or 3 word search from the Dani Garavelli would do it but i couldn’t manage it with 5 or 6.
There were only a couple of dates/places given and still couldn’t figure it out.
Still haven’t a clue and i don’t think i am that thick. Well i must be.
I am totally the same mate, I was thinking it was just me that was being a bit dim. Its not that I was that eager to know just compared to my general company that I keep I’m a bit of an anorak when it comes to politics I thought I could maybe have guessed but I couldn’t and still can’t. To be honest the whole thing reeks
Craig – “Nobody actually replied Craig Murray or John James to this question, but given each had his blog mentioned once as a source it would probably be fair to add both with 1 each.”
No, it could have been from the comments, and presumably was since they didn’t name you in the subsequent question. If the prosecution wanted some comments deleted they should have asked.
excellent Point Clark re Comments
These U.K Establishment Stitch up jobs make me Fkn Furious.
P.S. would be Great to see the Dobsonian Scope Back in Scotland.
Stay Safe.
It could even have been some nefarious body specifically planting information in the comments so that just such an accusation could be made against Craig. In this regard, to what extent can a blogger be held accountable for anonymous comments posted in their blog?
I would strongly recommend that you read Clive Ponting’s book about his OSA Section II trial in the 1980s before you go to trial, Mr Murray. It is a superb account of an honourable man being fitted up by vindictive politicians and corrupt law officers. And a jury sticking twelve middle fingers up at one of the most bent judges around.
You never know when some ideas/approaches of legal counsel in one trial may trigger ideas for Counsel and defendant in another….
I don’t live in the UK, so I can’t help, but I swear on a stack of Bibles that I have no earthly idea who those women are/were. I still don’t know who the “famous actor” was, either.
God bless you, and stand strong!
I can tell you it was not Tom Cruise.
Thats jigsaw . Watch your door at 4am . Prentice’s thought police will be crsashing through it TAZERS on stun
For the life of me I do not know why he was givern anonimity by the judge as he was not a complainant. He was the only person in the whole who was not protected as an “alleged victim” but got the same protection. Protection that was not afforded the innocent accused.
Bloody smart move. I do believe I answered that Panelbase poll, I have no idea of identities!!
Contempt of court is conduct which creates ‘a substantial risk that the course of justice in the particular proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced’. How can publishing material about proceedings amount to contempt of court given that it would be contempt of court for the jury to look at that material in the first place? For publishing to be treated as contempt amounts to making the publisher criminally responsible for the criminal conduct of another person; that is, the jury member who is in contempt by reading the published material (only the jury matters because it is only the jury which gives the verdict – the judge already knows the identity of the victims). Given that for a jury member to read such material is contempt in itself, there cannot logically be a substantial risk of impeding or prejudicing the proceedings, because the prospective punishment mitigates that risk (while it might not eliminate it – but that’s not the point).
Contempt of court is conduct which creates ‘a substantial risk that the course of justice in the particular proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced’…
I assume your quote is an extract from the relevant law. I was curious about this aspect but I hadn’t got round to checking it.
Given that the jurors already knew the real identities of all the conspirators, sorry complainants, I do not see how, even if someone actually pubished the names of the conspirators, sorry complainants, this could “impede” or “prejudice” the trial. Why should it impede or prejudice the trial if the wider public found out something that the jurors already knew? At worst it ought to give rise to a civil claim on the part of the conspirators, sorry complainants, for breach of their privacy.
The Tommy Robinson case was different. He was accused of potentially providing information that might have made the jury aware that the accused on trial had already been convicted of previous offences.
If jigsaw identification is the reason of the charge surely it is then impossible to rule out the MSM reporting as evidence as other parts of the jig-saw. Someone could take one part of Craig’s blog along with a bit of Severin Carrell”s and Dani Garavelli’s articles and Rev Stuart’s twitter.
In fact i tried to do this. I failed but it is obvious that some people must have done this and succeeded.
I can’t see how a judge could rule this evidence out. The law always surprises me on what they can throw out but this seems pretty obvious that it can’t be. Could they rule it permissible and then still ignore the implication? Surely a jury couldn’t but a establishment judge could do that i am sure, as the Assange trial has shown.
Prasad,
Is it just me, or does your final sentence make no sense whatsoever?
Just asking.
It seems to me. Those living in the bubble and believe these women can be identified, only believe so because they already knew.
They knew before they persuaded them to go along with this charade and will lose face if they are outed.
I’ve been able to surmise that a fair number of the complainants were women, which all but narrows the field to roughly half the population.
Tony M,
So?
There are vindictive men and women. And they are sort of all mixed up.
It is pretty well clear that a jury thought that some or all of them had an agenda. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think women made up the majority on the jury?
“[…]Correct me if I am wrong, but I think women made up the majority on the jury?”
I think I’d read that, from (imperfect) memory I think that was the case, I don’t see how it’s relevant.
Your other point I can’t follow at all, sorry, but it doesn’t seem to pertain to the issue at hand -identification. For most outside the political bubble, even if they learned a name, they’d still be unknown unheard of faceless political wonks and parasitical troughers.
Without inside knoweldge of the workings and discussions in the Jury room you cannot make any assertion that ” the jury thought some or all of them had an agenda” that deduction is clearly not possible . The only deduction that can be made from the evidence presented at trial was that the jury concluded that the accussed was innocent man. Nothing else, nada, zilch, nil, zero.
The concept of “jigsaw identification” as a substantive breach of a judicial order of non-disclsure of witness names seems logically impossible.
In the dawn of time, if a judge said “do not name the witness” then one did not name the witness. Now, apparently, if a judge says “do not name the witness” then it means “do not name the witness or provide any information that might, in conjunction with any combination of data available elsewhere, be used by anyone, including Sherlock Holmes or the man on the number ten omnibus, to successfully construct a theory of witness identity.”
Since someone reporting the case would generally not know whether a particular piece of data was uniquely critical, how would contempt be proved? “Miss X removed her glasses to examine the photograph.”. Ah hah! says Sherlock Holmes. “Contempt” says the Proc Fisc. And how would those reporting the trial know what to avoid? Indeed, there are no evident and objective criteria which would make it clear which reports were offending and which were not, either at the time or later. How can a Contempt be defined when there is no objective basis on which to base it?
As it is now a matter for legal process, I shall cease and desist from any attempt whatsoever to solve crosswords or the like for fear of raising the wrath of the legal profession. I repeat, I have no clue as to who these women are. It is like a crossword where you haven’t a scooby what the answer is.
Surely anyone following this situation knows perfectly well what those reporting the trial knew they should avoid: casting any doubt on the prosecution’s case.
You raise a good point, and one which Craig’s legal team might want to explore – the sheer illogicality of the proceedings. Depending on how close you were to events, any small piece of information could have allowed you to identify a complainant – as you yourself have alluded, possibly even something as small as the fact she was wearing glasses. I’m pretty sure, for example, that Woman C’s husband would have been able to identify her from pretty much anything that was said in court. How can the court possibly rule that providing ‘x’ pece of information was acceptable, but providing ‘y’ piece of information wasn’t, when there are certain people who could have identified the complainants from any piece of information at all, whatever ‘x’ or ‘y’ was?
I don’t think I expected to be thanked for having given a donation – it’s just normal to do it.
sorry, misworded – it’s just normal to give such a donation.
Hi Craig,
I’d love to be able to help you. I figured out the identity of the ringleader from Garavelli’s piece – but my wife gave me her name and a further two (the MSP and the ‘Woman who wasn’t at dinner’). Unfortunately (for this case) she learned these names from her friend – who is ..ahem.. the wife of a senior staffer….. in the Crown Office!!! Oops.
I asked a number of other lawyers of my acquaintance, all of who knew the three names, which were apparently common currency in the staff rooms of various sheriff courts. There can hardly be a lawyer in Scotland who doesn’t know these names – such terrible gossips.
Given also that her majesty’s loyal press corps are also privy to these identities – the wonder is that only 350,000 Scots know who many of the alphabet ladies are.
My guess is that number would be at least double – likely more – if the pubs and restaurents weren’t all closed.
Scotland is a small place, and just about everybody is acquainted by no more than three removes with everyone else in the land.
Incidentally, why hasn’t ‘the woman who wasn’t there charged with perjury – Tommy Sheridan was done (by none other than his Lordship Turnbull, when at the Crown Office) on much less evidence?
Silly me! Of course, Sheridan is a pro-indy dissident, who won a case against Murdoch. VE celebrations have clearly gone to my head.
I’m sure you will get your witnesses Craig – the impunity of your persecutors is bleeding obvious !
I follow your blogs with interest and attention. I certainly (oath-taking certainly) did not deduce any identities from you. I read Dani Garavelli’s piece soon after it came out, though I don’t remember what first pointed it out to me. A day or maybe two later, I saw from Stuart Campbell’s tweets that the article contained enough information to identify a complainant. So I went back to the article and read it word by word. One paragraph triggered off a faint memory of an event that had been reported in the press some time before. I put two words into a Google search, and learnt the identity.
Mr. Clark,
I am with you on both points.
In fact, I would not know or be able to identify these people from anything I have read or even if introduced to them at dinner.
Pity it is no use to Mr. Murray.
I would assume, silly me, that for contempt to stand then it would have to be clear that the complainant could be identified based on the written statements of the defendant and nothing else. Jigsaw puzzle evidence is an absurdity if it requires someone to read a multiplicity of sources before identification of the complainant is made. The prosecutor would have to make the case that identification was deduced solely from the commentary that Craig wrote, nothing else could or should be admissable.
‘The selectivity of this prosecution represents an Article 6 abuse of the European Convention on Human Rights’… are you planning to follow up on that, Craig, perhaps at a later time?
Let’s assume that Craig is guilty as charged, for the sake of argument. He has provided x% of the information necessary to identify one or more of the complainants. Now let us also assume that no one else has provided any of the remaining % necessary for such an identification. Would or could he then be found guilty absent the necessary additional %? I think the answer to that would be no, if the charge is a jigsaw identification.
For Craig to be found guilty it is surely axiomatic that other guilty parties have supplied the remaining information which in conjunction with his leads to an identification of one or more of the Alphabet Women – so where are his co-defendants? I hope it is not necessary for me to state that, even without Craig’s commissioned poll, I do not believe for a second that he is guilty of anything beyond accurate and honest reporting. Just my “2 cents worth”…
Wishing Craig all the best in these trying times.
Exactly. This case is not what it is alleged on the surface, the hidden agenda is as clear as this contrived contempt of court case.
Hi Craig. I followed your blogs right through the trial. Infact, I actively sought them out after being thoroughly sickened by the ridiculously one sided coverage in the MSM. I have absolutely no idea who any of the accusers were/are. Nothing in your blogs brought anyone to mind. I perhaps don’t meet your criteria adequately as I’ve never been a member of the SNP. I have shared platforms and stages with various SNP politicians, as you well know, during the 2014 referendum campaign and subsequent rallies and events in more recent years. Would be very happy to help in any way. Wishing you all the very best with the case. Yours aye, Jimi.
Whilst I don’t strictly fit the criteria of “specialist knowledge” (a mere ex-Branch Convener) I would like to contribute to your defence argument as it was only through your meticulous accounts that I was able to develop an understanding of the issues in the face of the salacious reporting of MSM.
Please feel free to contact me if you consider such support appropriate.