Let Nobody Ever State Again There Is No Evidence of the Conspiracy Against Alex Salmond 110

I am strongly advised to shut up and say nothing just before my trial. I will however point out three things:

1) These documents are all in the possession of the Lord Advocate. They are held in the Crown Office. That is why we are asking the Crown to disclose them. The Lord Advocate at no stage, in opposing their release, denied their existence. This is the Lord Advocate’s reply to the application. 20210114 Answers to Disclosure Request (3)
2) These are some of the same documents the Lord Advocate has refused to give the Holyrood Inquiry and which Alex Salmond has said prevent him appearing before the Inquiry until the Lord Advocate agrees he can reference them in his evidence.
3) The High Court has agreed with the Lord Advocate that these messages are irrelevant to my trial and do not go to my Article 10 rights of free speech. The High Court notably refrained from endorsing the Lord Advocate’s argument that they are “private messages” and that Murrell and Ruddick are protected from their disclosure under Article 8.
This is extremely important as it means the High Court has not endorsed the Lord Advocate’s arguments for keeping these messages from the Holyrood Inquiry. The grounds on which the High Court did find against me – relevance and Article 10 – relate to my trial but do not relate to the Holyrood Inquiry.

The High Court ruling notably does not endorse the argument here on Murrell and Ruddick’s privacy. The Lord Advocate’s refusal to provide these documents to the Holyrood Inquiry on the grounds of the privacy and data protection rights of Murrell and Ruddick is therefore unlikely to survive a court application by the Fabiani Committee. That would require a great deal more courage than the Committee have shown to date.

I am as advised not going to comment on the merits of the High Court ruling, or on what the messages show.

But, as a matter of simple fact, these messages have now been barred from:
1) The Salmond Trial
2) The Holyrood Inquiry
3) The Murray Trial

Move along please. Absolutely nothing to see here. Nothing at all. Everything in Scotland is perfectly normal and above board. Ignore Craig Murray, he is a conspiracy theorist.
And if you don’t ignore all this, if you publish anything, we may send you to prison.


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
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

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Etherium/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.

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>

110 thoughts on “Let Nobody Ever State Again There Is No Evidence of the Conspiracy Against Alex Salmond

1 2
  • Shaza

    Hi Guys,
    I’m trying to keep up with this from Canada. I thought I was doing fine, but I can’t for the life of me see the significance of the communications being requested.
    Even if the documents prove that evidence was suspect, even if it turned out there was some kind of conspiracy between political operators, how does this fit in with the complaint against Craig of Jigsaw Identification?
    My question is asked in good faith….have pity on a hapless Canadian who is trying to understand.
    (Craig if you read this, thanks for all your work, especially your reporting of Julian’s Kafkaesque circumstances)

    • Colin Alexander

      Craig Murray said: “The mainstream media demonstrably gave more jigsaw identification information than I did, notably, but not only, Dani Garavelli and Kirsty Wark. I have been singled out for prosecution on political grounds”.

    • craig Post author


      You do not appear to have been paying attention very well. Jigsaw identification is only one of three counts. The other two are publications that may influence a jury, and reporting the exclusion of a juror.
      The articles that it is alleged may have influenced the jury were reporting the political conspiracy against Alex Salmond. There is a very strong public interest and Article X defence for publishing them. They were based on, inter alia, sight of the documents now being requested, all of which I have seen before.
      On jigsaw identification the Lord Advocate states I said I was going to name individuals. My defence to that accusation is that the individuals to whom I was referring are those named in these documents, not the complainers in the Salmond trial.
      All of which was stated in a post just two or three days ago!

      • Shaza

        You are right, I hadn’t digested the other 2 charges.
        Thanks to everyone for their feedback.
        Good luck Craig with your case.

      • Graham

        Hi Craig, thanks so much for publishing your affidavit, is my following interpretation of your comment accurate?

        ‘Your defence against the charge of publishing information that may influence a jury, is that the information is scandalous so it is justifiable for the jury to be influenced by it.’

        I know that sounds facetious, but can you help me understand how that public interest defence actually interacts with the due course of justice? I could understand the logic if your defence was “the information wouldn’t have influenced a jury” and I absolutely agree what you published is in the public interest, I just can’t grasp how your defence repels the charge.

        If there was a conspiracy against Salmond, and the jury ought to be influenced by that fact, in the eyes of the law shouldn’t it be Salmond’s defence lawyers alone that do so?

        Not arguing just trying to understand.

        • Graham

          Sorry I may have just realized the answer; there was genuine public interest in what Craig reported, and there was no new information that was not already in the public domain?

    • Joh Cofy

      Craig is trying to point out that the conspiracy evidence physically exists. The relevance to Craig’s own trial is immaterial and the court has ruled it irrelevant but in obtaining this ruling the crown was unable to deny the existence of evidence of the conspiracy to get Salmond.
      If the crown didn’t have the evidence they would simply say they didn’t have it. The crown has the evidence but refuses to allow it to be used because it consists of private communications.
      By definition all conspiracies are conducted using private communications as secrecy is a basic necessity.

    • Jon Cofy

      Sorry not paying attention:
      Craig’s defence is that the crown have identified the wrong people using their jigsaw identification?
      Brilliant: A straight forward case of mistaken identity.
      The purported jigsaw is purely a crown invention and fits many people and/or was misapplied.
      In fact there is no actual jigsaw only a crown creation made to fit the facts with the benefit of hindsight.
      The beauty of this argument is that its undoubtedly true.
      The crown is the villian.
      Doesn’t look good for Craig.

      • John Cunningham

        Or, Jon, the ‘evidence’ for a conspiracy against Salmond is a figment of Craig Murray’s imagination.
        Does not look good for Craig but he’ll make a fine martyr for nationalism.

        • Jon Cofy

          Well John Craig published a written response from the Crown denying him access to specific evidence.
          That is good evidence that the evidence itself exists in the Crown’s files.
          The elusive evidence needs to be taken in context, which in turn is being prevented by the Crown.
          It is in circumstances like this that courts and the public are entitled to make an adverse inference.
          Why for instance haven’t the complainers come forward and released the evidence and their explanation as they are lawfully able to do?
          I think Craig Murray is entitled to his view, which I find compelling.

    • Tom Welsh

      To be fair to Shaza, this is an extremely complicated can of worms. When people dig into such situations, they very quickly become familiar with the people and the details, which they then take for granted.

      It is difficult for a newcomer trying to catch up quickly. And, as Shaza admits, from Canada whose politics and institutions are likely very different.

      Lastly, it’s a legal/political matter, which almost inevitably means masses of obfuscation.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    All on board want to focus on Craig’s target – and – so be it.

    I think that whether Craig wins or whether he loses his case – there will be much bigger issues in the world to contend with:-


    P..S. The system will not imprison Craig – for reason of his high profile ( Assange – well – they punish then release). Watch it play out.

    • Giyane

      Courtenay Barnett

      The prosecution is entirely arbitrary. Millions of people comment in imaginative ways on news events in every corner of the world, and only one jobsworth in the whole world has decided to make an issue about a reply. Talk about British exceptionalism.
      I hereby decree that every body in the world will keep their gobs shut, all the time, especially when discussing fit-ups by bent judiciaries.

      The reality is that these weirdo control freaks have scoured the law for an instance where free speech is restricted and punishable, and come up with rape .
      From there they have fabricated s plan round a fiction as a means of normalizing the restriction of free speech. All this in preparation for the Conservative Party’s plan to rein in the internet. It deeply upsets them when all their daily vomit of lies in the msm are exposed.

      What they most detest about Craig’s blog is that he protects our identities and he weeds out counteragents who spread disinformation and disrupt the thread. In other words he cuts the Integrity Initiative, bellingcat and GCHQ spooks or allows them to be mocked and ridiculed.

      They will do whatever it takes to close this blog down. They will imprison Craig , in order to create an excuse to seize his complete blog apparatus and ban him from running a blog in future. They are nasty, oppressive , controlling, illiberal, hypocritical,, and lastly but not least Tories.

      • Giyane

        I think it is now obvious , from the cobweb of lies surrounding Alex Salmond’s, Craig’s and other recent trials that there was no misdemeanor by Alex Salmond, and that the reply to Craig’s guarded discussion of the non-rape was a plant by the likes of Integrity Initiative .

        Further, the antics in Capitol Hill were pure Bollywood, to ( cognitive democracy ).to make the US white supremacists feel as though they had been represents by someone.

        Just as the oceans are permeated by plastic trash our brains are permeated with junk from Bollywood scriptwriters. Posing as commentariat. When the BBC says there’s no evidence, there really is no evidence because it has all been made up as storylines of 20 daily soaps , all running concurrently on different channels.

        • BrianFujisan

          Very Good Two posts Giyane

          I’ve been poping in and out.. So much shit going on. YEMEN .

          I have a bad feeling about this ….As you say They Want Craig Shut Down… Fuck Scottish Justice.

          Independence NOW.

      • Courtenay Barnett

        I have taken note of what you have said:-

        ” They will imprison Craig , in order to create an excuse to seize his complete blog apparatus and ban him from running a blog in future.”

        I have to admit that I am not in a position to determine whether or not Craig Murray’s blog is on a checklist of ‘dangerous sources of information’. It would seem odd to me that when there are so many undisturbed disinformation web sites and false sources of information already out there that a blog which speaks of facts and makes rational argument should be viewed as an enormous threat to the British government. Huh?

    • Jim J

      I agree. A custodial sentence would be ‘wholly inappropriate’, and a ‘completely pointless exercise’. In any case a custodial sentence can only be handed down if ‘there is no alternative to imprisonment’.

  • Rhys Jaggar

    ‘3) The High Court has agreed with the Lord Advocate that these messages are irrelevant to my trial and do not go to my Article 10 rights of free speech. The High Court notably refrained from endorsing the Lord Advocate’s argument that they are “private messages” and that Murrell and Ruddick are protected from their disclosure under Article 8.’

    I’m not a legal expert in any way, but if private messages revealed certain parties were arguably ‘conspiring to pervert the course of justice’, then shouldn’t they be admissible in evidence anyway if they in some way or another became more widely available?

    You’d have to be a pretty mentally subnormal cretin to set about conspiring to pervert the course of justice and do so with every act of conspiracy being a public statement of record, after all…..

    The obvious question is thus this: ‘do such ‘private messages’ provide prima faciae evidence of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?’

  • Xavi

    It is plain they are trying to get anybody that has brought their conspiracy to public attention. Otherwise why not also charge the big media who identified Salmond’s accusers far more demonstrably and far more influentially? (Where incidentally is Alex himself in your hour of need after all you did for him?)

    Regardless, the contempt case against you is dog weak and in any sane world would be dismissed as a matter of routine. The fear is that as a tireless thorn in their side they may have predetermined your fate. In which case you would join the ranks of jailed dissidents like Debs, Gramsci, MLK, although at least their persecutors never pretended to be dissidents themselves.

    Such an outrage would, however, only aid in attracting further attention to their conspiracy, so hopefully they will have the native sense to step back from executing their latest high profile persecution.

    Everyone is with you, as always, except the very worst.

  • Dungroanin

    These exchanges are between public servants?
    Officials? About another public personage?

    How can they be possibly be considered ‘personal’ ???

    When rape trials these days are about ‘personal’ and ‘private’ texts. And even the Royals Harry & Meghan vs the Fail case is considering ’private and personal’ communications- it is very simply another kangaroo court without peers to consider the FULL evidence.

    I am pessimistic that the ‘Hanging Judges’ will deliver anything other than what they are there to do. As much as I was certain that Barraister would have done anything different to what she was put in as a proxy to do.

    We as a country has been steered 180 degrees back to the prewar autocracy, having had our brains softened by Downton Abbey and other such Aristo worshipping costume dramas over the last 3 decades. We will accept that we will not ‘give the King the eye, we will not doubt our ‘betters’ and the Eton rifled psychopaths, we will not question why, but jus Do or Die.

    The fakenooze MSM and social media and their ever more burgeoning controlled Alt-news agit-prop gas lighting moth attracting sites are willing minions of the great ‘reset’ back to being mere subjects not citizens.

    • Jim J

      ‘Personal’ and ‘private’ would only fly if they were talking about their bowel movements but not discussing fitting up a former First Minister of Scotland on false sex assault charges.

  • Chris Downie

    Against the backdrop of the fallout from the case, I wonder if we’ll ever get to the bottom of when and why Sturgeon went from being Salmond’s protégé, to being his would-be assassin? Was it insecurity at continually being in his shadow? Was she guilty of imposter syndrome and took it out on him? Or was it the age old problem of, in the wake of her party’s unassailable position, that absolute power has corrupted? Or a combination thereof, perhaps?

    • Willie

      Who knows what caused Sturgeon to turn. She certainly didn’t start out like she has ended up.

      Power does corrupt and corrupt absolutely. But there has to be more to it than the power of a First Minister in a devolved statelet with restricted power.

      My view, or my guess is that the SNP leadership was influenced by dark forces. Bribery, blackmail, exposure of personal things better left unexposed – be it sexual real or set up, financial or whatever. Maybe if you were told your husband was a paedophile but that it could be kept undercover for your support, could be a reason. Or what about a good job, some big international organisation post your tenure, that could be another.

      And then of course the plants, the agent provocateurs,recruited under similar circumstances. All part of the game. This after all is what the British state does, and has done from India to Cyprus, to Kenya, to Ireland. If the met can put undercover police into environmental pressure groups having babies with them and going on demos what do you think the policy is to a party that would break the British state.

      Shut Sturgeon has gone rogue and absolutely so at that. Her actions are now being exposed as those of someone who is totally and utterly without any morals, or human compassion. Jailing an innocent 65 year old man for the rest of his life is testimony to that.

      But she did not do it alone and we need to rid ourselves of the scum that has become the SNP leadership and their backers. No wonder Northern Ireland, and the rest of Ireland before it, became the messes that they became as the struggled for 5he Democratic right to run their own affairs

      And make no mistake, Boris Johnson only very recently would have had the troops back in NI in a flash, a Border reinstalled across Ireland were it not for a new man on the block – Joe Biden ( and the EU)

      Our movement must thus encompass international support as we push against a hostile establishment. In the meantime Sturgeon and her accomplices need to go, and go now.

    • Dungroanin

      Just like the DS civil servants. She was a plant, obviously. Yes. THEY do plan that far ahead.

  • Auld Glass

    I had a look into why the Contempt of Court Act 1981 came about. The answer to this can often give valuable information as to how the act should be interpreted. It did not come about, as I expected, because the UK courts needed tighter laws to protect the integrity of court process, but rather to enshrine greater protection to freedom of expression.
    A key stimulus for the Act appears to have been the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision that a court injunction (restraining the Sunday Times from publishing an article) infringed freedom of expression. The article criticised the out of court settlement being negotiated for thalidomide children. The ECHR found that whilst the injunction was legal, it infringed the right to freedom of expression on a matter that was being widely debated in society and which was of undisputed public concern. Importantly, freedom of expression guaranteed not only the freedom of the press to inform the public, but also the right of the public to be properly informed.
    The court noted that the proposed Sunday Times article was moderate and balanced in its arguments, covered an area of public concern, that had been widely debated in society. On this basis, the risk of undermining the authority of the judiciary was minimal. The ECHR concluded that the article’s interference with the judiciary, did not outweigh the public interest in freedom of expression within the meaning of the European Convention. The case had a huge impact on our right to freedom of expression, and our right to receive information from the press.
    In the run up to the Alex Salmond trial, media reporting was salacious, hysterical, and often implied Alex Salmond’s guilt. Alex Salmond’s reputation was savaged in this “trial by newspaper” and these publications undoubtedly tainted the public’s view on a man who was by law innocent until proven guilty.
    This reporting must surely have been a breach of the Contempt of Court Act 1981: infringing the integrity of the judicial system; the authority of the courts; and Alex Salmond’s right to a fair trial, all of which are in direct contravention of the Contempt of Court Act.
    By contrast, Craig Murray’s reporting was fair and balanced in his arguments. He covered a topic which was being widely reported by the mainstream media. His opposing view was factual, raised legitimate concerns on a matter which was undisputedly a public concern and on which the public had a right to be properly informed.
    Despite this, the Lord Advocate is choosing to pursue Craig Murray. No action is being taken against the wider media for their reporting both before and after the trial. As a lawyer, I am struggling with this. I will be listening in to Craig’s trial next week, hoping that justice prevails.

  • Jock

    The Scottish parliament has ordered the country’s prosecution service to release key evidence in the Alex Salmond affair, in a dramatic escalation of a battle over the non-disclosure of legal papers.
    In an unprecedented move, Holyrood issued an enforcement notice on the Crown Office instructing it to release private messages from senior Scottish National party officials and documents about the leak of allegations that Salmond had sexually harassed two civil servants – allegations he denies.
    The notice, under section 23 of the Scotland Act 1998, follows months of stalemate involving the Scottish government, the Crown Office and Salmond himself and a special Holyrood committee set up to investigate the government’s botched handling of an internal inquiry into the allegations against him.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/22/scottish-parliament-orders-prosecutors-to-release-salmond-leak-evidence

    • VinylFlunkie

      ‘..the Crown Office instructing it to release private messages from senior Scottish National party officials and documents about the leak of allegations that Salmond had sexually harassed two civil servants – allegations he denies’.

      Oh The Guardian. Allegations that he was judicially cleared of. Its way beyond denial. Then…

      ‘…a special Holyrood committee set up to investigate the government’s botched handling of an internal inquiry into the allegations against him’

      – An inquiry into how they failed to stitch him up? They wouldn’t need that enquiry if they had succeeded though. Fucking hell.
      The Guardian speak truth with hand over mouth.

      • Dungroanin

        The On-Gruaniad does not mention the perjury of the witnesses.

        I remember when perjury resulted in imprisonments- including of government ministers.

        In other news ex Groan DS stooge editor joins ex DS stooge Clegg and other ‘self appointed worthies’ in a self declared Supreme Court of FB to determine if Trumps banning will be be permanent!

        They really are twats . Why the SCOTUS even lets them get away with calling themselves a ‘Supreme Court’ of Farce Book is beyond me.

  • Goose

    Highly important for Craig given his upcoming trial date.

    Major developments tonight on both the SNP’s independence strategy as revealed to the The National. And for the Crown Office, headed by the lord advocate, James Wolffe. He has been given seven days to comply with an enforcement notice on the Crown Office instructing it to release private messages from senior Scottish National party officials. Reckon the two things are linked?

    Wouldn’t it fall under Abuse of process if evidence isn’t obtained in time?

  • Roy+Robart+(I,+Robart+-+@fromroy)

    I and others who became aware of your plight through your excellent coverage of Julian Assange’s extradition hearings will be paying close attention to your case starting Wednesday. I follow you on Twitter – if you are like-minded to reciprocate, I’m ‘@fromroy’.

  • Derek Gemmell

    I have to be clear, as a Scotsman I’m completely against this emotional rush for Independence. As a pragmatist, my complaints are not only economic but based on the quality and past performance of this SNP administration. I also have grave concerns about a political party which exists through secrecy and diktat from an unelected hierarchy.

    That said, I respect your stance – and not for partisan reasons – given all just democratic institutions should be able to suffer the rigour of open scrutiny. Even to the disinterested there has been a concerted campaign of obstruction and even hostility to those seeking the truth. If the SNP win this disclosure debacle it will be a pyrrhic victory. The stench of corruption and nepotism has taken hold aided and abetted by the lamentable quality of the MSPs now in office. You’ve widened the picture though, drawing in the Civil Service and the Judiciary. and that takes some guts. If you are wrong you will be found out but not by turning a tin ear.

    A political party only exists for betterment of its people – all if possible. It should not seek office by defaming those who think differently or challenge the received narrative or obstruct scrutiny, otherwise its simply a dictatorship – and to some of us conservative Scots the hyper hyper rhetoric and presidential broadcasting simply doesn’t cut it. Thinking Scots are pragmatic, postulate a cogent argument and we’ll listen, challenge your leaders and we’ll take note otherwise its not a party but a cult.

    Good luck with your campaign, truth always wins out, just a shame you have to fall on your sword to get it

1 2

Comments are closed.