The Great Cover-Up 119

The greatest cover-up in modern Scottish history is underway. I am not permitted to say more at present. I will however venture to say that this is massively bigger than just the attempt to imprison me, that most of these documents are also being withheld from the Holyrood Inquiry.

In stating they are banning Alex Salmond’s solicitors also from releasing any of the documents, the Crown is admitting their existence.

I have made a redaction to avoid any further accusation of jigsaw identification.

I am EXTREMELY keen for you to follow tomorrow’s procedural hearing where the question of what evidence is permitted will be addressed. That’s tomorrow, 9.45am British Summer Time. The dial in instructions are here.

Dial (+44)-207 660 8149
Access code 137 161 9904

I really do not know why it is a telephone system and not internet, obviously it is the court and not me. Please do listen in. I realise nothing much happened at the last two procedural hearings, but this should be very different. I am very anxious indeed that the powers that be should not get the impression that public interest is waning.

Please do go to the linked page and check their instructions about what you are and are not allowed to do.


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
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
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.

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

119 thoughts on “The Great Cover-Up

1 2 3
  • Ross Kennedy

    I will be working so unable to join however I like many others will be with you in spirit. Good luck Craig

  • John A

    This trial is far more important for human rights and freedom than the trial on a Greek island of a premier league footballer involved in a drunken brawl over the weekend, that appears to be his word against that of the Greek police. Except this is what all the media are concentrating on. Shameful.

  • Jennifer Allan,scottish-governments-hr-boss-questioned-over-botched-investigation-into-alex-salmond-harassment-complaints
    Today’s evidence before the Scottish Parliamentary Committee. This is turning into an an absolute ‘can of worms’.
    Incidently, that Wark & Co programme revealed a great deal more than a name, including a comment about that Geoff Aberdein meeting, the one which provoked an acute attack of amnesia in our First Minister.

  • Hamish McGlumpha

    Peter said: “Many believe, for instance, that Amnesty International has fallen into disrepute in recent times. Craig has commented previously that he expects his case to go all the way to the ECHR – we shall see.”

    Here is the Kafka-esque problem with that, Peter. In order for that to happen Craig would have to get permission from the very judiciary who are conducting this travesty. In Scotland he has no automatic right to take an appeal beyond the jurisdiction of his tormentors.

    Anyone willing to bet that such permission would not be withheld?

      • Hamish McGlumpha

        Thanks Peter,

        I’ve clarified my point with a direct question to Craig at your point (above). I am deeply concerned at information I have from a very experienced Scottish solicitor, that permission would have to sought for any such referral to Strasbourg.

        I would point out that my source is deeply cynical about the ‘justice’ system in Scotland (after 30+ years of experience. Her advice is simple “Steer clear – try your best never to get caught up in it – and if you do, do NOT expect justice”

        • Tinto Chiel

          When I first read of Thomas Muir’s dreadful treatment at the hands of people like Dundas and Braxfield, I wondered how the Scottish legal establishment of that time got away with such blatantly unjust behaviour.

          Little did I think it would have the brass neck (or desperation) to behave in such a way today.

          This may well turn in to a legal marathon but so many people are disgusted by the treatment of Alex Salmond and yourself, Craig, that crowd funding for a prolonged legal defence should not be a problem.

        • Tom Welsh

          ‘Her advice is simple “Steer clear – try your best never to get caught up in it…”‘

          Exactly my view. The so-called “justice system” has nothing whatsoever to do with justice. Getting caught up in it is like being caught up in a some enormous agricultural machine that will rip you to pieces.

          Unless you manage to find enough money to ransom yourself.

    • Rhys Jaggar

      I guess if you can get 100,000 people to march to Holyrood with placards saying ‘let him go to ECHR or else!’ then maybe they might succumb.

      After all, politicians really, really don’t like to be seen to be unpopular.

      And I think it would be very easy to get over a million Scots saying they profoundly disagree with Sturgeon et al on this matter….

  • Aidworker1

    I think you can crowdfund any appeal – it can’t be Strasbourg now?

    It will not come to this.

    Best luck Craig,

  • Ken Garoo

    Mr Murray,
    Good luck for tomorrow.
    I will try to listen in for some of the proceedings.

  • Contrary

    So, let’s see,

    The PF is suggesting you are in contempt of court because you published some vague articles before the trial and then reported on the trial that didn’t name any of the accusers but may have led an unspecified person to make some wild assumptions through reading other material in the public domain. Obviously I don’t know exactly what the PF is submitting – but surely they are actually trying to prosecute Craig for presenting some of a conspiracy theory – not contempt of court.

    I can’t see why the judge hasn’t just thrown it out – there are plenty of examples of contempt of court, helpfully pointed out to them by WoS, and Craig’s isn’t one of them.

    So, the defence can’t be ‘others did it worse than me and you aren’t prosecuting them’, and it can’t be ‘I have witnesses that say there is no way you could do jigsaw identification unless you already knew who they were’ because that’s just to difficult to judge and is subjective, and it can’t be ‘but there was and is a conspiracy and that was what I was referring to’ because ,,, it’s not relevant to the prosecution accusing Craig of writing about a conspiracy,,, I’m having difficulty with the PFs arguments against Craig having any defence at all.

    So, the PF is accusing Craig of something that’s fairly vague and waffly, and in order to convince the judge needs him to not mount any defence because all the PF has is a few comments and a couple of articles that could, if taken out of context, mean something else?

    I am very sure this isn’t the case, out esteemed procurator fiscals office would never use a contempt of court action to prosecute something completely different, and waste the courts time and money etc.

    I may not get a chance to dial in tomorrow, but have donated a wee bit of money – which won’t even buy a lawyer a cup of tea, but hey every little counts eh.

  • Bill Craig

    I tried that number, which shows up as Roseberry Park Baptist Church, London. It does seem to be related to being able to listen to a meeting, as the recorded message refers to the need for an access code, but I wonder why it is linked to a church, and if that might be a “cover” for something else? Surely not.

  • Frances McKie

    Best wishes Craig. They are trying to cover things up but -after Kirsty Wark’s programme- they look ridiculous. Ms Wark and co seem to have made it easy to identify characters involved in the case.

  • Nick

    Words fail
    I cannot assume how you feel. I am enormously depressed just reading those letters.. how to block any chance of justice being done.
    I mean blocking evidence that you deny exists…when the stitch up is that blatantly overt it should scare us all where this leads. An Orwellian totalitarian future.
    Best of luck…but best i can see is a suspended sentence on proviso you don’t blog about this matter again.

    • Bill Craig

      Anne, just use a zero (0) in place of the 44 next time you need to dial a number like that. I got through allright, and didn’t have to wait long for proceedings to start.

      Yes, a chink of light as regards acceptable evidence.

  • Feliks

    Tried to access court but was asked for attendee access number, then told to press # to continue if I did not know this. I was then cut off

      • Feliks

        Thanks, Peter. I got there late but must have entered respectfully as I wasn’t rebuked by m’ lady.

  • NoTwoReally

    Well, that was interesting (pretty sure I’m allowed to say that; not saying anything else to be on the safe side)

  • nevermind

    That was like Masterchef, master judge more like.

    ‘Here we have a full cauldron of all the various ingredients. We must keep stirring it because it might otherwise boil over and cover the whole floor of this dirty kitchen, so, keep stirring the pot, whilst I get some blankets, just in case we have to cover it up whilst you are stirring a little longer. I’m getting the blankets, keeeep stirring’.

    It felt like the case is a little dis-organized, with emails not arriving or files not opening.Extra time being needed and more funds required to get this all back on to a road towards a decision/justice/apple pies for all.

  • N_

    “I really do not know why it is a telephone system and not internet, obviously it is the court and not me.”


    • Tim+Rideout

      They are using Cisco Webex which is a video conferencing system. It can work via the web perfectly well – they would just need to provide the connection details.

    • A

      Internet may be cheaper and easier for the public to use and the insiders may not want that…

  • Stephen Henson

    Well, I’m no expert and I’m sure Craig will tell us what actually happened, but did it sound to me like they aren’t ruling out any evidence at the moment and will decide on admissibility at the hearing proper? Is that a small victory given the fears going into today?

    • Tim+Rideout

      Yes the Judges rejected the Crown application and basically said all the Defence evidence needs to be considered at the full hearing and they will decide at that hearing if it is relevant or not. So I think that is a small step forward for Craig. The Judges also accepted that if the Crown can present circumstantial evidence such as tweets and comments on blogs then Craig should be able to as well.

      • Ian

        Well, that’s a glimmer of light. If both sides are going to adduce arguments from anonymous partisan comments on tweets and blogs, then I would hope the judges throw the whole case out as mired in fiction, hearsay and rumour.

      • Christine Hudson

        That was also my take on the hearing. a small chink of positive light. It also seems that the judge has yet to read Craig`s affidavit – a corrupt file that would not open. It`s a bit like the dog ate my homework excuse!

      • Jennifer Allan

        @ Tim Rideout

        “The Judges also accepted that if the Crown can present circumstantial evidence such as tweets and comments on blogs then Craig should be able to as well.”

        WOW – That’s a big step forward for Craig and a huge setback for the Crown Office. I have said it before. The CO’s so called ‘evidence’ is based on nothing more than innuendo and hearsay. I have faith in the Judge’s ability to decide what is or is not relevant within both the prosecution and defence presentations.
        Good Luck Craig

      • M.J.

        I’m pleased to see Scottish Justice insisting on fair procedure. It will be bad for its reputation otherwise, whether Scotland is in or out of the UK.

        • Ian

          I cannot see how any serious judge can base a case on anonymous comments from people using pseudonyms, some with agendas, biases and malice. Comments on twitter and blogs are not in any way representative of the wider population’s beliefs, so should be automatically barred from any consideration of what ‘reasonable’ people might assume or deduce. The whole thing is riddled with spurious claims about what might have happened in an anonymous person’s mind, which is more akin to witchcraft than justice. Appropriate if you are intent on restaging the witch trials.

          • Tom Welsh

            “I cannot see how any serious judge can base a case on anonymous comments from people using pseudonyms, some with agendas, biases and malice”.

            Isn’t it supposed to be a fundamental principle of British justice that evidence can be considered only if its source is known, identified and (usually) present in court to testify?

            Surely one thing less credible than hearsay is anonymous hearsay.

  • Boindub

    I was rejected although I waited and waited and recalled many times. All my numbers and access code were correct.

    • Thomas

      I wonder if there’s an issue with the Cisco Webex software they use as it didn’t recognise the DTMF tones sent by FaceTime audio – I had to transfer to iPhone to input the conference number before continuing.

  • Ingwe

    I feel sure that there’ll be a fuller report of today’s hearing but the report so far is promising in so far as the judge seems to have refused the Crown’s submission that Mr Murray’s evidence is irrelevant and therefore inadmissible.
    However, did the court direct the Crown to produce the documents and class of documents requested by Mr Murray’s solicitors? That really is important.

    • Ingwe

      I was unsuccessful in trying to listen in. Not due to the court’s system but the lack of a mobile signal here in rural France.

  • Sean_Lamb

    Greatest cover-up in Scottish history?

    Hmmm, there was a little thing called Pam Am 103. Then there is the Union vote of 1707. Actually some of us are still a little suspicious of the Gowrie Conspiracy.

    Its a big call you are making there Mr Murray

    • Jennifer Allan

      Sean Lamb
      Craig did say MODERN Scottish History! I’m not sure what the Lockerbie disaster has to do with any Scottish conspiracy?
      Never mind. Regardless of whether the Crown Office is withholding documents in both Craig’s case and the Salmond Parliamentary Inquiry, the truth is deliciously coming out via the spoken accounts of witnesses during the Inquiry. Forget ‘jigsaws’ and try ‘Join the Dots’

      • Sean_Lamb

        How about the murder of Josslyn Hay, the Earl of Erroll? The flight of Rudolf Hess?

      • DiggerUK

        “Craig did say MODERN Scottish History! I’m not sure what the Lockerbie disaster has to do with any Scottish conspiracy”………

        The corruption of the Scottish Judicial system as revealed in its fitting up of Abdelbaset al-Megrahiis is very modern. That should have spelt out to anybody how venal and corrupted the Scottish judicial system is…_

        • Jennifer Allan

          Supposition and off topic. Designed to divert attention from the very real evidence emerging of the here and now Crown Office’s attempt at a cover up in the Salmond case. My point is the Crown Office has already failed to cover up the evidence in spite of their increasingly frantic attempts to withhold evidence in both Craig’s case and, disgracefully, the Scottish Parliamentary Inquiry into the way the Salmond complaints were handled.
          The admitted ‘malicious’ prosecution of persons involved in the Ranger’s Administration procedures, now admitted to have been ‘malicious’ by the Crown Office, is set to lose UK taxpayer’s an eye-watering £40 million in compensation. (See links below). Salmond’s £500,000 award is looking almost paltry in comparison, but he will get more in the fullness of time.It would be nice if the Lord Advocate had to pay compensation out of his own pocket, but once again the taxpayers will have to pay.
          The position of the Lord Advocate, who attempted every legal avenue to escape accountability in the Ranger’s case is looking increasingly precarious.

          • DiggerUK

            Abdelbaset al-Megrahiis served eight years of a prison sentence for a crime he clearly did not commit. That was a no jury, Scottish Judges only stitch up.

            The issues at stake for Scotland is its bent legal system, with judges who bend to political powers far too easily…_

      • Tom Welsh

        “I’m not sure what the Lockerbie disaster has to do with any Scottish conspiracy?”

        Unsurprising as the cover-up was very thorough. If you want to take a peek at the truth, try

        “Adequately Explained by Stupidity?: Lockerbie, Luggage and Lies” by Morag G. Kerr
        “Scotland’s Shame: Lockerbie 25 Years On – Why It Still Matters” by John Ashton

        There used to be various Web sites and blogs devoted to the issue, but I have not been able to find them with a brief search. (Nowadays search engine tend to be heavily “influenced”, especially about controversial topics).

        Briefly, the whole official Lockerbie story stinks to high heaven. Why did everyone immediately blame Libya? Lockerbie followed less than 6 months after the shooting down of Iran Air 655 by USS Vincennes. 270 people died at Lockerbie; 290 in Iran Air 655. It’s interesting and instructive to compare the reactions to the two disasters. The Lockerbie crash was followed by huge efforts to catch those responsible, and the ceremonious trial and conviction of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi. The Vincennes atrocity was followed by Vice President George H.W. Bush saying, “I will never apologize for the United States—I don’t care what the facts are … I’m not an apologize-for-America kind of guy”; the captain and some of the crew of Vincennes were lionised and decorated.

        So it seems likely that Lockerbie was payback for the savage, unapologetic murder of 290 civilians by USS Vincennes. In that case Libya, and al-Megrahi, were framed. The kangaroo court that tried al-Megrahi was held in The Netherlands with Scottish judges and no jury; the legal observers of the UN and the EU stated that it was a travesty of justice, and Dr Robert Black said it was one of the worst legal scandals in Scottish history.

        Immediately after the crash, before the local police and others got to the scene, a number of Americans were reported to have taken over the site (and some of the police station). It was suggested that they were from the CIA or some such organisation, removing evidence of what had really happened.

  • 6033624

    It would seem, if the Press & Journal are to be believed, that you were partially successful today. It looks like publicity works after all. They might BE trying to convict you in a kangaroo court but they don’t want it to LOOK like that.

    In light of today’s admission of the Crown of Malicious Prosecution it may feel less like witholding evidence in the rest of your case..

    • Ian

      “the bungled case could end up costing the taxpayer £40m in damages plus millions more in expenses”

      Add that to the payout to Salmond, and the costs of trying to prosecute him – it would appear that the Scottish justice system is costing the taxpayer unnecessary millions at the same time it is bringing the whole system into disrepute.

      “the court heard this morning that the current Lord Advocate continued to fight the current case even after documentary evidence showed that the prosecution was wrong”

      Rather sums up their intransigent incompetence. With Craig they risk the same disrepute.

  • Contrary

    Well well, this is verrrrry interesting, I’ve just been alerted to this article in the National:

    “In Scotland’s highest civil court, the Court of Session, David Whitehouse and Paul Clark of administrators Duff and Phelps are suing the Lord Advocate and Police Scotland for a sum now thought to be in excess of £15 million for their wrongful prosecution.
    After four years of the action, which involved a long legal battle over whether the Lord Advocate had legal immunity – the Appeal Court ruled he did not – Whitehouse and Clark stand on the brink of having their reputations fully restored and being paid millions in compensation.
    Stating that documents had been fed to lawyers in a “drip, drip” fashion, Iain Ferguson QC for Clark told Lord Tyre: “Frankly it is nothing short of a disgrace that the Government has behaved in this fashion towards private citizens who it now accepts should never have been prosecuted.
    “It is only because of the determination of Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse to clear their names that this situation has come about and the bottom line is that less wealthy individuals could never have reached this point. That’s completely unacceptable.”
    The National can reveal that with the former directors Charles Green and Imran Ahmad also taking cases for more than £25m in compensation, the bungled case could end up costing the taxpayer £40m in damages plus millions more in expenses – Whitehouse and Clark were awarded £600,000 in interim expenses this morning.
    It had already been revealed by the BBC that Ahmad would receive an apology and damages from the Lord Advocate.
    The implications for the Scottish justice system are staggering – apart from the costs, the original decision to prosecute was taken by the then Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland who is now the judge Lord Mulholland, while the court heard this morning that the current Lord Advocate continued to fight the current case even after documentary evidence showed that the prosecution was wrong.
    Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Scottish Government have been asked for comment”

    The implications are,,, interesting, from a wider ‘WTF is the Scottish government doing’ on various things – but I also wonder if the wider justice system might tread a bit more carefully just now?

1 2 3

Comments are closed.