URGENT: The access code to listen live to this morning’s hearing is now published on the court website. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/coming-to-court/public-access-to-a-virtual-hearing Last night my lawyers told me that the hearing had been moved forward to 09.45 from 10.00, but that is not reflected on the court website at the minute.
I tried to do a public service in making available to everybody key facts from the Julian Assange extradition hearing and the Alex Salmond trial, which revealed a picture very different from that portrayed in the mainstream media. I find myself wishing now I had somebody to perform the same service for me.
I am particularly constrained about what I can say in my own case. The last week has been incredibly hectic, with our reply to the Crown’s submissions (written arguments) due in last Thursday, and our responses to the Crown’s amendments in view of our responses, due in today. I previously published the indictment, called the “petition”; the written arguments are called the “submissions”. I cannot publish these at present but I think I can publish this brief extract from the Crown’s submissions, paras 48 to 50. They are slightly edited, on legal advice, to remove even the remotest possibility that the Crown might claim that in some esoteric way they could lead to the identification of witnesses [you should see the rest of the rubbish in the Crown’s submissions!], and I publish with little comment but they are followed by some not irrelevant images of publications that are not being prosecuted for potentially influencing the jury. I can think of no reason you cannot comment, but please say nothing that might in any way reference specifically anybody with a protected identity.
Extract from the Submission of the Crown:
48. … The characters talk about how they can fabricate allegations of sexual offending against a previous minister, including attempted rape, in order to destroy his reputation. The script suggests that there was never any such offending and despite a large team of police working on the investigation for months, they did not find any evidence of serious offending. The characters suggest that more women from their organisation should be found to fabricate allegations against the former minister and that the criminal investigation has been orchestrated by the minister and his or her colleagues.
49. It is respectfully submitted that there are undeniable and crucial similarities with the prosecution of Alex Salmond and his readers note this in the attached comments section (production 2). The Respondent has not explicitly named Alexander Salmond … but the Website hosts comments attached to the article which do name him in connection with the content. The tenor of the article is that Alex Salmond has been the victim of a false campaign, motivated by political gain and that all of the criminal allegations against him have been concocted by members of government in order to damage his reputation.
50. It is respectfully submitted that such commentary from the Respondent … meet the test set out in the 1981 act. These articles carry a severely prejudicial risk to the course of justice. Should any potential jurors have read these articles, there is the clear implication that the witnesses are lying and the criminal investigation is at best, flawed or at worst, corrupt. Any potential jurors exposed to such material carry the risk of being prejudiced against the witnesses prior to hearing their evidence.
My personal blog. Influenced the jury. I am facing jail for that.
Tomorrow’s (Tuesday 7 July) hearing is at 10am. It will again be a procedural one dealing with management of the case, but again I should be very grateful indeed if any of you are able to listen in and follow the process, as matters vital to the course of the case are often determined in these procedural hearings.
You will be able to access the case via the link given at the bottom of this page. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/coming-to-court/public-access-to-a-virtual-hearing
The password for the case should be posted on that page on Tuesday morning.
Finally, again I do apologise that I am finding it very difficult to keep up regular blog posts on other subjects while this case against me is in train.
——————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
All the very best tomorrow, Craig.
I’ll be all ears — as will be many others, I suspect.
Please stay strong Craig. The truth is on your side and will not be silenced. Your persecutors should know that, There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed or hidden that will not be made known. Those who give false testimony against you will be exposed.
The truth will set us all free.
Can anyone heed Craig’s call and report on the court proceedings?
I will be there.
One does not need to be a Marxist/Communist or to have taken Political Philosophy 101 to understand that “the law” is nothing more than the most obvious manifestation and systematisation of the power relations existing between classes in a society:
“La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain. In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.”
Le Lys Rouge/The Red Lily (1894) François-Anatole Thibault (Anatole France).
One of the most common legal weapons that the working class come up against is breach of the peace. In Scotland, this area of common law was a corrupt mess that Smith v Donnelly (2001) drove a coach and horses through (whilst still, however, finding time to cite one of the most notorious BotP cases from the 1950s!). In 2010, the State’s response came in the form of Section 38 of Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. This codified (confirmed by the APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION BY EWAN PATERSON AND OTHERS AGAINST PF AIRDRIE – https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=6da6a1a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7) the principle of ex post facto “justice”.
The logic is simple:
A neat trick if you can get away with it, and the State does on a daily basis to keep “the mob” down.
The proposed Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill represents a whole new level of corruption, should it be passed. At least this piece of shite is getting some mainstream attention and push-back, no doubt because it impinges on the “middle class” as well as the hoi polloi. Quelle surprise!
Dear Craig, you have my utmost respect. Stay strong you good man.
Best of luck.
If this were true then the BBC’s reporting, which although the polar opposite, would be just as prejudicial (if indeed it is considered so) Their commentary went from merely a description (ie a list) of the charges into a very detailed account of the EXACT allegations down to sexual acts. This was reported on lunchtime TV during the trial. I fail to see how that can be allowed and yet your smaller audience, where you name no one, is not.
If this were a Hong Kong resident blogging on something happening there the entirety of the British Press would be up in arms about a brother reporter being oppressed by the state. He would be reported in heroic terms as ‘seeking the truth’ and his ‘no jury’ trial would, rightly, be called a Kangaroo Court!
The prosecution are asserting that you can blog about something without naming anyone and be in contempt of court despite no one actually accusing you of coming out with anything other than information already in the public domain. From this it does not appear you are accused of naming anyone and their entire point is that ‘he must be talking about X because X is the only one we fitted up on sex charges’ It could only be prejudicial if it fit enough facts for it to be true. Still, they aren’t worrying about truth in this charge, they are worrying whether it would influence a jury IF they say it. But ALL of the reporting from the BBC was prejudicial – only theirs was AGAINST the accused and they are trying to prove you were prejudicing a jury the other way.
I know that cannot be a defence, two wrongs don’t make a right and it’s up to the PF who they bring cases against. BUT, there is no offence here, simple blogging is not an offence. When blogging from the trials you have attended they have never stated any of it to be prejudicial but somehow this was. It’s super thin but obviously it’s designed to have a chilling effect. If I was a conspiracy theorist I’d say it is to try and prevent you reporting from Assange’s case in the future. But I’m not a conspiracy nut and I think that genuinely that’s just a ‘happy coincidence’ This action seems more vengeful than anything..
Excellent
There is no equality before the law if the law is not equally enforced.
Yes Craig you do need a you, I’m not sure who. Would be nice if another blogger could help, but seeing as this blog remains my primary place to visit for news I do not know who else would do it? The canary? George Galloway would be nice. He’s very good at attention grabbing.
Good luck old son, I’m very concerned for you.
To the fools involved in this witch-hunt against an innocent man concerned only with reporting the truth – we are watching you.
We are indeed.
It looks to me that all those newspapers are certainly prejudicing any juror reading them. They have convicted Salmond already.
I too wish someone was reporting on your case Craig, as well as you did for others – it was truly remarkable the insight gained from just having another viewpoint on Alex Salmond and Assange court proceedings. I really wish you all the best of luck tomorrow, and hope all outcomes are favourable to you.
I find it interesting that the contempt of court accusation has come after the trial itself – if they were truly concerned about undue influence they would have brought them at the time. So, can we assume the sole motivation for this prosecution is to try and claim a mistrial (or whatever it is called) and re-try Alex Salmond? So you would just be collateral damage in that case.
Whatever the motivation, I have to say, this whole episode, from the police investigation to procurator fiscal bringing the charges, now to this obviously targeted contempt of court – you do look at the newspaper headlines and wonder (if you possess more than two brain cells) about what might be the most influential – really puts a sinister light onto the Scottish Justice system. But it doesn’t seem they are much interested in public relations, the Scottish people, or indeed justice – I now question much of the decision making in Scottish law and I definitely have less trust in police Scotland.
Anyway – although I’m not totally sure the detail of how contempt of court works – but because this is after the trial has taken place, have the courts polled the jurors and asked if they read your blog,,, you know, like ask a question as simple as ‘have you ever even heard of the name Craig Murray ever before in your life, and did it influence you?’. I know jurors are protected, but they can be ‘anonymously’ polled I’m sure, and anonymously give evidence. I believe there are procedures in place for such things.
It just seems utterly bizarre to have a case now suggesting that an obscure blog post ‘influenced’ the outcome of a trial – when you can ask the people that might have been influenced, surely that would clear it up? (Naive I know) Then, they would not need to bother wasting millions of our (taxpayers) money that could actually be spent on useful things that might actually benefit the Scottish public. I’m getting quite furious at their behaviour, and annoyed at how stupid Scottish ‘justice’ must look to the outside world, they make a mockery of the word and make Scotland look like a backwards Middle Ages village.
But surely that is exactly what the establishment line is. The truthful question to ask this jurors would be whether the balance of public reporting, including the headline examples shown in the above articles, could have influenced their reporting. The overwhelming evidence is that it did not.
In other words if the CM article was so critical in influencing the jury, despite the other high visibility other articles prejudicial in the opposite direction, then because it exposes the truth behind the trials reported.
That’s not really the point SA – they are suggesting that obscure articles on an online blog that has no big colour pictures or glaring sensational headlines overwhelmed all other mainstream reporting to the extent that the jury made a ‘wrong’ decision, they are suggesting the evidence of the case pointed to Alex’s guilt but the jury couldn’t see past the evidence presented in Craig’s blog to make an informed decision. So had they ever heard of Craig before in their lives? Statistically, probably not, he isn’t high profile in media reporting.
The fact of the matter is that the evidence presented overwhelmingly pointed to Alex Salmond’s innocence, and most of the cases brought forward as serious charges were so ridiculous it has belittled the justice system and shown how little seriousness they attach to charges of sexual assault. The jury looked at the evidence and made a decision – obviously the judge doesn’t think this was the ‘right’ decision, despite all the evidence pointing to it being so, so is pursuing the writer of an obscure blog – Craig’s worldwide readership is high, and we both read it, but the majority of people in Scotland will have never heard of it – to try and get the ‘right’ answer. Rotten to the core I’d say.
Best of luck Craig. I expect this case to be thrown out of court and you awarded all costs etc. The whole thing is ludicrous. Then you can get on with the festival if you can.
Sorry then it is because it exposes the truth…..
Good luck tomorrow.
I support Craig Murray. I have read most of his output over the past couple of years, including the posts in question. I still do not know the identities of those granted anonymity by due process in the case.
The shenanigans at the top of Edinburgh polity have a timeless truth to them, exploited by all to bring creative narrative to a host of supposition and prejudice. The obviously deliberated decision of the jury should have settled the matter.
It is to be hoped that a few old wise heads can see this and avoid the curse of perseverative dramatisation. Scotland should move on. I speak from 500+ miles distant, with nary a scintilla of Scots blood in my veins.
Craig, I hope you find out you do have friends like the true friend you have been to Julian Assange, Scotland, Palestine etc.
Wishing you all the best. Stay strong.
They cite that, even though Craig didn’t not specifically mention the Alex Salmond case in his fan fiction blog article, other people made the link in the comments pages. I commented that I thought the blog article had been a reference to the Julian Assange case as did at least one other person.
Clearly, different people will interpret ambiguous information in different ways. Some, through sheer luck, may be correct in their assumptions. Some, despite their convictions, will undoubtedly be wrong. Without an explicit affirmation by the author of such a text, it would be foolhardy for the a reader to put too much trust in any commenter, particularly when many people are posting anonymously.
In this day and age of online shopping, I think most people are aware that one should always take online user reviews of products with a good deal of skepticism. Even when they are from a “verified” purchaser. It is quite possible to purchase a product, write a negative review and then return that product. It might also be financially worthwhile to purchase a rival’s product, publicly diss it and accept the loss as a “legitimate” business cost…
If people are aware of such practices in regard to consumer opinions, they should be even more aware of this tendency in regard to political opinions. Thus, I doubt that any reader would place too much stock in an anonymous user’s comments.
And, as for literary ambiguity, one would do well to heed Robert Frost’s advice when interpreting his poem, The Road Not Taken. Although many people are quite confident that they have understood the poem, Robert Frost remarked to his biographer, “You have to be careful of that one; it’s a tricky poem—very tricky,” Things aren’t always what they may initially seem.
Best of luck with the proceedings, Craig.
Yes. When i read fan fiction i thought it might be about Julian Assange; or about chucking in sexual smears as a way to undermine people in general. That happened to Craig too as well as numerous other individuals. In fact I didn’t put the link into the Alex Salmond case until the material from the PF office was published here.
Good luck: Stay strong
Clearly the new default is guilty until proven innocent.
Good luck Craig.
Best of luck and more, Mr. Murray, the truth will out.
You have been unfairly singled out, nae dout aboot it. I wish you all the very best Craig, and I will be listening in again tomorrow, like many others. I also hope and expect you will be on Alex Salmond’s MSP List team next May. Scotland needs the election of its very best, people we know for sure will stand up for Scotland, no matter what our oppressor throws at us. You must have a key diplomatic role in a future Scottish State, for you are surely the very best there is in that side of things. Scotland must make more use of its best and most capable people in all respects, rather than aye elevate unionists as is still the norm; in colonisation’s death throes there are many who still seek to undermine the oppressed. Tomorrow is another example.
All l the best to you Craig from Massachusetts USA.
Most of what is said in a court of law has no connection with either truth or morality. Lawyers are skilled and devious liars. That is why it is called a profession, because it is an act, an artifice, or even a total lie.
Naturally the inner sanctum of power , the shrine of Trump’s most hallowed backside, surrounded by courtiers of venal and flattering reverence, where the toxic gas of legalised perjury ever burns, does not appreciate the introduction of truth, or commonsense I to the solemn , Masonic proceedings.
Keep her chin up mate. They are making the most spectacular fools of themselves. And that’s just the benighted males. Nevermind the batty feminist ghouls who were so rudely deprived of sinking their dog teeth into Salmond’s neck, by the wooden stick of a Scottish Jury.
How ever are they going to explain those mascaraed eyes feasting on the prospect of dragging their victim into the Scottish dungeons and tying him to the wreck of public odium? Bit embarrassing, what what? Actually being caught in the act of collective sexual sadism, otherwise known as a political trial? Caught in the act of being about to revel in an innocent man’s destruction.
In flagrante big dick toe. The ritual preparation for the psychological rendition of a live male victim. CUT!
Somebody was packing at their mobile in the Count Dracula scene. And now the whole sequence will have to be thrown in the bin.
” Lawyers are skilled and devious liars. That is why it is called a profession, because it is an act, an artifice, or even a total lie.”
Giyane – it is an error to make such a huge generalisation and unfairly besmirches many, many honest, principled and extremely brave lawyers. Do you include the likes of Gareth Pierce, Mr Murray’s legal team, Edward Fitzgerald QC, etc? I could go on but it would become boring.
Over my entire practising life, I have never lied. Whether I was skilled or not is a matter for others to judge.
Let’s hope that, unlike Mr Murray, you never find yourself in need of a lawyer.
Remember the line about the first action of tyrants: “Kill all the lawyers.”
Those “key facts from the Julian Assange extradition hearing” have developed intention from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to silence Craig in a British court possibly in benefit for donor support from billionaire Sheldon Adelson.
However, I believe hope and subsequent exoneration for Craig is already connected by love and purpose from his wife Nadira and her force can be witnessed here; a remarkable union:
https://www.assangecountdowntofreedom.com/videos/themurrays
“You have not converted a man because you have silenced him”
(John, Viscount Morley, On Compromise, 1874)
Poster by the great Ben Shahn:
http://www.quotationof.com/gallery/ben-shahns-quotes-2.jpg.html
May the Angels watch over you Craig Murray.
Craig,
I hate to put it in these terms – but I shall:-
1. The entire British judicial system has been wanting for credibility for a very long time.
2. You are not the first one that the great British justice system has sunk under – or – at least tried to.
3. I was born in Jamaica and I was not old enough at the time – but my folks recalled one Roger Mais. Now, Mais was a tremendous and accomplished writer. He earned all the awards that the then British Caribbean colonial system had on offer, But, he also earned himself the ire of the then British Colonial Governor. So for publishing truths about the Colonial system as it was then in Jamaica at the time in a tome entitled ‘ Now we know’ he earned himself some 6 months in prison with hard prison time for ‘seditious libel’ under the then colonial laws of Jamaica.
Craig Murray, truth be told – you are in 2020 approaching Roger Mais’ fate, but brother – he was Black – and – you are White.
And on that note I sincerely trust that with the best legal representation that you can afford – maybe – just maybe – the corruption within the British justice system shall not once more raise her ugly head – otherwise called ‘justice’.
Craig – I honesty do believe that in 2020 you have a better run of it than in colonial Jamaica in the 1950s.
All the best my friend,
Courtenay
For those of you who doubt me about how I see a link between the long past plights of Roger Mais and our own Craig Murray – the just fast forward from Mais to Murray:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mais
Having done that exercise then just consider that the oppression does continue – be it Black or White.
Professor Michael Hechter made a similar point in his thesis and analysis of the internal colonialism that passes for the UK ‘union’, and hence oppression that is ethnically driven. Hechter likened the reality of oppression of the UK ‘Celtic periphery’ peoples with the black communities in the US. This is also covered in my recent book which is entitled ‘Oppression’, in Scots: (‘Doun-Hauden: The Socio-Political Determinants of Scottish Independence’, available from Amazon). My own analysis of ‘Scottish justice’ (i.e. those acting on behalf of the British Crown in Scotland) is that it remains somewhat colonial in nature, controlled mainly by a privileged, culturally Anglophone unionist meritocratic elite (like most ‘Scottish’ institutions), and with its main emphasis on the oppression of native Scots speakers/working class. Another related and damaging psychological aspect between oppressed black communities and oppressed Scots is the prevalence of Appropriated Racial Oppression, or internalised racism, whereby such oppression has come to be expected by these communities. This relates to Fanon’s ‘inferiorisation’ and ‘colonial mentality’ which involves a people internalising and accepting their oppression as somehow deserved. Scotland’s quest for liberation is therefore about casting out an oppressor, in aw its mankit naitur!
All the Best for court Craig….We Are All with You…Stay Strong.
I feel for you Craig, I hope you get through this in one piece. Good luck
This case strikes at the heart of political satire and commentary. In fact as a result ‘Yes minister’ and Yes Prime minister” could be banned’ for the same reason.
Looked at in another way, is this a political show trial?
Surely the important reason behind a contempt of court charge In this case should be to protect jurors from prejudice and therefore all potential sources of bias should be relevant. If this is not the case, then it questions the motives behind the prosecution for singling out and is therefore discriminatory.
Sending strength and courage as yours must be sorely tested by now. May this judge prove up to this test of her integrity.
Thanks for always standing up for sanity, freedom and decent values in an increasingly insane world.
Suerte.
Craig Murray, you are a brave and honest man of the highest integrity. You are in my prayers daily. This morning a candle will glow for you and your family at our Church.
The truth will prevail.
I will be very pleasantly surprised if it does.
The Sturgeon machine was spitting teeth that they missed getting Salmond, twice.
IMHO, with the UK deep state at their side, they will go after this Assange-hugging, long term thorn in the FCOs side, with extreme prejudice and with propaganda at maximum volume.