An Incredible Omission 143


Astonishingly, the unprecedented Order from the Scottish Parliament to the Crown Office to hand over documents does not include the text messages between Peter Murrell and Sue Ruddick, which Murrell lied to parliament did not exist. In fact Peter Murrell does not feature in the request at all.

Those who hail the Committee’s Order to the Crown Office as a great breakthrough are not reading carefully enough. It is designed to fail. The orchestration of the plot is revealed very substantially in texts between Ruddick and Murrell. The Committee is only asking for texts between Ruddick and various categories of Scottish Government employee. Murrell and the other concerned SNP employee Ian McCann are not Scottish Government employees, but SNP employees. The Committee has deliberately excluded them.

This means, for example, the Committee will not see the exchanges between Murrell and Ruddick over the occasion when McCann was sent to firm up Woman H and make sure she would go through with it – woman being the accuser of the most serious accusation, and the woman who was not even at the small dinner where she claimed the incident occurred, as shown by eye-witnesses and the kitchen records.

The Committee also specifically excludes the Crown Office from providing any messages which identify an accuser. That makes the Order totally useless, as the only people, to my recollection, who fall into the Scottish government employee category requested, and who were in incriminating correspondence with Ruddick, are indeed false accusers. So the Committee won’t get those texts either. Ruddick’s “evidence generating” expeditions were in collaboration with somebody who, at a very late stage, became an accuser specifically so their tracks would be hidden by a court anonymity order.

It is important to remember that right from the outset of the plot, the accusers were knowingly planning to exploit the court granted anonymity routinely accorded to alleged victims of sexual assault, in order to facilitate their plan. As evidenced by the text from the Woman who Wasn’t There to another accuser-to-be that read:

I have a plan and means we can be anonymous but see strong repercussions

That message was read out to the jury in the Salmond trial.

The evidence of Geoff Aberdein is the most important single piece of evidence in the current Sturgeon Inquiry at Holyrood. Geoff Aberdein’s evidence is the most important single document in Scottish political history since 2014. It proves that Nicola Sturgeon lied to parliament about when she first was involved in the allegations about Salmond. It is not just that she held a meeting with him on the subject four days before she claimed she first knew – and has subsequently lied to parliament that this meeting was a chance encounter. It is that a full month before Sturgeon claimed she knew, Aberdein was contacted by a very senior member of Sturgeon’s staff and asked to have a meeting with Sturgeon on this subject. Subsequently, as four independent witnesses have testified to Sky News , that senior member of Sturgeon’s staff asked Aberdein to falsify a statement to remove their prior knowledge of the allegations against Salmond. Yet all of this, the most important evidence of the entire inquiry, has been excluded from publication and from consideration by the committee because it involves inextricably one of the anonymous accusers.

It is of course the case that Sturgeon knew of allegations long before even showed by Aberdein’s evidence, when she initiated the process to investigate ex-ministers. But it is not necessary to prove that in order to show that Nicola lied to Parliament – Aberdein’s evidence is sufficient for that.

We do have, of course, the bones of Geoff Aberdein’s evidence because he testified under oath in open court at the Alex Salmond trial as to these events, and I was there and heard him – although the attempt to get him to lie about what happened was not in the Salmond evidence as not relevant, and had not been public before being revealed by Sky.

The Inquiry Committee has now gotten itself into the ridiculous position of refusing to take into account sworn evidence that was given openly and on oath in the High Court of Edinburgh, because their legal advisers tell them it is inadmissible.

There is a hideous circularity to all of this. The Inquiry has been told it must reject Geoff Aberdein’s evidence on legal grounds, by the Solicitor to the Scottish Parliament. The Inquiry has been similarly told by the Solicitor to Parliament it must not question, on anything in Aberdein’s testimony, the official from Nicola Sturgeon’s office who organised the meeting with Aberdein and asked him to lie about it. The Committee has been told by the Solicitor to Parliament that it must not ask for any of the documents the Crown Office is hiding which name accusers. And I have not yet stood this up, but I have no doubt whatsoever that it is the office of the Solicitor to Parliament which is responsible for Peter Murrell being excluded from the Order for documents.

The Lord Advocate is a member of Sturgeon’s cabinet, is the prosecutor who prosecuted Salmond (and Mark Hirst and me), is in charge of the Crown Office which is hiding the evidence, and we have the Solicitor to the Scottish Parliament telling the Parliamentary Inquiry it cannot ask for key evidence or reveal key truth.

I must say, I have always been distressed by the calibre of Members of the Scottish Parliament, but their meek acceptance of the bent official advice that they must conduct the inquiry with their eyes closed, ears stopped, hands bound behind their back and one foot firmly secured into their mouth, is frankly pathetic beyond all expectation.

Please do read this excellent article by Iain MacWhirter.

—————————————————–

 
 
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

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

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

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.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

143 thoughts on “An Incredible Omission

1 2
  • Al-Stuart

    .
    Dear Ambassador Murray,

    I had to read your article twice to absorb the gravity of what was within it.

    Am horrified by what appears to be conspiratorial malfeasance in public office. Possibly outranked by conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

    Professionally I am minded to suggest the narrowness of options required to obtain justice in this matter and bring those alleged miscreants in public office to account is becoming limited to Alex Salmond or Johanna Cherry joining/starting and Independent Scottish IndyRef2 Party to go after the second “list” votes.

    Immediately the levers of powers are removed from the suspect cabal is when we will start to see the House of Cards at Bute House collapse in a manner not seen since the Westminster Expenses Scandal,

  • Antonym

    This vital omission explains why an SNP dominated parliament voted for something that looks like an attack on their leading couple(s). Nicola Murrell can’t fool all Scottish sheep all the time – though a lot, just like in various Western European nations.
    Not something is rotten in Denmark; a lot is rotten in Scotland.

    • Joe Mellon

      Exactly and at every opportunity Sturgeon punts the ball into the long grass of The Inquiry, as in Marr yesterday. The Inquiry will sort everything out, she is just bursting to answer questions in The Inquiry.
      Of course as Craig points out above The Inquiry is a fixed game: it might get a little rough if Jackie Baillie asks the “wrong” questions, but Fabiani will steer around that. The vital evidence will not be presented and will be ruled as irrelevant and beyond discussion, the report will say not everyone did everything perfectly, but thats life innit? The FM will do a Holy Willie and humbly regret she isnt even more pefect.
      The rot has spread from the fishes head to its heart.

    • Joe Mellon

      Because no policeman wants to end his career prematurely? Because the COPFS has no interest in pursuing it?
      If the police and prosecution service are in the pocket of a government with a solid majority and few morals then the banana republic is guaranteed. A sad state of affairs.

  • Joe Mellon

    Could Joanna Cherry, using parliamentary privilege, read the relevant communications into the record of the House of Commons?
    Then the cat is put of the bag, the rotten fish in the midden, prosecutions unavoidable, and retirement accomodations can be prepared in Saughton.

  • Olive Perrins

    Thanks for many great articles Craig. I applaud your bravery in tackling this head on and I think I had my head in the sand until I stared reading your blog a couple of months ago. Donated a wee token. Scotland needs more like you.

  • Mary

    Volunteers wanted for the COP conference in Glasgow in November. Unlike the participants, you won’t get paid.

    A recruitment drive is being launched to find volunteers for the UN climate conference in Glasgow. About a thousand people are needed to help the delegates and visitors in and around the event which is being staged in the city.

    The international summit is due to take place at the Scottish Event Campus (SEC) on 1 – 12 November 2021.
    The vital climate talks are expected to bring together the largest gathering of heads of state ever hosted in the UK.
    The volunteer programme is similar to the Commonwealth Games in 2014 when 15,000 people donned the distinctive red and white uniforms of the Clydesiders.

    This time, only 1,000 volunteers are needed, with the event centred on a single venue, but some of those roles will also be in Edinburgh where delegates are expected to arrive and stay.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-55725797

    • nevermind

      so how are these high flying delegates of countries, who will all have a mandate to act…..be traveling from Edinburgh to Glasgow COP26?
      by train? helicopter?airplane? or in a motorcade of electric vehicles?
      Lets hope these ‘volunteers’ will not all be BBC/MI5 or MI6. Shall let some XR friends know about it, they have very imaginary ways of dressing….:)

  • Bob

    Is there any significance in Nicola Sturgeon clone Kate Forbes just announced engagement? Afterall, nothing happens by chance. At least not in Scot Gov circles. There has to be more to it. Is this the drumbeat heralding the downfall of the Murrells?

  • Mistertaximan

    There is another parallel with Rangers. Upon reading this article, I am reminded of Lord Nimmo Smith and the SFA inquiry into Rangers financial irregularities that he conducted. The SFA too were in the business of cunningly narrowing a remit in order to achieve a predetermined outcome. The crucial and incriminating “wee tax case” was excluded in the same way that all relevant evidence is being excluded here.

    • Goose

      Galloway is anti-independence, so his gloating should be seen in that context. Anything that ‘damages the Nats’ cheers him.

      His anti-inde position is somewhat bizarre, given the fact he appears to admire Westminster about as much as Guy Fawkes did.

      • Wikikettle

        Goose, there is no one outspoken about the Established than GG. He has been brave in many subjects and in my view an Internationalist rather than a Nationalist. He has always called the SNP Tartan Tories, not interested in working people of Scotland, but using flag waving nationalism to gain political power. They did and abused it avoiding full independence and the financial responsibility that comes with it, such as Currency and Taxation. As a British citizen who is not English, I would feel safer within the union. The ugly head of English nationalism as exposed by National Front supporters with the same initials, as witnessed by his own class mates singing gas them all gas them all, is more of a future for England than a true socialist state that gave working people everything 1945. At the height of the old empire, all the weal was never distributed to working people, yet they have been brain washed with those glory days of empire.

        • Cubby

          Galloway is a British Nationalist just like Gordon Brown who are both more than happy to cosy up to the Tories to keep their Nationalist dream of a unitary British state alive. Nothing internationalist about that just simple old school colonialism.

          So he gave the Americans a roasting in their senate many years ago. Wimbledon also won the FA cup many years ago and has a similar relevance to Scotland today – none.

          • Wikikettle

            I think the term British Nationalist is a misnomer. As there are so many British, like me with different heritages. To use the term British Nationalist as an insult would alienate nearly half the Scottish population in Scotland and most of the Scottish population in the rest of the UK. One can disagree and still be friends without anger.

          • Cubby

            Wikikettle

            You have like so many got it in your head that the word Nationalist is an insult and therefore take British Nationalist to be an insult. It is an accurate description of people who take the Union that is the UK and want it to be a unitary state. A unitary state controlled by England rather than an actual union of equals. Colonialism. British is a relic of the empire. Great Britain is a geographic area consisting of the 3 historic nations of England, Scotland and Wales. In trying to create a British identity it tries to remove Welsh and Scottish identities which gives England = Britain.

            British Nationalist is an accurate description – feel free to make it out to be an insult if you want.

      • James B

        Goose – I can’t speak for George Galloway, although I do seem to share several of his views (I prefer the England-Wales-Scotland union; I’d like to see a united Ireland, he’s strongly against the mayhem in the Middle East created by USA/UK and strongly sympathetic towards the Palestinians, Iraqis, etc …. his economic views are much further to the left than anything on offer in the UK right now – as are mine).

        For me, the basic driving force here is a hatred of corruption and the horror of seeing the political establishment pinning false charges against someone, the abuse of power and successfully corrupting the judicial system. You might expect Galloway to support Nicola Sturgeon, since she does NOT want independence and neither does he, but if he’s anything like me, then this level of corruption is just so sickening that all other considerations (independence or remain within the UK) are trivial by comparison.

        The process we see against Alex Salmond in Scotland is something that I might have expected to happen in a country like Uganda under Idi Amin; never in my life did I imagine that this sort of thing could take place in Scotland (neither did I imagine that we could see the sorts of things that they are doing to Julian Assange. That is a different, but related story).

        • Cubby

          James B

          There is no bigger corruption than colonialism.

          There is no bigger corruption than one party to a fake union holding the other party captive.

          There is no bigger corruption than the bigger party to a Union trying to eradicate the others culture.

          So whilst it is very nice of you to not accept small political corruption you seem to be less concerned about larger scale corruption.

      • Tom Welsh

        From what Mr Murray and others have been telling us here lately, Goose, I would think that any honest citizen would be glad to see the SNP meet with a check.

        At the moment, anyway, the Westminster parliament is about as functional as a chocolate fireguard. It has effectively been abolished.

        I think one should be careful to distinguish the state from its government and the people who make up that government at a given time.

  • Mac

    Unionist MP’s on the inquiry actively covering up for Nicola Sturgeon’s fellow conspirators and misdeeds. Unionist actively media looking the other way. That should be enormous alarm bells for people, giant fog horn type klaxons.

    Seeing how cynically and ruthlessly the SNPG exploited the law protecting the anonymity of genuine rape victims to shield themselves in their attempted stitch-up of Alex Salmond it really does throw new light on their proposed Hate Crime bill.

    It is a very sinister bill. If passed they could go after anyone and just make it up as they go.

    Seeing the SNPG’s form throughout I have no doubt that the Hate Bill has been specifically designed for them to go after their political enemies. Just like their freshly defined rules for dealing with complaints against Alex Salmond were.

    • Giyane

      Mac

      Any sudden u turn in the law is capable of throwing law abiding citizens in the ditch. The worst law change has just been approved, the one allowing spooks and undercover police to break the law. With the Hate law, many people who have been complying with ” the pen is mightier than the sword ” suddenly find their pen broken. Where do they go next?

      I lived through the Thatcher years and she always produced a couple of legal wind-ups a week. If the wind-ups is increasing your cortisol levels, by creating inner conflict, watch your purse. These are very basic criminal distraction techniques of harassment.
      In the end it was Thatcher that got led away by the men in white coats, and Sturgeon is going the same way.

  • Fwl

    Wow.

    This sorry state of affairs sounds like something out of nineteenth century USA or modern Malta. Maybe it’s the same everywhere but it becomes more transparent in smaller counties. I sometimes wonder whether the selfish self-preservation political instinct of many stops some events from coming out for at least two generations ie until it no longer matters.

  • Giyane

    A preacher once said that what he said was right, that was a direct benefit and if it was wrong, the that would make you think, which would be an indirect benefit.

    It’s an excellent opportunity to think, when the SNP leadership is simultaneously playing the independence pedal on the organ and the Union pedal, hoping to get votes from both opposing sides.

    If it was a car, and you pressed the accelerator and brakes at the same time on these lovely icy roads, you could get a very spectacular spin. I remember my dad taking me out in car when I was young to show me how it was done.

    Sometimes you just have to trust the driver. Independence is not going to come by following the highway code. In the meantime best of luck to you Craig on Wednesday. Hopefully you’ll end up being more stirred than shaken.

  • Giyane

    With a Zionist Lord Advocate , an Islamist Justice Minister and a C of E Tory Party, let’s hope the judiciary are still old fashioned Presbyterian folk who throw out the Case against you on Wodensday. Aaaargh! I thought religion was banned!

1 2