I Need A Craig Murray 185


URGENT: The access code to listen live to this morning’s hearing is now published on the court website. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/coming-to-court/public-access-to-a-virtual-hearing Last night my lawyers told me that the hearing had been moved forward to 09.45 from 10.00, but that is not reflected on the court website at the minute.

I tried to do a public service in making available to everybody key facts from the Julian Assange extradition hearing and the Alex Salmond trial, which revealed a picture very different from that portrayed in the mainstream media. I find myself wishing now I had somebody to perform the same service for me.

I am particularly constrained about what I can say in my own case. The last week has been incredibly hectic, with our reply to the Crown’s submissions (written arguments) due in last Thursday, and our responses to the Crown’s amendments in view of our responses, due in today. I previously published the indictment, called the “petition”; the written arguments are called the “submissions”. I cannot publish these at present but I think I can publish this brief extract from the Crown’s submissions, paras 48 to 50. They are slightly edited, on legal advice, to remove even the remotest possibility that the Crown might claim that in some esoteric way they could lead to the identification of witnesses [you should see the rest of the rubbish in the Crown’s submissions!], and I publish with little comment but they are followed by some not irrelevant images of publications that are not being prosecuted for potentially influencing the jury. I can think of no reason you cannot comment, but please say nothing that might in any way reference specifically anybody with a protected identity.

Extract from the Submission of the Crown:

48. … The characters talk about how they can fabricate allegations of sexual offending against a previous minister, including attempted rape, in order to destroy his reputation. The script suggests that there was never any such offending and despite a large team of police working on the investigation for months, they did not find any evidence of serious offending. The characters suggest that more women from their organisation should be found to fabricate allegations against the former minister and that the criminal investigation has been orchestrated by the minister and his or her colleagues.

49. It is respectfully submitted that there are undeniable and crucial similarities with the prosecution of Alex Salmond and his readers note this in the attached comments section (production 2). The Respondent has not explicitly named Alexander Salmond … but the Website hosts comments attached to the article which do name him in connection with the content. The tenor of the article is that Alex Salmond has been the victim of a false campaign, motivated by political gain and that all of the criminal allegations against him have been concocted by members of government in order to damage his reputation.

50. It is respectfully submitted that such commentary from the Respondent … meet the test set out in the 1981 act. These articles carry a severely prejudicial risk to the course of justice. Should any potential jurors have read these articles, there is the clear implication that the witnesses are lying and the criminal investigation is at best, flawed or at worst, corrupt. Any potential jurors exposed to such material carry the risk of being prejudiced against the witnesses prior to hearing their evidence.

My personal blog. Influenced the jury. I am facing jail for that.

Tomorrow’s (Tuesday 7 July) hearing is at 10am. It will again be a procedural one dealing with management of the case, but again I should be very grateful indeed if any of you are able to listen in and follow the process, as matters vital to the course of the case are often determined in these procedural hearings.

You will be able to access the case via the link given at the bottom of this page. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/coming-to-court/public-access-to-a-virtual-hearing
The password for the case should be posted on that page on Tuesday morning.

Finally, again I do apologise that I am finding it very difficult to keep up regular blog posts on other subjects while this case against me is in train.

——————————————

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

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



 

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

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

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.


185 thoughts on “I Need A Craig Murray

1 2 3 4
  • djm

    The in-fighting that permeates Scottish politics is very hard to follow.

    I do wish you all the very best, Mr Murray.

  • Bill Gardner

    Perhaps it’s the editors of the press who sanctioned those front pages that should be in Court and not you Craig? I Definitely did not pick up the names of any of the accusers from your Blog, but I did get inklings from the mainstream press writers. I find that there must be malice in the attempts to close you and Mark Hirst down, perhaps because someone somewhere is worried you latch onto a much much bigger story. Time will tell. I’m pleased you are keeping your spirits up. I’m sure after this is over there will be a book on this by you . Try not to clash with any publication dates from Alex Salmond !

  • john stack

    Thank God we have a Craig Murray.
    I do not wish to embarrass Mr Craig Murray .. I have finished two of his books ‘Murder in Samarkand’ and ‘Catholic Orangemen of Togo’and have started his third one.. They are really excellent (don’t mind the titles ) I have followed his blog for a long time.

    He is incredibly brave , brilliant, effective and moral. He is unique and irreplaceable. He is also human.
    Not just truly knowledgeable but a dynamic achiever. Put under unendurable stress he survives

    He must have a senior position in the Government of Scotland which would be enhanced by his presence, ability, flair, experience and practical approach while he has so much competence to give when all this is over.
    Mr Murray, Sir, respect. Sorry for not sparing your blushes but some things must be said.

    Honour lies in Independence taken by the determined righteous not granted to the meek. Time now.
    Every other Nation (minus one) will celebrate. Nicola, pass the ball if you are not going to use it.
    Since so much Media is unashamedly Unionist do not rely on or trust it.

    Boindub

  • Scozzie

    Defend yourself vigorously on this.
    I think by far the worst article was the Herald’s where they took a look back at significant cases of murders and rapists a week before the Salmond trial – what was the purpose of that? Not a solitary major court case referenced in that article where a defendant was acquitted.
    To use the prosecutors own words (with one important change): Any potential jurors exposed to such material carry the risk of being prejudiced against the defendant prior to hearing their evidence.

    • Alwi

      Unfortunately, as Craig has previously stated, “but he/she did it too, before, and worse than me….” is not an allowable legal defence. However it does show In sharp relief the laws bias when applied less than universally. Good luck, Craig.

      • Stonky

        Unfortunately, as Craig has previously stated, “but he/she did it too, before, and worse than me….” is not an allowable legal defence.

        In this case it is. Equality before the law is a fundamental, established, and legally defensible human right. If Craig can demonstrate that the law is being deliberately and unreasonably targeted against him, then he has a legitimate defence.

        It’s not like the trite “speeding” analogy. The authorities couldn’t possibly catch and prosecute everyone who speeds. But in this case there is a very small and easily identifiable group of people in potential contempt. There is no earthly reason, other than prejudice, why Craig has been singled out. I hope his lawyers argue that point very emphatically. Because it is going to be very embarrassing for the prosecution to counter it.

  • G H Graham

    The extract of the Submission of the Crown fails to recognise (perhaps because it’s an extract) that prejudice works both ways. The evidence is there for all to see; daily, over sized, lurid headlines with salacious snippets added to inflame the reader’s reaction, including presumably the jury, unless they have been strictly ordered NOT to read ANY newspapers during the trial. But any stop at a regular petrol station for example, makes it inevitable that a juror would see these influential headlines anyway. Perhaps they noticed them on the telly when the BBC freely advertised them? Or they heard them recounted multiple times by enthusiastic news readers on the radio? Or on Facebook? Or Twitter?

    And they are influential, otherwise, why print, publish or broadcast them? Newspapers are published to make money through the selling of copy & only two things sell copy; football & scandal. The rest of the content is filler. Any honest editor will concur.

    Maybe the jury sneaked a peak at this blog & were amazed to discover that outside of the court room, they could read an account of key elements of the defense, all but obliterated by the main stream media?

    Logically then, the Crown can’t have it both ways; a blog can apparently prejudice a jury in one direction (assuming they even read it) while pages of lurid headlines presented in all manner of public places & platforms in the other direction does not.

    And how does the court know that the jury even read the blog. If it assumes that the jury wasn’t influenced by the multi-billion pound main stream media, how can it assume it was definitely influenced by a blog written by a bloke in his pyjamas in Edinburgh?

    Unless of course, the intention is only to arrive at a guilty verdict. If that was the case it would suggest the court itself is corrupt. But we’re above all that because this is Scotland we’re writing about & not a banana republic, right?

    Either, we’re all complicit or no one is.

      • terence callachan

        So far, it doesnt recognize it but it will have to , that is a fundamental part of determination

    • Johny Conspiranoid

      The very idea of any of this being illegal assumes that all potential jurors are too stupid to be on a jury.

    • RogerDodger

      What’s the saying? ‘A lie will get around the world before the truth has got its boots on’. But the crown feels the need to prosecute Craig for tying its shoelaces all the same. Grim.

  • dearieme

    Well, you daft old Leftie, I hope you win. Even Lefties are right sometimes.

    Leftie Lives Matter.

  • Sean_Lamb

    If the text of the 1981 act is overly prescriptive, you can throw in a bit of ECHR case law which over rides it re Article 10

    eg
    https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{“itemid”:[“001-58015”]}

    “48. Although Mr De Haes and Mr Gijsels’ comments were without doubt severely critical, they nevertheless appear proportionate to the stir and indignation caused by the matters alleged in their articles. As to the journalists’ polemical and even aggressive tone, which the Court should not be taken to approve, it must be remembered that Article 10 (art. 10) protects not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed but also the form in which they are conveyed (see, as the most recent authority, the Jersild judgment cited above, p. 23, para. 31).”

  • Steve+Hayes

    “Should any potential jurors have read these articles”

    Have we really reached the place where mere speculation by the prosecution is grounds for bringing a criminal case?

    This reminds me of nothing so much as the situation in the north of Ireland when the authorities could lock people up on nothing more than mere suspicion, something that has been reintroduced by the coronavirus legislation.

    • Los

      Sounds like the sort of contortions that occurred in the 1794 Treason Trials for ‘Imagining the KIng’s Death’, where it was Prosecution teams that were doing all the Imagining and tying themselves up in knots in the process.

      See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1794_Treason_Trials

      and in particular: ISBN: 9780198112921:
      Barrell, John. Imagining the King’s Death: Figurative Treason, Fantasies of Regicide 1793–1796. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

  • Jan Cowan

    Craig, it’s an utter disgrace that you are being put through this thanks to dishonest, power-hungry politicians and their hangers-on. I only hope that honesty prevails in the future. Kindest regards and all best wishes for tomorrow.

  • Ilya G Poimandres

    Thank you for the link, will listen in and take notes. And good luck!

  • Tom

    jurors are told by the judge to avoid reading or watching those stories about the trial or to disregard them.”Should any potential jurors have read these articles, there is the clear implication that the witnesses are lying and the criminal investigation is at best, flawed or at worst, corrupt. Any potential jurors exposed to such material carry the risk of being prejudiced against the witnesses prior to hearing their evidence”
    any actual evidence that this happened? and if s why not dealt with at the time of the trial?

  • Brian c

    Yes, it’s so much more likely that jurors would be prejudiced by a close reading and expert deduction of the Craig Murray blog than by exposure to all those blaring tabloid and TV headlines.

    Definitely no extreme bad-faith stitch-up going on here, no sir….

  • JulesM

    Just a brief glance at those ‘newspapers’ is enough to make a decent citizen wince. You should have contrasted that with a pic from how your blog for those charges appeared. Any sane jurist would laugh out loud. Sometimes, through thoroughly decent objectives, the law can be an ass. The law can also be a complete arse on occasion. Finally, the law can sometimes be a complete travesty. I wonder what it is this instance? /sarcasm

  • John Dalrymple

    “The tenor of the article is that Alex Salmond has been the victim of a false campaign, motivated by political gain and that all of the criminal allegations against him have been concocted by members of government in order to damage his reputation……there is the clear implication that the witnesses are lying and the criminal investigation is at best, flawed or at worst, corrupt.”

    Sounds like a fair and accurate report of the trial and the verdict of the jury of Mr Salmond’s peers, who heard all of the ‘evidence’ and came to their own conclusions – after direction by the learned judge!

    What the hell is the problem?

    • N_

      @John – It seems that the authorities in Scotland don’t realise that if it’s OK to publish pieces that try directly to influence readers to support the prosecution case by publishing the prosecution’s narrative (e.g. by quoting the prosecution opening speech followed by extracts from prosecution witness evidence – and that’s what constitutes most media reports about most criminal trials) then it must also be OK to publish pieces that can be construed as capable of influencing readers to support the defence case by publishing the defence narrative (e.g. an explanation for how the prosecution story actually came about which does not rely on the defendant being guilty).

      As everybody should know, jurors are instructed by the judge not to be influenced by ANYTHING they read in the newspapers or on the internet, not to discuss the evidence they hear (or any other aspect of the case) with anybody who is not on the jury (or even with other jurors except when ALL jurors are present), and to reach their decision SOLELY on the basis of the evidence they hear in court.

      Does the judge feel she didn’t give the right instruction?

      An important background here is that the ruling scum seem to want to dispense with the jury system altogether. They are still furious at the decision the jury made in the Alec Salmond case, and they are sh*tting themselves that they themselves may face unpleasant consequences. They prefer to whip up hatred against the English instead. As Joseph Goebbels said, “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” Well sometimes that DOESN’T WORK.

      In a sense it’s the jury and the jury system that are in the dock, not just Craig, and of course that goes directly to the issue of the “executive’s” influence over judicial matters and how the prosecution against Alec Salmond came to trial in the first place.

      If some of the perjurers wish to sue Craig for defamation in a civil court, that course of action is open to them. But they haven’t got the GUTS. They know they would end up losing not only money but possibly also eventually their liberty.

      • Piotr+Berman

        I guess when you lose a civil case you have some financial responsibility, but I do no understand how liberty can be at risk. There can be a problem finding a lawyer for a dubious case.

        • N_

          Take a look at what happened to several famous libel claimants from Oscar Wilde to Jonathan Aitken.

          Truth is a defence to libel…and libel litigation has a discovery phase.

          Admittedly it is possible for a person who is accused by somebody of committing even a very serious crime, and who has sued their accuser for libel and lost, to avoid being prosecuted for the crime, given that the required standard of proof is higher in a criminal court than in a civil case. But at the very least we are all absolutely fine, for example, in calling somebody like Neil Hamilton a liar. He sued Mohammed al-Fayed for calling him exactly that, and he lost.

          The colourful history of libel suits contains many examples of those who sued for libel and later wished they hadn’t. OK, all of my examples are from the English jurisdiction, but the same thinking applies in Edinburgh: before suing a person for libel, think very carefully indeed about whether there might be material that you do not wish to be brought to light during the discovery phase or later, material that may cause grave damage to your interests.

          Even McDonald’s, the company that sued Dave Morris and Helen Steel for libel and won (at least in court!) on some points, probably wished they hadn’t sued in the first place.

        • Scotty13

          I believe N⎽ was inferring that were any of the women sufficiently unwise to take their case to a civil court, they would most likely fail to win. They may then also open themselves up to a counter accusation of defamation.

          For many neutral on-lookers the revelation that the accusers had group chat meetings to discuss their various alleged experiences with the ex-FM, was deeply concerning. Were the women not warned about discussing the case amongst themselves, before it went to trial, by their legal team?

          The sharing of personal experience with other accusers was indefensible and a game changer. Exchanging salacious material is likely to unduly influence others in their group, cannot be permissible in a criminal case and equally in a civil action for the same reasons.

          ‘We may have lost a battle, but we will win the war.’ If the instigator of this failed prosecution had any conscience she’d have resigned outside the High Court in March. Ironic that the plural of conscience is conspiracy.

          I wish you well over the next few days, Craig.

          The best of British.

    • Jennifer Lloyd

      What the hell is the problem?

      They gave the ‘wrong’ verdict, that’s what.

      “We may have lost a battle, but we will win the war”

  • N_

    Good luck with tomorrow’s hearing, Craig – and get a good night’s sleep before it, so you will be on your toes tomorrow.

  • Jim

    Best wishes Craig. Excuse my ignorance but is this civil or criminal contempt ?

  • Crispa

    It’s not just the lurid headlines suggesting mud sticks but the volume of copy on the charges alone.
    Herald – p3
    Daily Mail – “8 pages of unrivalled report, pictures and analysis”
    Record – pp4&5
    Sun – pp 2, 3, 4 & 5
    Express pp 2,3,4,&5
    National N/A
    Scotsman p4
    Note which papers have the largest spread and what mileage they would have got had the mud stuck. And there is no attempt at overt or “unconscious bias” here (to cite Starmer earlier today!) that might “prejudice the course of justice”? Compared with a satirical piece that was totally neutral in its anticipation of an outcome. Pull the other one. If it is worth anything in today’s corrupt world, justice must prevail and the sour grapes of a petition and its mendacious submissions consigned to the dustbin where they belong. My thoughts will be with Craig Murray tomorrow.,

  • Kenny

    I never expected this in Scotland; in England/UK, yes, in their corridors of bent and out of control establishment power, absolutely, but such an open display of hostile corruption, and a brazen display of trying to shut someone up isn’t that common in this little country of 5.5 million. I despair. You must really be a threat to them, Craig? I hope your law team are as brilliant as their’s are evil.

  • Hamish McGlumpha

    Of course, this is all disgraceful.

    What became abundantly clear during your reporting of the trial, is the extent to which ‘professional’ mainstream ‘journalists merely report what the prosecution side want them to report – luridly and graphically – and as you noted, when the defence case started, notebooks were folded.

    No wonder they want to shut you up – and any other ‘unreliable’ reporters.

    We must never lose sight of the fact that the court system is not about justice, but rather, the operation of state power.
    Honest, truthful reportage undermines state power.

    That’s what.

  • J

    My thoughts are with you Craig. One of you is so unlikely and irreplaceable, where on Earth could we find another?

  • nevermind

    i’d so wish I could be your Craig, Craig, you are a much underrated value to the Independent movement and the SNP is backing away, trying to discredit you before you get too much support.

    I am surprised that the Scottish Green Party is quietly showing its poo faced self in the public mirror, there must be more than a…licking to their cooperation, why are they not speaking out against this blatant judicial abuse and harassment of those who speak out, carefully and considered, ate the Scottish Greens playing deaf?
    And what of the prominent Independence supporters? are they scary or frit?
    speak up for yourself Alba…

    • Andrew Ingram

      This is a petulant prosecution.
      Suggesting that this blog nobbled a jury in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt is plain daft.
      People have been framed in the past, with the press playing its part and it will happen again, that’s the appalling vista.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.