The Alex Salmond Trial

[Ally Bongo]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18625175.salmond-affair-government-confirms-sturgeon-previously-undisclosed-meeting/?ref=twtrec

Salmond affair: Government confirms Sturgeon had previously undisclosed meeting

[aaid]

2 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18625175.salmond-affair-government-confirms-sturgeon-previously-undisclosed-meeting/?ref=twtrec

Salmond affair: Government confirms Sturgeon had previously undisclosed meeting

Undisclosed apart from at the trial obviously and in and of itself doesn't contradict the FM's response to parliament when asked when she first became aware of the allegations.

Tom Gordon writes some insinuating shite at the best of times but that's some stretch even for him.

[TDYER63]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000lwld

I am pretty surprised the BBC can get away with this given the pending  inquiry .

Will no doubt be a hatchet job to ensure no one connected with independence comes out well. 

[exile]

[aaid]

2 minutes ago, exile said:

Sources close to him, saying he's consulting lawyers over possible legal action is a world of a difference from saying he's "to sue".

Mail on Sunday though, what do you expect. 

[exile]

8 minutes ago, aaid said:

Sources close to him, saying he's consulting lawyers over possible legal action is a world of a difference from saying he's "to sue".

Mail on Sunday though, what do you expect. 

Indeed handfuls of salt at the ready for anything claimed by the Mail, "Scottish" or otherwise

[Orraloon]

Interesting.

"Scottish government's director of people"

[Orraloon]

Who thinks Craig Murray is going to jail?

[aaid]

6 hours ago, Orraloon said:

Who thinks Craig Murray is going to jail?

I'd say its highly likely he's found to be in contempt.

[Orraloon]

10 hours ago, aaid said:

I'd say its highly likely he's found to be in contempt.

If he wasn't before, then publishing that affidavit that thplinth linked to in the other thread, certainly doesn't help his case. I would say the affidavit gives much better clues than his blog did. 

Although it's hard to judge that if you already knew what he was talking about before hand.

I hope he gets off, but he might end up with a large fine maybe?

 

[aaid]

7 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

If he wasn't before, then publishing that affidavit that thplinth linked to in the other thread, certainly doesn't help his case. I would say the affidavit gives much better clues than his blog did. 

Although it's hard to judge that if you already knew what he was talking about before hand.

I hope he gets off, but he might end up with a large fine maybe?

 

I'm saying that on the basis that I was able to work out who two of the complainers were solely from reading a couple of his articles and then checking a few facts in the public domain that he'd referenced or had alluded to.

I don't have any particular insight, not part of the bubble but I could work it out and it wasn't difficult to do so.

I suspect that his affidavit - or specifically publishing it - won't have any bearing on whether he's found to be in contempt or not, it might have a bearing on any sentence.

I see that Lady Dorrian is the head judge of the three hearing the case.  She was also the original trial judge.  I'm not sure if that's unusual or not and I'm aware that contempt of court is pretty unique set of circumstances and sits outwith normal civil or criminal law.

[Orraloon]

I also found this bit interesting.

"18. I asked what the motive could be. Alex replied that he did not know ; perhaps it lay in King Lear. He said that he had genuinely intended to quit politics and had lined up a position as Chairman of Johnstone Press, which had fallen because of these allegations. But he had retired from the party leadership before, and then come back, and perhaps Nicola had concluded he needed a stake through the heart. He had made plain to her that he was not happy with her lack of progress towards an Independence referendum following the Brexit vote."

It was common knowledge that AS was considering standing again as an MP or MSP. I thought that information was in the public domain. Can't be arsed going to look for it. But if I knew about it, then I'm pretty sure Craig Murray did as well. So it's interesting that he would say that under oath. Although he is saying that it was AS who said it.

So I think it could be argued that there was a motive but still not much concrete evidence though.

[aaid]

22 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

I also found this bit interesting.

"18. I asked what the motive could be. Alex replied that he did not know ; perhaps it lay in King Lear. He said that he had genuinely intended to quit politics and had lined up a position as Chairman of Johnstone Press, which had fallen because of these allegations. But he had retired from the party leadership before, and then come back, and perhaps Nicola had concluded he needed a stake through the heart. He had made plain to her that he was not happy with her lack of progress towards an Independence referendum following the Brexit vote."

It was common knowledge that AS was considering standing again as an MP or MSP. I thought that information was in the public domain. Can't be arsed going to look for it. But if I knew about it, then I'm pretty sure Craig Murray did as well. So it's interesting that he would say that under oath. Although he is saying that it was AS who said it.

So I think it could be argued that there was a motive but still not much concrete evidence though.

I don't think that was common knowledge - or at least in the public domain - it did come into the public domain at some point between August 2018 when the investigation was leaked and March 2020 as a potential motive, in the same way that Murray is advancing.

The other thing to consider here is that in late 2017, when this plot had been supposedly hatched, Salmond had lost his seat earlier that year, had had a show at the Edinburgh Festival and had started his RT show.   These are not the actions of someone seeking a return to frontline politics.

Interestingly, he was dropped from the Johnston Press bid before the allegations became public.

This was after Salmond became aware of the allegations and of could be the reason behind it, if he'd told them himself.  It could also be something concocted after the fact to add credence to the conspiracy. 
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-44973889

[Orraloon]

NS appearance has been postponed. They must be hopeful that AS will attend, after that ruling yesterday.

[aaid]

14 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

NS appearance has been postponed. They must be hopeful that AS will attend, after that ruling yesterday.

The number of people I've seen on Twitter losing their shit about this and questioning why she's refusing to appear is unreal, particularly when they're mostly replying to an article stating that it is the committee that is postponing her appearance.

Logistically its hard to see how this will turn out.    Whether or not Alex Salmond's testimony can be published or not - and hence his - voluntary - appearance is apparently dependent on the detail of Lady Dorian's judgement yesterday, which isn't expected until next week.

So that means they have to squeeze in Salmond - if possible - and then the FM, all the while with a ticking clock to publish their findings before purdah kicks in.

Mind you, I suspect that while the report itself might not be already written, the press releases condemning the findings were finished weeks ago.

[Orraloon]

I still can't see AS agreeing to take an oath promising to tell the whole truth when he knows there are things he can't say. It's a catch 22 for him. Maybe they need to change the oath?

[aaid]

14 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

I still can't see AS agreeing to take an oath promising to tell the whole truth when he knows there are things he can't say. It's a catch 22 for him. Maybe they need to change the oath?

I don't see how that argument works tbh.  The whole inquiry has been hamstrung to an extent by the court orders that are in place as a result of the criminal trial.  Pretty much every witness has had to take care in answering questions so as not to breach them, I've watched a lot of the evidence sessions and Fabiani has often had to jump in to stop other members leading witnesses into that territory.

Maybe the difference is that this particular witness *wants* to name the complainers and that is his primary objective here.  

To me, there's been a couple of attempts to identify the complainers under various guises to get some form of quasi-legal cover.   I think that was what was behind Salmond's attempts to get immunity and also behind some of the attempts made by Craig Murray to get access to Crown documents in support of his case.

To think, that people were saying they couldn't see why this inquiry couldn't start until after the criminal trial had finished.

Honestly, the way that some people are behaving, you can see why witch trials were so popular in Scotland.   There's a very nasty Presbyterian and misogynistic streak running through a lot of the commentary.

Some people won't be happy until the complainers are clapped in jougs and pelted with rotten fruit.

[Orraloon]

Trying to put myself in ASs position. I can't see how I could promise to "tell the whole truth" when I have already been told that I am not allowed to do that, without risking being sent to prison. The problem with this inquiry is that the "whole truth" can't come out, unless the complainers are identified. That's how I see it anyway and I'm pretty sure that is how AS sees it as well.

[exile]

On 1/27/2021 at 5:13 PM, Orraloon said:

Who thinks Craig Murray is going to jail?

A former diplomat is to be jailed after Supreme Court judges refused him permission to appeal his conviction for breaching a court order.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-58018127

 

[Grim Jim]

I therefore expect those who published the other pieces of the jigsaw to be jailed shortly.

[exile]

12 hours ago, Grim Jim said:

I therefore expect those who published the other pieces of the jigsaw to be jailed shortly.

Yep, I don't understand how the other journalists got away with it, nothing to see here m'lud.  They say justice has to be done, and seen to be done. Whatever the legal merits, this doesn't look good. And it doesn't make the issue go away, rather it is more likely to enflame it. 

[aaid]

51 minutes ago, exile said:

Yep, I don't understand how the other journalists got away with it, nothing to see here m'lud.  They say justice has to be done, and seen to be done. Whatever the legal merits, this doesn't look good. And it doesn't make the issue go away, rather it is more likely to enflame it. 

The person who gets cast up a lot is Dani Garavelli, I’ve read the piece in question several times and I can’t see where she’s even gone close to IDing any of the complainers.  
On the other hand with Craig Murray it’s absolutely clear what he’s doing and who he’s talking about.

I think there were a few cases of journalists mistakenly tweeting the names of complainers during the trial but quickly deleting those tweets which probably explains why no actions been taken.  In Murray’s case he didn’t take down the offending articles until after the trial which would have had an impact on both his conviction and the sentence.

There’s a massive amount of revisionism going on from the Salmond side about the trial and the evidence led by both sides. 

[ParisInAKilt]

Not sure how this sits with me, seems though his stubbornness got the better of him, maybe just delete the blog articles to avoid any jail time. 

I see the hard man who messaged Cherry avoided jail time 

[exile]

9 hours ago, aaid said:

The person who gets cast up a lot is Dani Garavelli, I’ve read the piece in question several times and I can’t see where she’s even gone close to IDing any of the complainers.  
On the other hand with Craig Murray it’s absolutely clear what he’s doing and who he’s talking about.

I think there were a few cases of journalists mistakenly tweeting the names of complainers during the trial but quickly deleting those tweets which probably explains why no actions been taken.  In Murray’s case he didn’t take down the offending articles until after the trial which would have had an impact on both his conviction and the sentence.

There’s a massive amount of revisionism going on from the Salmond side about the trial and the evidence led by both sides.

Thanks for that explanation. But even if we accept that strictly speaking there is a technical reason he could be prosecuted (and others not), many people will wonder why they still chose to to pursue and jail him. There must be lots of cases of breach of peace, acting drunken and disorderly etc where the police can use discretion to prosecute or just send home with a quiet word. Rightly or wrongly, they are in danger of creating a martyr of him, and giving him more publicity in the wider world than he would otherwise have had. A blogger reporting on a Scottish trial is one thing, but given his links to Assange and the sense of his being a whistleblower and thorn in the side of the British state, on other fronts, then jailing him raises the stakes on all sides.

[Grim Jim]

Scottish independence is strong in artistic communities and in the disenfranchised.   Among lawyers and judges less so.   Put yourself in their minds...  establishment figures.   They see Murray as a weirdo.   Dangerous on the loose.

Who else gets a jail on first offence?   With no trial and no appeal.