Appeal For Defence Funds 532

UPDATE I today received a prison sentence of eight months for my reporting of the defence case in the Alex Salmond trial. I have a three week stay while we apply to this same court for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. My appeal will be based on the simple fact that I did not identify anybody. It will also be based on the right to report the defence case being denied by an extraordinary, impossibly strict application of “jigsaw identification”, and on fair process not having been observed.

Should this court refuse permission to appeal, which seems not unlikely, I will in all probability be jailed while we apply direct to the Supreme Court for permission, which will take some months.

I am afraid I find myself once again obliged to ask you for funding for the appeal. We have raised about £70,000 but are likely to need, at the least, double that.

UPDATE The defence fund has received £46,520 in the 24 hours since it was relaunched to fund the appeal to the Supreme Court. That does not get us there, but it is a good start on our way as the appeal continues. Over 2,000 people have donated, with the smallest donation being 82p and the largest £1,000. Every penny is greatly appreciated. I should make plain that despite the astronomical costs, some members of our legal team have been working substantially below their normal rates and with time donated free.

One donation of £500 from a gentleman I know, came with a note that explained that Willie MacRae had lent him £100 shortly before his highly suspect death. He regarded the £500 as repaying that debt, and was sure Willie would approve of the use of his money. That brought tears to my eyes.


On Friday I shall be sentenced, very possibly to prison, for contempt of court by “jigsaw identification”. While I do not believe anybody has ever been imprisoned for “jigsaw identification” before, my entire prosecution has been so perverse that I cannot imagine why they have done it unless that is the intention.

With enormous diffidence and frankly embarrassment, I find myself yet again obliged to ask people to contribute towards my defence fund before my hearing next Friday, to enable us to move forward with an appeal to the Supreme Court. Legal bills actually paid to date amount to £161,000, with about eight thousand not billed yet. Non-legal costs, including the opinion poll, total around £9,000. The total raised by the defence fund to date is around £143,000 with the balance of around £18,000 paid so far having come from my personal pocket.

The practical result of the judgement against me is that it is virtually impossible to report the defence in any sexual allegation case; as witness the fact that I was ordered by the court to take down every single word of my articles covering the defence case and evidence.

The judges ruled that publishing any information that could theoretically assist not the public, but literally a colleague who worked in the same office, to identify a complainant, would constitute jigsaw identification. They also ruled that jigsaw identification was committed if you gave a piece of information which could identify a complainant in conjunction with information that could be found anywhere else, no matter how obscure. For example, if information from page 19 of the Inverurie Herald six years ago, combined with information from page 178 of a book, combined with something I published could lead to an identification, I am guilty regardless of whether or not anybody did in practice actually piece together these obscure sources of information.

In fact the court heard nothing that would pass as evidence in court that any individual had in fact identified anybody as a result of my articles. There was zero evidence of harm. What has been harmful is the gross censorship of my journalism, with my entire daily account of the defence case removed, and my critique of the Garavelli article removed. In consequence, it is once again virtually impossible for anybody to discover WHY Alex Salmond was acquitted, enabling the massive state and media led campaign to claim he was really guilty – which sadly appears, with the counter-narrative banned, to have acquired great traction.

You will recall that I commissioned a Panelbase opinion poll which proved that a significant 8% of the Scottish population – that is around 400,000 adults – believed they had been able to identify one or more of the complainants in the Salmond case from publication, but when asked stated that the source of this caption was overwhelmingly the mainstream media.

Well I decided to re-run the opinion poll to see if anything had changed. These were the results. 11% of the Scottish adult population – that is half a million adults – by now believe they know an identity. This is how they know:

It is perfectly clear and entirely consistent with the first poll. 54% of people who believe they know an identity got their information from the newspapers. 27% got it from TV and radio (there may be overlap between these groups).

Yet no newspaper or TV journalist or editor is being prosecuted.
Not even Dani Garavelli, who is overwhelmingly named as the source of information – by fifteen different people – is being prosecuted.

So let us be perfectly clear. The three top sources named for identification were

Dani Garavelli – by a country mile
Kirsty Wark

None of whom is being prosecuted. Garavelli has published an entire series of major articles amplifying the prosecution case against Salmond, in Tortoise media, twice in Scotland on Sunday and in the London Review of Books, plus many other well paid commissions. She has effectively made a fat living out of an entirely one-sided account that claims miscarriage of justice simply by omitting all the defence evidence. In so doing she has plainly been much more credibly guilty of jigsaw identification than I. On the other hand, my long critique of Garavelli’s first Scotland on Sunday article, which interpolated the defence evidence which contradicted her account and proved that the jury was right, has now been banned, censored and desroyed by the court, the 21st century equivalent of burning the manuscript in the public square.

Garavelli has gone on to become media-puppet-in-chief to the Scottish government, producing a stream of adulatory articles about Nicola Sturgeon like this one about what a great constituency MSP Sturgeon is, which is (ahem) somewhat contrary to received wisdom.

Garavelli is protected because she is part of the inner circle, while I am prosecuted, when the mainstream media is not, because I am an opponent of the corrupt nexus of power that governs Scotland today. The official line is that through enthusiasm for Salmond’s cause I revealed information to the public that the mainstream media did not. That is a fiction the Scottish legal system has chosen to adopt, and for which I will be sentenced on Friday.

All the real world evidence shows that is untrue. I revealed far less than the mainstream media revealed. This is a shameless and openly political prosecution of one of the very few platforms of any size which explained the truth about why Alex Salmond was acquitted by the jury. That is my “crime”.

We have to get this out of the foetid corruption of Edinburgh and into Strasbourg. That is only possible via the UK Supreme Court, and my legal team are now working on that appeal. I urge you to subscribe not only because of the particular injustice of my own case, but also because this ruling puts a huge power in the hands of the state by making it next to impossible to report the defence in cases of sexual allegation. As such allegations are the favoured tool of the state against perceived dissident threats (cf Julian Assange), this is very dangerous indeed.

You can contribute to my defence fund here. I am extremely grateful to those who have and I want to stress that I absolutely do not want anybody to contribute if it causes them even the slightest financial difficulty. I am afraid to say that the amounts we need to raise remain ridiculous; this fact is of course all part of the implementation of suppression, by “lawfare”.

Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above


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
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

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.

532 thoughts on “Appeal For Defence Funds

1 2 3 4 5 9
  • Sam

    Remind me again why Belarus is a dictatorship and Scotland is a democracy… funny thing is, you get to confront your accusers in a public trial in Belarus, and it’s perfectly legal to publish the name of all the adults involved. Oh, and you get elections on time, kids in school, and nobody gets arrested for a Tweet that criticizes Captain Tom.

    • N_

      Wow – interesting info about Captain Tom, @Sam. I hadn’t heard about that. Is Joseph Kelly still going to be tried next month, or has the charge been dropped? The whole Captain Tom thing was so disgusting I thought “great, glad I don’t have to listen to half of the news today”. There is a lot that is militaristic about the whole way the NHS is being promoted. Doorstep clappers might as well stand and salute – maybe with a more “physical” wing that burns out some “ethnic minority healthworkers” at the end of the street who are refusing to get vaccinated, seen as wicked evil party poopers who aren’t with the programme, as if anybody would dare disrespect Captainnn Tommm by being disobedienttt.

      Daily Mail readers may love the “individualism” of reading about the interest rates on their savings accounts, but deep down they’re collectivists when it comes to the strong state in its monarcho-fascist form and cracking down on those who won’t stand up for the national anthem. The Captain Tom show was like the cult of the brainless soldier who always does what he’s told. It may be very relevant that within a relatively short period of time there may be a new monarch in Britain. The deranged crown prince has been called a “quasi-king” already (by journalists who make sure they distance themselves from saying it directly, because they’re too scared to), and there are indications that he may be behind some shifts in the selling of the British national spectacle to its home market – stuff like resacralising the land, and an emphasis on “the regions”.

      • N_

        What Joseph Kelly is alleged to have tweeted is not a sensible way to oppose the army. However, one day there may have to be a “let’s have 10 thousand co-publishers and see whether they want to jail us all” type of response.

        One problem is the extreme centralisation of the internet, which practically nobody wants to address, because superficially it is the opposite of centralised.

      • Squeeth

        My experience of the Daily Heil (the only paper where I’m not banned from commenting) is that there is a healthy interest in a decent health service and decent pensions. The economics of the petit bourgeoisie cease to be capitalist, individualist and nationalist/racist/crypto-fascist, when it comes to seeing a doctor and going to hospital or residential “care”.

  • Ron Arnott

    Good morning Craig. Hope it’s OK to have upped my regular monthly donation instead of creating a 1-off payment.
    Do you happen to know of an equivalent defence fund for Manny Singh? (retrospective) If not, is there a way I can contact him?
    I couldn’t chip-in at the time of his trial but have now come by a little spare cash… in a way that would make him smile.

  • Dave

    New donation wire is on the way. Mr. Murray, you’re one of the most important journalists out there. Thanks for persisting and putting your own well-being on the line for everyone else.

    Glad you did the poll again btw.

  • Piotr+Berman

    Legal documents tend to be boring, but I read many parts of Craig’s sentence. There are some analogies to “The Theologians”, a short story by Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges from the collection Labyrinths. A theologian brilliantly refutes a heresy, but his arguments go a wee bit too far, potentially justifying another heresy that actually appears years later, and another theologian successfully accuses the first of heresy (so the first one joins heretics on the stake). Office politics of the theologians could be rough.

    To wit, among the examples that were sited by the judges was a prohibition to publish the name of the defendant when it was a powerful clue toward identifying the accuser. And indeed, were the women A to K accusing “official Z” from an unnamed part of Scotland, or even better, “office superior” without identifying the type of the office, the identification would be many times more difficult, and the number of people inclined to play with available “jigsaw pieces” would be vastly smaller. The decision to make a show trial, with the defendant name disclosed, was the single most detrimental act as far as the anonymity was concerned.

    In other words, the prosecutors and the courts turned out to be heretics as well.

    Especially in the light of their arguments. If you work with the woman who did work for a famous defendant in the past, and she skips few working days during the widely publicized depositions, or even around that time — when the trial dates are known and the depositions days are not known — you can make a correct deduction. And it could be the same with neighbors.

    To quote Jorge Lois Borges, “You are not lighting a stake, but an infinite number of stakes that will be lighted again and again in the future”.

  • Julie Gregory

    From Australia. A thank you for all you have done for Julian . I’m not involved on things Scot but I do have a Proclaimers LP with a song about how low Scots have set their expectations about independence . I take their word .

    If they send you to prison , be strong & don’t let them beat you . You will survive !

    • Ingwe

      I don’t know how it works in Scotland but in England, where I practice (not in criminal law I hasten to add) if you bring a private prosecution, the Crown Prosecution Service can take over the prosecution and then just drop it. I suspect this would happen, given the political nature of the prosecution in the first place. They were after Mr Murray not anyone else.

      • Tom Welsh

        So the “justice system” is nothing but a convenient tool in the hands of the executive branch. They can choose whom to prosecute (or not), and they can even suppress private prosecutions.

        The set-up was a lot fairer in the Roman Empire.

  • Giyane

    When a small group of Scottish politicians decide to be bankrolled by a richer nation history tells us that you’re in for a rough ride ahead. US involvement in Scottish politics is disturbing, not just because of US exceptionalism, under which Nicola Sturgeon doesn’t even attempt to follow the Ministerial code, but also because those who think they have picked up a bargain usually want to make a profit from their transaction.

    It seems that after Sturgeon became disenchanted with both EU and Chinese bankrolling Scotland, the US has got involved and is now calling the tunes. Forget chlorinated chicken, what about private health insurance and other corporate feasting grounds?

    The reason the Scottish state is introducing fascist legislation about thought crime, compulsory deleting what you do know and compulsory not criticising the state when it has done wrong, is because the 2021 bankrollers want a better deal than 1707.

    Pre-emptive measures have been demanded to prevent the Scottish electorate from fighting the new corporate Union with US bankers . A very small group of insiders are going to become extremely rich when Scottish Independence is bankrolled by Global business men/ women.

    Let’s be clear, when the US defeated Iraq in 2003 it said it had acted from altruism, but from.its own perspective it had conquered Iraq, and all that remained was for them to subjugate and subdue rebellion. Hence Daesh. Same with Israel and the Palestinians.

    Craig’s current situation can be seen as a precursor to the sale of Scotland by a privatising Bojo in the finest Thatcherite dogma of flog everything. I know that sounds a bit far fetched, but Bojo has already flogged most of London and the flecks of rabid Tory foam are spewing out digestive enzymes.

    Basically, the more you are not allowed to know something, the more you need to know what is going on. If the Lemmings want to be owned by Global banks today , their children and grandchildren will be fighting for freedom for a century as a consequence of their ignorance.

    6 May 2021 = 1707.

  • fonso

    The lawyering game is some racket if 46k doesnt come close to funding an appeal and your team are working substantially below their normal rates. What price justice north or south of the border?

    • DunGroanin

      High courts can run to 250k per hour, I am informed by a barrister.

      Legal Aid was removed years ago so that only the rich & law tourists would come for justice at the friendly courts attached to the City.

        • N_

          Yes, there’s no discrimination. It’s like the laws about begging on the street, sleeping under bridges, and stealing bread – they are applied equally to everyone. Not as if the ruling class makes the law.

  • Amir

    Would the bank cash a foreign check, from across the Atlantic, if one sends it to “ Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB”. This way, one can avoid the PayPal fee deduction or wire transfer cost.

    • DunGroanin

      Just send it direct from your bank to the IBAN number and doesn’t have to be express. I make easy donations from my phone App – it is simples and no need to make PP richer!

      Postage costs, there are hardly any offices manned and your cheque processing will be charged at both ends if it is eventually processed.

    • glenn_nl

      Don’t use your bank for the transfer, they will rip you off badly at both ends.

      There’s an outfit called “transferwise” which I’ve used for years, and they take nothing like the commission:

      I don’t have any personal interest in their business, btw.

  • Robert Dyson

    Spacing out the numbers for the bank means, for me at least, you can not copy and paste. Minor compared to your problems.

  • MI0

    I’ve lurked, read and followed you for some years now and subscribed, and donated, too.

    Time to speak up.

    Just donated again. Good luck.

  • mods-cm-org

    Thanks, Twirlip. It has been corrected – again. The same error was spotted and corrected by a moderator soon after the original was published, but it was restored when Craig updated the post. The same phenomenon has happened before, especially during the Assange hearing. Craig evidently updates his posts by modifying the original text rather than the current published version, so typos often return and need to be fixed again. The moderators usually spot them in the original post, but they’re easily missed after updates. So thanks for pointing this out.

  • Buffalo_Ken

    Am I missing it. Is there an easy button to push to donate funds for the defense?
    Am I missing it?
    I want to donate, but yes I missed the easy button.
    Oh well, one way or the other I will donate.

    • N_

      It says “Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above”, but that link is wrongly set and just comes back to this page.

      The button itself, which I’m guessing you can’t see because of a browser issue, is set to THIS LINK.

      • Buffalo_Ken

        Thank you N. Donation made. 50 pounds for what good it will do.
        I swear the peasants are fixing to turn things around and that will be for the best.
        Dear Mr. Murray, prison ain’t that bad but best to make friends while you are in there.
        Maybe one day Julian will be freed for his big crime of telling the truth to the power that be.
        There days are numbered – literally.
        Them and the rest of us.

  • Shaza

    If they do impose a large fine Craig, don’t worry.
    Just like Chelsea Manning….we’ve got your back. Don’t be afraid of those assholes.

    Just ask and you will receive.

  • Buffalo_Ken

    The incredible down the rabbit hole reality that money for defense is being requested from somebody who had the courage to speak truth in general makes me sad, but take courage cause your time in prison could be a time for learning for all.
    When you are in prison it is best to hold onto your dignity and let go of your ego. When you come out you will be a better man.
    Life ain’t fair but we are all slowly but surely getting better together and so sometimes a diplomat has to go to prison, but the funny thing is when you are released everything is better, so maybe, at the end of the day, it was worth it.
    ps – I sent 50 pounds for the cause……I think.

  • Dave

    Thanks for the appeal update! Craig did you know that the link for the CLICK HERE TO DONATE text comes right back to this page? Seems unlikely that that’s what’s intended.

  • Susan

    I think everybody is wishing you “luck”, Craig, because over the last year we have all become so aware of the total corruption of the judicial system, particularly when it comes to prosecuting (persecuting) opponents of the deep state. It feels that the subversion of the judiciary has been a fairly recent development, but when I think back to the Hutton Inquiry, it is obvious that it was already established back to the time of 9-11 (the Iraq invasion).

    Am adding my donation to the generous pledges by the wonderful readers of this blog, Craig. You’ll never walk alone.

  • Jon

    £46.5K, nice work everyone. I donated last night, will do so again if required.

    I am hoping that Craig merely gets a stern ticking off tomorrow, but should it be more severe, I’d like to see a living expenses fund being set up, to tide his family over.

    • Jimmy Riddle

      That (I think) depends on the inner mental and physical strength of Craig Murray and what he is prepared for.

      As far as I am concerned, it is already utterly ludicrous that the *only* informative accounts of the defence arguments in the Salmond trial, other than Grouse Beater’s great job of covering the Salmond trial, have been taken down, by order of the court.
      It’s probably time to `let all the poison that lurks under the mud hatch out’ – and the outrage might be much more transparent to a wider audience – particularly for those looking for a quiet life who simply cover their eyes and ears at the slightest hint of evil and pretend that everything is OK and benign – if they did actually bang him up.

      That might force people to open their eyes.

    • Baron

      That’s the hope everyone liberty loving burgher of the country should also entertain, Jon..

      The personal courage, the unwavering moral certitude, the laudable stamina to pursue, in poor health, the truth that Mr. Murray displays has no rivalry, no other public figure comes close, he deserves to be served the highest award and not the fear of imprisonment, Baron however profoundly disagrees with his obsession for independent Scotland, in today’s world the 5mn tribe of the haggis eaters and whisky drinkers cannot survive on its own, sides will have to be taken, going it alone will not be doable, but with whom would anyone want to go to bed with? Couldn’t it be more profitable for the Scots to stay in the Union, run it. In the past, the region has furnished seven PMs, five of them in the last century, much better to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a massive one.

  • Baron

    Good luck, Mr. Murray, you are one the few greats left in the country, to re-use Gorky’s quip ‘one day there’ll be celebrations on our street also’.

1 2 3 4 5 9