The Crown Office is objecting to the appearance of, and trying to block from court, ALL of my witnesses and ALL of our proposed evidence for my defence at my trial for Contempt of Court. Today I have to complete the first draft of my own witness statement. We understand the Lord Advocate may object to the hearing of my own evidence also.
I shall write more on this tomorrow. Today is very busy.
Crikey, …… what part of “Stop digging a hole” does Her Majesty’s Advocate for Her Majesty’s Interest not understand?
Craig was horrified to learn that the plot against Alex Salmond was hatched in Hollyrood. I think he should be prepared to be horrified again
The law is clearly not being applied on an equal playing field and questions need to be raised as to why Alex Prentice is specifically targetting Craig and others who support as much of the truth being put out within the law whilst not appying the same criteria across the board.
Maybe someone who holds parliamentary privilege should be raising these questions in parliament. Someone like a former Justice Minister might be a good place to start.
Its time that a light was shone on the Master of the Dark Arts Prentice and if that fails then WIkileaks or Anonymous should take it on for the public good.
Paragraph 6 leaves me totally bewildered. I know nothing about the use of witnesses in a court case, but isn’t it a bit like saying that there would be no point in questioning a few individuals who supplied an alibi for a defendant. Is Scottish justice an oxymoron?
But also this could be turned on its head, because a single judge can have a point of view based on inside knowledge that could lead to the opposite conclusion.
This is not ‘Justice’. It’s ‘The Law’ – and they are clearly quite different.
Why is the Scottish parliament not up in arms at this disgraceful charade? The principles at stake should have nothing to do with party allegiance & I’d be interested to know what members & leaders of other parties think. Has the whole of politics & the civil service really been taken over by N-S-P control freaks? Isn’t there anybody there with a shred of integrity?
Surely they must hear any evidence that might impact upon the nature and/or severity of a sentence in the event of a guilty verdict?
Evidence must focus on whether the accused did or did not commit the crime or offence with which they are charged.
If you get done for speeding it is not a defence to say that someone else was was speeding but didn’t get prosecuted.
Good luck Craig.
Lots of love and support from this household ♥️
This whole thing is MADNESS, it’s a world gone crazy – how can they, in all honesty, say that you revealed identities when you patently didn’t (unless you already knew who they were) when other sources patently DID but they deem them not worthy of prosecution. How blatant are they planning to be – are they going to announce that they are so biased anyone not agreeing with their political point of view is going to be at risk of prosecution – that seems to be the warning they are sending out.
Madness.
Is there any recourse for pulling up the procurator fiscal etc for misusing the law and justice system? I know Stu has tried writing to the merry go round of the complaints department – is there anything else, with teeth, that can be done? I’m so furious at the whole debacle I’ll willingly starve for a month and put a decent (for me! Not that much) amount to any useful crowdfunder.
How shameful that you are being prosecuted for contempt of court yet the BBC and Kirsty Wark get off scot free with the deplorable documentary aired last Monday, the abysmal lowlight of which was three quisling harpies, Kirsty Wark, Sarah Smith and Dani Garavelli, gossiping slanderously over coffee. How come they and the BBC aren’t being prosecuted? Two questions: What is the most effective way of protesting about the documentary? How can people best support you in face of the upcoming trial?
Does rather beg the question: who funded/organised this charade ? Obviously, came out of the BBC but who instigated it ?
At some point there must have been a meeting where it was decided to wheel out this rubbish and what slant to put on it.
The timing is interesting also. Is this to do with independence, Craig’s trial or something else ? It’s certainly not random.
– “who funded/organised this charade ? Obviously, came out of the BBC but who instigated it?”
The BBC has had an “internal market” for several years; check the name of the production company in the credits.
– The programme was made by Two Rivers Media, whose managing director is Alan Clements, Ms Wark’s husband.
– It was filmed, produced and directed by Bafta award-winning Sarah Howitt, who also made The Papers, a fly-on-the wall documentary about The Herald and its sister titles.
– The Trial of Alex Salmond, BBC2, Monday, 9pm.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18652500.women-salmond-trial-give-first-tv-interviews-bbc-say/
So, one could assume, mistakenly or otherwise, that the Wark’s work for MI5/6 or one of their proxies.
Or vice versa, Stevie Boy. Or vice versa
Just to report yet another example of peculiar ‘modding’ of comments at the Guardian. A harmless comment by ‘Nestor’ this morning queried the ‘deplorable’ assessment of another. I tried to add a little for ‘Nestor’s’ benefit. The result is shown below as I cut and copied before it disappeared:
“invernessian
22m ago
22 23
Today’s Panelbase poll puts “Yes” for Scottish Independence at new high of 55%. When don’t knows are included, “Yes” at 51% outscores “No” and “Don’t Know” combined.
The latest 4 polls that I am aware of have gone: 54%. 54%, 53% and now 55%.
The brexit shambles will gradually come through. The SNP are currently in line for a record poll in May’s Scottish Election and an overall majority in a multi-party PR system designed to avoid that. I think the writing is now on the wall. We are now witnessing clear signs of unionist panic: UK ministers holding up fish in Scottish ports; the defenestration of the tory leader in Scotland; and this week, the scandalously biased BBC documentary by Ms Wark.
Reply
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Report
•
Castor1
invernessian
19m ago
2 3
“and this week, the scandalously biased BBC documentary by Ms Wark.”
I missed that one. Did she wave a union flag or just salute one?
Reply
Castor1 Show comment
Sorry the comment can not be published as the comment you replied to has been moderated since.
Please keep comments respectful and abide by the community guidelines.
Enter comment
[reply to Castor from Smash the Gates]
‘I missed that one. ‘
Do catch it on i-player. A disgraceful production. I wonder why she COMPLETELY missed out the defence case made on days 8 and 9?
It’s clear that she embarked on the report expecting one outcome and was disappointed that another outcome emerged. A bit like those numpty Blairites who were stunned by the 2017 Election result [viz Kinnock Jnr].”
So, do we concude that Kirsty Wark has become inviolate? What was it that required modding of the comment by Invernessian?
Good luck Craig, wishing you all the best.
If you didn’t know before now that the legal system is a racket and a stitch-up, well ye ken noo!
It is embedded in the rotten class structures of Ukania, all done, as these documents show, in the name of a dim geriatric of German extraction, at the head of a family of freeloaders, loafers, chancers, friends of paedophiles.
The sole interest of the state is a ‘disposal’ conducive to the maintenance of a great racket at the head of which is the Windsor crime family.
If it is any consolation, it will matter not a jot what your witnesses (or yourself) might say – the decision on your ‘disposal’ has been made.
The wigs, gowns and fripperies are but props in the charade.
You are an impediment to the racket.
Whilst I am completely “with” you Craig, The Crown is doing as any of us might do with a naughty child; because “he” also did it doesn’t make “you” any less “guilty”. As I am sure you realise, the fact that any particular person could not decipher who you were talking about from your blog entry has no bearing on the risk you took that someone might do so.
If this case largely involves the very entertaining “Yes Minister” spoof, this was a work of fiction and you should not have to answer for that in court. You may have been deliberately tantalising your readers as you reported on court proceedings but you were very careful to draw a “full-stop” on matters which you knew might reveal something which was legally contentious.
It’s pretty obvious that swathes of senior Scottish Government people and those involved in politics at a serious level will have already known or have guessed the identities of the witnesses you are alleged to have revealed; again, I am sure that would not be acceptable defence in court. Even now, it seems like we are supposed to play “The Emperor’s New Clothes” where the BBC and other media bodies pretend to us that they don’t know the identities of those involved.
Judging by your other experiences in court and in different spheres on which you have reported so eloquently, it seems that the odds are stacked against you despite the fact that this case has been generated by a hateful desire by Authority to try control a situation which they lost long ago.
I send you my best wishes and know that if there is no-one more likely to make a good job from a very bad one faced with this situation.
Isn’t one of the bloggs in question quoting Dani Garavelli’s article directly? It was the Dani Garavelli article which gave away some of the alphabet women and Craig was showing that. How can that not be used in court?
The COPFS has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Craig Murray was responsible for releasing sufficient information that enabled one or more of the alphabet women to be identified. It seems to me however, that such a task is impossible without resorting to assumption and speculation therefore a guilty verdict will always be unsafe. The fact that the COPFS is progressing with this case regardless, indicates that the justification for doing so lies elsewhere and whether or not a guilty verdict is achievable.
It is like being up on trial for shoplifting and saying: “What about the bankers?” It is not the bankers who are on trial. Whitaboutery is the legal term I believe.
Your feeble analogy would work a bit better if there were ten bankers and they had been ostenatiously shoptlifiting at the same time and in the same place as the accused, and everybody could see them doing it on CCTV, and only the accused was arrested and charged.
Selective prosecution is the preferred approach in Russia, or at least was when I was there. They had a number of arcane laws, including one which required you to have a license to own a cell phone. No one had such a license. But failure to produce said license resulted in you being taken into custody and being solicited for a bribe.
It wasnt expensive. 100roubles did the trick. The police were embarrassed at having to resort to the cell phone license scam
” because “he” also did it doesn’t make “you” any less “guilty”. ”
But it does make the Crown guilty of bias, that’s what about it.
The key here is this
” preventing the publication of the names and identity and any other information likely to disclose the identity of the complainers in the case of HMA v Salmond”.
So the core of the defense here is as to whether what Craig published on his own could identify the complainers or whether taken in totality with other publications as part of a jigsaw identification, Craig’s publishing has increased the chances. As this ruling is based on likelihood, it can be argued that on its own Craig’s writing is only a small part of a jigsaw which on its own is unlikely to identify the complainants and that therefore all contributions to the jigsaw should be equally liable for this identification.
There is also a general principle law should not be selective in perusing only one person when others are seen to have committed the same alleged transgression, because the aim of the law in this case is to protect the complainers and therefore all transgressors should be pursued equally, or non-of them should.
“…whether taken in totality with other publications as part of a jigsaw identification, Craig’s publishing has increased the chances”.
Logically, that principle could be used to justify prosecuting almost any statement. Especially if the person uttering the statement is unaware – as he must be – of some of those “other publications”. Or even of certain people’s private, personal knowledge.
The only way to avoid possible malicious prosecution along these lines would be to refrain rigorously from any comment that could even be interpreted as having some political implications.
In other words, leave politics and all public affairs to the Anointed, and play quietly with your toys.
Good luck Craig
“There’s no justice. There’s just us”
Another point . I don’t know whether this is permissible in this case but it can be argued that a sole judge within the legal system is highly likely to know the identity of the complainants and that this would therefore bias their view as to whether Craig’s post gives sufficient information to identify the complainants. A fairer way therefore to determine this likelihood is trial by Jury as ‘ordinary jurors’ taken from the public are unlikely to have extra knowledge of the ins and outs of the case and are therefore unlikely to be able to identify the complainants and would therefore be able to determine this likelihood from an unbiased point of view.
That’s the kind of evidence that could get you acquitted. If our legal system blocks it then the law is an ass and a corrupt ass.
All I can say is that I was curious and tried to work out who some of the alphabet women were. I’d read Craig, and I seem to recall he suggested other writers who had written things which were more likely to lead to jigsaw identification. I read them too.
I have to say I failed. One name came up. I forget who it was. But it didn’t seem to fit. As I recall it would have relied on this person having been present at a meeting, but it only seemed to “work” on the basis that two meetings referred to as taking place on different dates were in fact the same meeting. Maybe I just missed something.
Whether my failure is because I’m a bit dumb/didn’t spend long enough on it, or whether with a bit of a legal background I look for all the dots to be joined, I don’t know. But they haven’t seemed to be for me.
Letters to the Daily Herald on the farce aka ‘the trial’. All critical of Wark and the BBC.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18660464.letters-bbc-not-aired-crude-hatchet-job-alex-salmond/
It seems to me that AD is wrong in fact in his submission in the fourth point stated. Whether he is in wrong in law is of course a matter to be decided by our elders and betters. If other commentators made the same or similar statements to those made my CM which now form the basis of the action against him those other commentators can only have escaped prosecution because their comments did not breach the order. That conclusion can be drawn from the application of the law without fear or favour.
Ergo CM’s similar comments cannot have breached the order either. The statements of other commentators is an essential test of CM’s alleged breach. They cannot be irrelevant in fact.
“… evidence based on the state of knowledge of a limited number of individuals cannot assist in the central issue of whether the Respondent published information likely to disclose the identity of complainers.”
What better way is there of determining the likelihood? You can’t have every person in Scotland up in the witness box, so you take a sample. And I guess that in this case the prospective witnesses are a biased sample – biased towards being knowledgeable and IT literate, and therefore being more likely to be able to work out identities.
Best of luck Craig. I hope in addition to arguments about whether you did or did not identify any alphabet sistahs, your legal team are looking at two other issues.
!. The essential meaningless of the original restriction: a restriction on publishing information that would allow the identities of the alphabet sistahs becoming known. The critical question is “Becoming known to whom?”. There is a huge range of people in Scotland. A lot of people still would know nothing about who these women are if they were given their names, addresses and phone numbers. But there are other people much closer to events who could have identified individuals from the tiniest detail. Therefore in order for the restriction to have any meaning, it should have involved a total ban on any reporting of any aspect of the case at all.
2. The human rights angle. You have a fundamental human right to equal treatment under the law. People telling you that “other people did it too is not a defence” do not know what they are talking about. You are clearly and obviously being selectively targeted, and that is not equal treatment under the law. And the trite nonsense about “people speeding in cars” is irrelevant. It would be impossible for the police to catch and prosecute everybody who speeds. In this case there are perhaps half a dozen people who wrote about the case, and it would be perfectly easy for the authorities to go through every word they wrote, and identify exactly who they helped to identify and how. That has not happened. Again, the fact that you alone are being prosecuted proves that you are clearly and obviously being selectively targeted, and that is not equal treatment under the law.
Oh, and best of luck.
Implied in all this is the bizarre Kafkaesque argument that a breach might have been committed by indicating that identities could be worked out by referencing other sources that contain the required information, but which are not considered to be in breach as the publishers of that information.
Yes I agree – surely there must be at least one other part of the jigsaw available and who was responsible for that – one piece of information does not constitute a jigsaw.
The first rule of evidence in Scots law is that best evidence must always be lead if available….
The original article which you went on to quote, would therefore appear to be very relevant… and admissible.
No doubt you are aware of this. Hope it might be of help.
Reading Craig’s recent articles and the comments posted in reply to them, I find it curious that so many readers still seem to believe that Scottish independence would somehow miraculously transform and cleanse public life.
Doesn’t it seem as if Scottish public life is at least as permeated by dishonesty, selfishness and fraud as anything you could find in London – if not (quite) Washington?
“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being”.
-Alexandr Solzhenitsyn (“The Gulag Archipelago”)
“Doesn’t it seem as if Scottish public life is at least as permeated by dishonesty, selfishness and fraud as anything you could find in London – if not (quite) Washington?”
Indeed. And this has long been the case. The case for Scots independence, like that for Ireland’s, only makes sense if it includes a rejection of the Scots ruling class. The notion that the ills that Scotland’s people face are brought upon them by foreigners based in London is a nonsense.
One thing that this case shows is that the Scots ruling class, which has always had an important role in the Empire, is indistinguishable in its authoritarian contempt for the people and its determination to punish its critics, from that in the wider UK.
Those who, like Craig and Salmond, believe otherwise and sentimentalise about a parcel rogues sporting tartan and celebrating Hogmanay, are apt to find themselves hoist by their own petards.
The concept of Scots ruling themselves and controlling their own lives, culture, society and economy in 2020 is revolutionary.
without your evidence, you have no defence
advice…… run now
I think not, maybe you should be giving that advice to Sturgeon, when her times comes and it surely will.
never met her, maybe her time will come, i have no idea,
then again, craigs time has come and i agree with you 100%
the chance craig will get any justice = zero
“the chance craig will get any justice = zero”
You like the idea of that, don’t you?
no, i contributed to his legal crowd fund. i merely point out that there will be no justice for him. this letter today kinda proves this.
did assange, salmond, sheridan or stu campbell get any justice??
do you believe that craig will see justice?
Do you think he and his family will get ‘justice’ if he ‘runs’, you’re a trouble maker,.
there’s a dog behind you …run now…. and then see what all the other dogs make of that, see if they join in the hunt. Running away is what Pinochet did. I would not advise to run away, but I would not say a word at all. They have received Craigs evidence and his final statement, they say they don’t want to accept any defence, meaning that they want to be judge, jurors and persecutors, i.e its a dictatorial judgement.
These judges are telling him to shut up, why should anybody treat them decent. SAY NOTHING AT ALL. Let them persecute an accused without hearing his evidence.
Whatever happens in future, such a situation must never arise again, this is not law but the weaponisation of law to persecute a man they could not match. Scotland’s law seems to be a Leviathan.
they want to be judge, jurors and persecutors,
yes, they do. and no, it isnt fair
but that wont stop it happening.
he would be of more use in russia as an exile rather than in pentonvale. at least in russia he could blog about just how unfair this shit is. if he stays, the brit establishment will silence him.
.
Hi Craig,
Apologies for this, but you have acquired that incohate troll Schrodinger’s Cat from Stuart’s website and he/she/it is now polluting your website. If that were just all it was doing, then a couple of paracetamol would cure the headache. But the fool is technically infracting about 6 laws. It is up to COPFS to decide whether to act. Craig you will likely be familiar with their guidelines…
https://www.copfs.gov.uk/media-site/latest-news-from-copfs/926-crown-office-sets-out-social-media-prosecution-policy
It could be argued that this is just some “idle banter”. But in today’s Scotland that is likely to get you into a whole heap of merde.
Of all the important things going on, perhaps we could have a crowdfunder to take the cat to the vet and have it neutered.
There are enough VERY IMPORTANT things going on without the immature 24/7 vundertwat sitting alone in his/her/its bedroom typing away furiously in its underwear trying to get a rise out of all that are within its reach.
What concern’s me is the ability of even the most irrelevant of people to cause a disproportionate amount of trouble. That crap-cat is one such hole.
They’re attempting to do Julian Assange on you Craig, the more I read on the COPFS, (Stuart Campbell has written to them on several occasions seeking information but has been given the runaround) the more I’m coming to think that you’re not going to get fair and proper procedure from them.
They really want to shut you up.
aye, they will ros, i can see no means to stop this,
no internet in the clink either i hear.
Oh that’s helpful, but not a surprise afterall both he and Stu piss you off for having a go at your beloved Sturgeon, don’t they so, why should you care?
maybe you should have asked me to have a word with sturgeon and get her to intervene?
have a word with yourself more like.
That’s a very a nasty comment. I’m sure Craig is under huge stress at the moment regarding this trial even though he is confident of his own innocence. Very easy to direct bile over the internet when you are using a pseudonym and fake profile picture. I detect the telltale signs of a Covert Narcissist. Was someone mean to you in childhood?
Who is this ‘Shrodingers Cat’? Seems like an arse.
The Cat usually trolls WoS. And, yes.
The high level of emotion people are rightfully feeling about all this, which is probably even higher after Kirsty Wark’s ‘bitter together’ docu-drama, need to be aware that arguing about whether one party’s approach is ‘competent’ or ‘relevant’ is entirely normal in legal proceedings. This is what is happening here. That doesn’t take anything away from the nightmare Craig is going through. When the police come unexpectedly to your door, you feel the power of the state like a punch to the stomach and seen up close and personal, it is truly ugly my friends.
Are Alex Pretence & co trying to best Kafka’s “Der Process”?
Alternatively does Hogwarts really exist in the Scottish highlands, including Voldemort?
Do I understand that correctly? Paragraph 4 says, the fact that a secret has been disclosed does not abrogate the injunction about disclosing those facts? Interesting. Doesn’t the meaning of “disclose” make that nonsensical?
And the meaning of “secret”?
First, I am sorry you have a purported controversy and have to deal with court.
IANAL – I am not a lawyer
This is an opinion and I don’t know enough to give a better opinion.
I have nothing against you.
I am posting a comment and do not mind being wrong.
Let’s just say I am wrong and just giving an opinion that may shed some light and help you someday.
In my opinion,
You are arguing the merits.
First venue and jurisdiction was to be established. (Is this place the right place to settle a purported controversy?) (Are you the right people to be involved in settling the purported controversy) and personal jurisdiction which is already given so you are accused of contempt (Do I recognize your authority to tell me what I am to do to settle a purported controversy).
And as most people believe, the first is decided as the proper place because you are accused of contempt.
The second was presumed without evidence but you are arguing whether the witnesses will discuss the issue ( so presumption is validated and there really is a controversy), and third you are arguing whether your witnesses can be heard so the court has personal jurisdiction and can do as it pleases even if the acts are not fair for you.
Something to do with if a court has jurisdiction then everything it does is judicial, and have absolute immunity and if they don’t have jurisdiction what it does is ministerial and there is liability.
Once venue and jurisdiction is established the court has immunity and will see that the controversy is settled.
Why.
All controversy is about money.
Court decides who will pay.
I read your doc and without knowing you but having some exposure to court your doc if I bastardise it and substitute a controversy of spilling milk. It would read almost like your document.
Judge, you want to hold me in contempt but not listen to anything “my” witnesses have to say.
The witnessea you are going to listen to will say I had milk in a glass and the glass was in the location of the spill and I was the only one drinking milk.
My witnesses will tell you anyone else could have spilled the milk.
In my opinion, for the seriousness of the issue this may NOT seem helpful; but it is.
You are communicating with someone that wants to punish you before they hear a controversy from someone else who wants you to be to punished.
The court will decide it can do what it wants because, in my opinion, you seem to be using words to try to get the xourt to ignore, the courts belief that you failed to perform an obligation the court believes you had.
If it wasn’t you; if you didn’thave an obligation. You wouldn’t care what a witness said because they would be wrong or have the wrong guy.
There is a Judge Judy episode on YouTube. It had the title, the quickest case decided, or something similar.
A girl dated a guy and sued him in court for taking money out of her purse.
He answered the suit saying he didn’t take the money.
Plaintiff speaks, says she dated the guy, her purse was in a room, she had these items in the purse and the guy was her boyfriend and accessed the purse and took the money.
Defendant’s time to speak and he says, judge she’s lying she didn’t have that “item” … (one of the items she said she had in the purse).
Judge Judy interrupted the defendant before he could finish his sentence and said
Judgment for the Plaintiff.
Now reading your well written and perfectly formatted and professional looking document, it reminds me of that case.
The guy would not know what the girl had in her purse unless he had been in it; if he was in it and the money is missing after he had seen what was in it then he probably (presumption) took it.
He argued what was in the purse.
His answer to the controversy is how the judge presumed the girl actually suffered the injury.
Judge Judy would say to defendants in her court; She can tell they are lying because their lips are moving
If you did dirty and didn’t mean to, its one thing. If you did dirty and want to fight how the injured party tells the court what you did, you will not be successful.
Injured parties should get remedy.
If you are the injured party your document is focusing on the wrong thing.
Who cares how the other side tells their story, if you have someone with credibility that can show fraud on the court, then you would be able to get them to speak.
In my opinion, your argument and your document doesn’t seem to address the contempt.
In my opinion, that’s what ithe document should focus on first.
Take care