Craig Murray on the Julian Assange Show Trial - Our Man in the Public Gallery
Craig Murray (“Your Man in the Public Gallery”) attended & reported on the great UK Show Trial of Julian Assange. This compendium provides a preview of (& links to) his reports & related information.
The Julian Assange Show Trial (aka the UK hearing of the US request for his extradition) began in earnest in the lower court 24 Feb 2020 & recommenced 7 Sept 2020, with a ruling on 4 Jan 2021. It then transferred, on appeal by the US, to the High Court, with a hearing 27-28 Oct 2021, and a ruling 10 Dec 2021. It now awaits a decision by the Home Secretary [UPDATE - she signed it 17 June 2022] and, if necessary, a subsequent appeal to the High Court by Assange’s lawyers on outstanding issues, and then, perhaps, to the Supreme Court.
[UPDATE: Julian Assange was released from prison on the morning of 24 June 2024, after having spent 1901 days there. He gave his first public speech at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe [PACE] on 1 October 2024. See PART 11 of this series for details: “Julian Speaks: a free man among friends, at last”.]
Court sittings were not publicly broadcast, and attendance in the courtroom was limited to only a few seats. From the second phase of the lower court hearing “authorised persons” could connect to audio or video streams (“due to Covid-19”), but they were not permitted to save, copy or distribute the live streams. Some generous journalists on the “approved” list live-tweeted the events as they occurred. One such tweet stream for each day is noted below. Most of the witness statements were not made available to the public until some days (sometimes weeks) after their appearance in court, although links to those made public are also noted below for reader convenience.
Craig Murray (“Your Man in the Public Gallery”) attended court & reported on what he saw & heard. Except where he mentions a document specifically, Craig Murray probably did not have access to a copy of the day’s witness affidavits, or the tweet streams, as wrote his daily reports. He seems to have relied mostly on his copious handwritten notes and his prodigious memory. (He describes his process here.)
He attended all of the sittings in the Magistrates Court (lower court) hearings, apart from the bail hearing (when a coronavirus ‘lockdown’ prevented him from leaving his home), but missed the High Court Appeal sessions as he was himself consigned to a Scottish prison, having been jailed for his excellent journalism (on the Salmond case). Fortunately, he was released from prison only days before the judgment of the High Court was delivered. He attended the Royal Courts of Justice for that event.
Just prior to the commencement of the extradition hearings, Craig Murray addressed a large crowd gathered in London (on 22 Feb 2020) to protest the attempted extradition. He spoke about his own whistleblowing (re UK involvement in torture) some years earlier, and about the role of whistleblowers generally - and WikiLeaks’ role in supporting them. He also spoke about his own observations of the veracity of governments ‘from the inside’ - he was, prior to his whistleblowing, a career civil servant and one of the youngest UK ambassadors ever appointed. [RT at YouTube at 2:26:42 since censored by YouTube] [LML.tv YouTube]
Craig Murray’s reporting on the Julian Assange Show Trial is considered by many to be a journalistic tour de force, one of the greatest pieces of court reportage of our time.
One day, when this case is over, the series will no doubt be published as a book. In the meantime, below is - first an index, followed by a preview of (and links to) each of his reports, together with links to associated information.
Thanks for reading Full Focus! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
INDEX:
NB: In this index most lines have TWO links:
The “preview” link (where there is one) takes you to that part of this compendium where there are additional links (such as to live tweets and affidavits for each day), plus some additional information.
The second link (eg COMMENT or DAY 1) leads to the original entry in Craig Murray’s blog (or, in a few situations, to other external sources).
LEVEL 2 - High Court (1 judge) DEFENCE files appeals:
- Re decision of Home Secretary (4 grounds) (23 June 2022) [TH] - Re decision in the lower court (12 grounds) (30 June 2022) [TH] - ‘Perfected Grounds of Appeal’ filed (26 August 2022) [CM pdf]
LEVEL 2 - High Court - Denial of applications to appeal(6 June 2023)
- in the case of Secretary of State vs. Julian Assange [TH] [TC pdf] - in the case of the United States of America vs. Julian Assange [TH] [TC pdf]
Preview - COMMENT - 15 June 2023 ”Assange: An Unholy Masquerade of Tyranny Disguised as Justice”
Preview - COMMENT - 17 July 2023 “How the Establishment Works Part 2”
Preparing for the worst - Craig Murray in the US
Preview - COMMENT - 11 Sept 2023 “Defend Assange US Tour” See also - VIDEO “Luncheon in Support of Julian Assange with Craig Murray [from 8:06], by Randy Credico” (9 Sept 2023).
— AUDIO - 13 Sept 2023 “The Chris Hedges Report Podcast with former British Ambassador Craig Murray on what appears to be the imminent extradition to the U.S. of Julian Assange.” See also the VIDEO version 15 Sept 2023, and Craig's BLOG entry “The Slow Motion Execution of Julian Assange“ 16 Sept 2023 in relation to the same event.
— VIDEO - 15 Sept 2023 “Ex-UK amb. Craig Murray: "The US has completely ceased to be a democracy" The Grayzone. See also CM BLOG entry “Grayzone Interview with Max Blumenthal“ (19 Sept 2023).
Back in the UK - High Court interval (cont)
Preview - COMMENT - 20 Nov 2023 “The Supreme Court, Rwanda and Assange”
More in the High Court (2 judges) again seeking permission to appeal
Preview - DAY 1 - 20 Feb 2024 - “Assange Final Appeal – Your Man in the Public Gallery”
Preview - DAY 2 - 21 Feb 2024 - “Assange Final Appeal Day 2 – Your Man in the Public Gallery”
In Geneva - Another interval
Preview - COMMENT - 13 March 2004 - “A Tour d’Horizon on Swiss Box” Also see [YouTube]
Preview - COMMENT - 16 March 2024 - “Assange Truth and UN Shenanigans”
The High Court (2 judges) allows a limited appeal (possibly)
Preview - COMMENT - 26 March 2024 - “The Assange Hearing Permission Appeal Judgment: Mad and Bad.”
Preview - COMMENT - 1 Oct 2020 - On Bearing Witness
This compendium is updated as Craig Murray creates new entries about the ongoing Julian Assange Show Trial and (possibly) The New Chapter.
This series
This is the fourth in a series of lengthy pieces that explore the Assange / Wikileaks history via different themes.
In thiscompendium readers can choose to go direct to the Craig Murray blog entry of interest via the index link (above), or to meander through the previews (and further links) below.
PREVIEWS
PRE-ARREST Rulings - 8 & 13 Feb 2018 Lady Arbuthnot
APPLICATION to Cancel an Arrest Warrant - Rulings 6 & 13 Feb 2018
EXCERPT “I was deeply shaken while witnessing yesterday’s events in Westminster Magistrates Court. Every decision was railroaded through over the scarcely heard arguments and objections of Assange’s legal team, by a magistrate who barely pretended to be listening.
Before I get on to the blatant lack of fair process, the first thing I must note was Julian’s condition. I was badly shocked by just how much weight my friend has lost, by the speed his hair has receded and by the appearance of premature and vastly accelerated ageing. He has a pronounced limp I have never seen before. Since his arrest he has lost over 15 kg in weight.
But his physical appearance was not as shocking as his mental deterioration. When asked to give his name and date of birth, he struggled visibly over several seconds to recall both. I will come to the important content of his statement at the end of proceedings in due course, but his difficulty in making it was very evident; it was a real struggle for him to articulate the words and focus his train of thought.
Until yesterday I had always been quietly sceptical of those who claimed that Julian’s treatment amounted to torture – even of Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture – and sceptical of those who suggested he may be subject to debilitating drug treatments. But having attended the trials in Uzbekistan of several victims of extreme torture, and having worked with survivors from Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I can tell you that yesterday changed my mind entirely and Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through the fog of learned helplessness.
I had been even more sceptical of those who claimed, as a senior member of his legal team did to me on Sunday night, that they were worried that Julian might not live to the end of the extradition process. I now find myself not only believing it, but haunted by the thought. Everybody in that court yesterday saw that one of the greatest journalists and most important dissidents of our times is being tortured to death by the state, before our eyes. To see my friend, the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have ever known, reduced to that shambling and incoherent wreck, was unbearable.
Yet the agents of the state, particularly the callous magistrate Vanessa Baraitser, were not just prepared but eager to be a part of this bloodsport. She actually told him that if he were incapable of following proceedings, then his lawyers could explain what had happened to him later. The question of why a man who, by the very charges against him, was acknowledged to be highly intelligent and competent, had been reduced by the state to somebody incapable of following court proceedings, gave her not a millisecond of concern. […]”
DAY 1 - 24 Feb 2020
Twitter Thread for the day (Kevin Gosztola) [THREAD]
EXCERPT “James Lewis QC made the opening statement for the prosecution .... The first and longest part was truly remarkable for containing no legal argument, and for being addressed not to the magistrate but to the media.” […]
“Lewis had thus just flat out contradicted his entire opening statement to the media stating that they need not worry as the Assange charges could never be applied to them. And he did so straight after the adjournment, immediately after his team had handed out copies of the argument he had now just completely contradicted. I cannot think it has often happened in court that a senior lawyer has proven himself so absolutely and so immediately to be an unmitigated and ill-motivated liar. This was undoubtedly the most breathtaking moment in today’s court hearing.
Yet remarkably I cannot find any mention anywhere in the mainstream media that this happened at all. What I can find, everywhere, is the mainstream media reporting, via cut and paste, Lewis’s first part of his statement on why the prosecution of Assange is not a threat to press freedom; but nobody seems to have reported that he totally abandoned his own argument five minutes later. Were the journalists too stupid to understand the exchanges?”
DAY 1: Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
DAY 2 - 25 Feb 2020
Twitter Thread for the day (Kevin Gosztola) [THREAD]
“At this point Baraitser could not conceal her contempt ... “Are you suggesting, Mr Summers, that the authorities, the Government, should have to provide context for its charges?” An unfazed Summers replied in the affirmative ...”
DAY 2: Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
DAY 3 - 26 Feb 2020
Twitter Thread for the day (Kevin Gosztola) [THREAD]
“Lewis: “The prosecution is neutral on this request, of course but, err, I really don’t think that’s right”.
He looked at [the judge] like a kindly uncle whose favourite niece has just started drinking tequila from the bottle at a family party.”
DAY 3: Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
DAY 4 - 27 Feb 2020
Twitter Thread for the day (Kevin Gosztola) [THREAD] The UK - US Extradition Treaty (signed 2003, ratified 2007) - [UK version] [US version] The UK Extradition Act (2003) [legislation.gov.uk]
“Baraitser interrupted that the UK/US Extradition Treaty was not incorporated into English Law.
Fitzgerald replied that the entire extradition request is on the basis of the treaty. It is an abuse of process for the authorities to rely on the treaty for the application but then to claim that its provisions do not apply.
“On the face of it, it is a very bizarre argument that a treaty which gives rise to the extradition, on which the extradition is founded, can be disregarded in its provisions. It is on the face of it absurd.” Edward Fitzgerald QC for the Defence.” […]
“It is intensely embarrassing for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) when an English court repudiates the application of a treaty the UK has ratified with one or more foreign states. For that reason, in the modern world, very serious procedures and precautions have been put into place to make certain that this cannot happen.”
DAY 4: Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
"A tiny bit of human comfort could do an enormous amount of good to his mental health & resilience. They are determined to stop this at all costs ... attempting to make him kill himself ... [or explain his death] as suicide."
DAY 4 ADDENDUM: Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
This tweet includes an (illegally taken) photo of Julian Assange in the The Glass Box, with his security guards. Some of his lawyers normally sat in front of it, with their backs to him. Here they are standing as court is not in session.
“If the authorities now refuse to allow him out on bail during the Covid-19 outbreak, I do not see how anybody can possibly argue there is any intention other than to cause his death.”
Phase 1 ADDENDUM 2: Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
On the same date, Michelle Bachelet, UNHR Chief,urges governments to act now to prevent #COVID19 devastating the health of people in detention and other closed facilities, as part of global efforts to contain the pandemic. [Tweet]
“Here is an image of Julian and I talking in the Ecuadorean Embassy, part of the spycam footage that was commissioned by the CIA from Spanish security firm Global. Julian and I were discussing a number of overseas missions to liaise with foreign governments, which I was carrying out on his behalf.”
[…]
“As the ABC news item above shows, Julian’s privileged conversations with his lawyers on his legal defence were being spied on, by the government which is now seeking to extradite him. In any jurisdiction in the civilised world, that should be enough immediately to bring proceedings to a halt. The first witnesses to be called when the hearing resumes are the witnesses who will attest to this. The defence have requested an adjournment of the case beyond May 18, because at present they have no access to their client due to Covid 19 lockdown in the jail, and because it is not at all clear witnesses will be able to travel from abroad by 18 May. Judge Vanessa Baraitser has refused to reschedule.
It is also worth asking why has nothing like that ABC coverage been seen on the BBC or Sky, where this case is actually being heard and Julian is a prisoner?”
Phase 1 ADDENDUM 4: 14 July 2020 - Damage to the Soul
“The imprisonment of Julian Assange has been a catalogue of gross injustice heaped upon gross injustice, while a complicit media and indoctrinated population looks the other way. In a truly extraordinary twist, Assange is now being extradited on the basis of an indictment served in the UK, which is substantially different to the actual indictment he now faces in Virginia if extradited.
The Assange hearing was adjourned after its first full week, and its resumption has since been delayed by coronavirus. In that first full week, both the prosecution and the defence outlined their legal arguments over the indictment. As I reported in detail to an audience of millions, Assange’s legal team fairly well demolished the key arguments of the prosecution during that hearing.”
[…]
“To have extradition decided on the merits of one indictment when the accused actually faces another is an outrage. To change the indictment long after the hearing is underway and defence evidence has been seen is an outrage. The lack of media outrage is an outrage.
None of which will come as any shock to those of us who have been paying attention. We have to continue to build public consciousness of the fact that the annihilation of a journalist for exposing war crimes, based on a catalogue of state lies and dodgy procedure, is not an act that the state can undertake without damage to the very soul of the nation.”
NOTE: Craig Murray gave his reports a number - used again here. He usually published them the morning after the events described. Here though, apart from the first entry below, I have used the actualdate of the events he refers to in each report.
“The idea of a “free press” as an open marketplace of democratic ideas has no real meaning in modern society, until anti-monopoly action is taken. Which is the last thing those in power will do ...”
DAY 5 ASIDE re Free Press. Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
Craig Murray also spoke to Mohamed Elmaazi outside the court on this day [Tweet with video]
Twitter Thread for the day (Mary Kostakidis) [THREAD]
PROSECUTION BUNDLE for Defence Witnesses [Declarations & Affidavit] Contains - US Assistant Attorney Gordon Kromberg: Initial Statement (dated 17 Jan 2020) pp 96 - 171 1st supplemental (dated 19 Feb 2020) pp 172 - 183 2nd supplemental (dated 12 Mar 2020) pp 184 - 194 3rd supplemental (dated 24 Mar 2020) pp 195 - 215 Affidavit (dated 14 July 2020) pp 216 - 249 4th supplemental (dated 3 Sep 2020) pp 298 - 332 NOTE: There were other bundles but they do not seem to have been made public. DEFENCE: WITNESS #1 Mark Feldstein: [Affidavit 1] [Affidavit 2]
“I previously blogged about how the procedural trickery of the superseding indictment being used to replace the failing second indictment ... was something that sickened the soul. Today in the courtroom you could smell the sulphur.”
Key Issues today:
Time allowed for each witness
Extra time refused re new (2nd) subsequent indictment
DAY 6: Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
DAY 7 - re 8 Sept 2020
Twitter Thread for the day (Mary Kostakidis) [THREAD]
“Stafford Smith said he had been “profoundly shocked” by the crimes committed by the #US govt against his clients [including] torture, kidnapping, illegal detention & murder. [He] spoke of use of Spanish Inquisition techniques ...”
DAY 7: Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
DAY 8 - 9 Sept 2020
Twitter Thread for the day (Kevin Gosztola) [THREAD]
“Lewis primary tactic has been rudeness and aggression to disconcert witnesses. He questions their honesty, fairness, independence and qualifications. Today his bullying tactics ran foul of two classier performers than he.”
DAY 8: Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
DAY 9 - 14 Sept 2020
Twitter Thread for the day (Mary Kostakidis) [THREAD]
WITNESS #5: Eric Lewis (5 statements) [Affidavit #1] [#2] [#3] [#4] [#5] REPORT The Center for Constitutional Rights: “The Darkest Corner: Special Administrative Measures [SAMs] and Extreme Isolation in the Federal Bureau of Prisons” (Sept 2017) [CCRJustice PDF]
“Things became not merely dramatic in the Assange courtroom today, but spiteful and nasty. There were two real issues, - the evidence and - the procedure ... we saw behaviour from the prosecution QC that went well beyond normal cross examination ...”
DAY 9 Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
DAY 10 - 15 Sept 2020
Twitter Thread for the day (Mary Kostakidis) [THREAD]
WITNESS #5: Eric Lewis (cont) (5 statements)[Affidavit #1] [#2] [#3] [#4] [#5] WITNESS #6: Thomas Durkin (after lunch) [Affidavit #1] [#2] REPORT The Center for Constitutional Rights: “The Darkest Corner: Special Administrative Measures [SAMs] and Extreme Isolation in the Federal Bureau of Prisons” (Sept 2017) [CCRJustice PDF]
“The US government is now saying, completely explicitly, in court, those reporters could and should have gone to jail and that is how we will act in future. The Washington Post, the New York Times, and all the “great liberal media” of the USA are not in court to hear it and do not report it, because of their active complicity in the “othering” of Julian Assange as something sub-human whose fate can be ignored. Are they really so stupid as not to understand that they are next?
Err, yes.”
DAY 10 Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
DAY 11 - 16 Sept 2020
Twitter Thread for the day (Mary Kostakidis) [THREAD]
WITNESS #7: John Goetz [Affidavit #1] [#2] WITNESS #8: Daniel Ellsberg [Affidavit] Related info re “The Guardian dinner statement” [Twitter MOMENT]
“Goetz was only permitted to contradict Lewis’s deliberate introduction of a lie if Lewis asked him. Lewis refused to ask [Goetz - who was there] what had happened, because Lewis knew the lie he is propagating would be exposed.”
DAY 11 Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
DAY 12 - 17 Sept 2020
Twitter Thread for the day (Mohamed Elmaazi) [THREAD]
WITNESS #9: John Sloboda [Affidavit] WITNESS #10: Carey Shenkman [Affidavit]
Related info re redactions “Mark Davis exposes "lies" about Julian Assange by the Guardian & NYT” [Twitter MOMENT]
“Dobbin then asked a 3 part question that rather sapped my will to live. Shenkman [rephrasing]: “Did I anticipate this indictment? No, I never thought we would see something as political as this. It is quite extraordinary.”
DAY 12 Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
DAY 13 - 18 Sept 2020
Twitter Thread for the day (Mary Kostakidis) [THREAD]
WITNESS #10: Carey Shenkman (cont) [Affidavit] WITNESS #11: Nicky Hagar [Affidavit] WITNESS #12Jen Robinson (read unto the record) [Affidavit] WITNESS #13Khaled El-Masri (read into the record) [Affidavit images] [Retyped] WITNESS #14Dean Yates (read into on record) [Affidavit]
“The fact is that the USA wants to avoid the political embarrassment and media publicity of el-Masri’s torture and the events of the Collateral Murder video being detailed in court.”
DAY 13 Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
DAY 14 - 21 Sept 2020
Twitter Thread for the day (Mary Kostakidis) [THREAD]
WITNESS #15: Christian Grothoff [Affidavit #1] [#2] WITNESS #16: Cassandra Fairbanks (read into the record) [Affidavit]
“What the defence should have said at this moment is “Madam, the dogs in the street know that people were tortured in Guantanamo Bay. In the real world, it is not a disputed fact." ”
DAY 14 Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
DAY 15 - 22 Sep 2020
Twitter Thread for the day (Mary Kostakidis) [THREAD]
WITNESS #17: Michael Kopelman Affidavit Suppressed - Medical testimony
“[This treatment of Julian] is a burglary of the mind.” […]
“Lewis’s characterisation of depressives as permanently incapable is not just crassly insensitive, it is a form of #HateSpeech and should not be acceptable in court.”
DAY 15 Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
DAY 16 - 23 Sept 2020
Twitter Thread for the day (Mary Kostakidis) [THREAD]
WITNESS #18: Quinton Deeley - Affidavit Suppressed - Medical testimony WITNESS #19Catherine Humphrey (read into the record) [Affidavit - Not available] WITNESS #P1* Seena Fazel - Affidavit Suppressed - Medical testimony
*#P-1 and #P-2 were witnesses for the prosecution (all others for the defence)
Related info re the impact of standard Asperger’s traits on interpersonal communication with Julian Assange: Nils Melzer in “The Persecution of Julian Assange” (18 Dec 2021) [YouTube at 17:01]
“The govts who are destroying Julian have through their agencies pushed the huge corporations who now control the major internet traffic gateways, to ensure my ... grieving account is seen by very few ...”
“We are all locked in.”
DAY 16 Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
DAY 17 - 24 Sept 2020
Twitter Thread for the day (Mary Kostakidis) [THREAD]
WITNESS #P-2* Nigel Blackwood** Affidavit Suppressed - Medical testimony WITNESS #20 Sondra Crosby Affidavit Suppressed - Medical testimony WITNESS #21 Christopher Butler (read into record)[Affidavit] WITNESS #22 John Young (read into record)[Affidavit]
*#P-1 and #P-2 were witnesses for the prosecution (all others for the defence).
US Board of Prisons psychiatrist Dr Alison Leukefeld gave testimony via the bundle (as did Kronberg) and so her statements, like his, could not be cross examined by the defence. Her “Declaration” is referred to by Maureen Baird (Witness #27, from point 36).
** See article (2 Oct 2020) re Nigel Blackwood testimony [Consortium News]
“I am going to write to Judge Baraitser applying for a copy of the transcript of Lewis cross-examining Professor Kopelman on the razor blade, with a view to reporting Lewis to the Bar Council. I do wonder whether the General Medical Council might not have reason to consider the practice of Dr Daly in this case.”
DAY 17 Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
DAY 18 - 25 Sept 2021
Twitter Thread for the day (Mary Kostakidis) [THREAD]
WITNESS #23Jakob Augstein (read into record)[Affidavit] WITNESS #24 Patrick Eller (on video link)[Affidavit]
Associated material:
HaroldPinter (2005) "Art, Truth And Politics" - Nobel Lecture [YouTube] [Transcript] “It never happened …” from 24:15
“Pinter includes (from 15:22) first hand testimony about the way things really were in Nicaragua at the time of the US Iran-Contra activities, and even offers (then) US President George W Bush a script for a speech (beginning at 41:12) which ends: "I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don't you forget it."
Pinter's speech ends with a reminder to us all of our personal responsibility for re-establishing 'truth' in our own lives and in public discourse: "I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory. If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us – the dignity of man. ”
[PS: Read the Postscript re copyright in the YouTube header and you will see why Bob Dylan would not hand over the copyright in his own speech to the Nobel Prize committee.]
“I am reminded of the words of another friend of mine, Harold Pinter, in accepting the Nobel Prize for Literature. It seems perfectly to fit the trial of Julian Assange:
"It never happened. Nothing ever happened ...”
DAY 18 Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
DAY 19 - 28 Sep 2020
Twitter Thread for the day (Mary Kostakidis) [THREAD]
“... it was a day when the divorce between truth and court process was still plainer than usual. Given the horrific reality this process was disguising, it was a hard day to sit through.”
DAY 19 Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
DAY 20 - 29 Sept 2020
Twitter Thread for the day (Mary Kostakidis) [THREAD]
WITNESS #27 Maureen Baird [Affidavit] WITNESS #28 Lyndsay Lewis [Affidavit]
US Board of Prisons psychiatrist Dr Alison Leukefeld gave testimony via one of the bundles (as did US Assistant Attorney Gordon Kromberg) and so her statements, like his, could not be cross examined by the defence. Her declaration is not included in the only bundle that appears to be available to the public. Leukefeld’s “Declaration” is referred to by Maureen Baird (Witness #27, point 36 on).
“Tuesday has been another day on which the testimony focused on the extreme inhumane conditions in which Julian Assange would be kept imprisoned in the USA if extradited.”
DAY 20 Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
DAY 21- 30 Sept 2020
Twitter Thread for the day (Mary Kostakidis) [THREAD]
WITNESS #29 Patrick Cockburn read into record[Affidavit] WITNESS #30 Iain Cobain read into record[Affidavit] WITNESS #31 Stefania Maurizi read into record[Affidavit] WITNESS #32 Guy Goodwin-Gill read into record[Affidavit] WITNESS #33 Robert Boyle read into record[Affidavit #1] [#2] [#3] WITNESS #34 Bridget Prince read into record[Affidavit] WITNESS #35 Witness 1 (Spain) read into record[Affidavit] WITNESS #36 Witness 2 (Spain) read into record[Affidavit] WITNESS #37 Aitor Martinez read into record[Affidavit #1] [#2] [#3] WITNESS #38 Noam Chomsky read into record[Affidavit] Reading [YouTube] WITNESS #39 Andy Worthington read into record[Affidavit] WITNESS #40 Jameel Jaffer read into record[Affidavit]
“Wednesday confirmed the acceptance that this “Hearing” is now devolved to an entirely paper exercise. It is in fact no longer a “hearing” at all. You cannot hear a judge reading. Perhaps in future it should be termed not a hearing but an “occasional rustling”, or a “keyboard tapping”. ”
DAY 21 Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
[NOTE: Craig Murray’s blog entry for Day 21 included Noam Chomsky’s written testimony in full. Since then, a member of the public has published a video of a reading of that affidavit for those who do actually prefer to “hear” such testimony, even if not in the voice of the author. ]
DAY 22 - 1 Oct 2020
Twitter Thread for the day (Mary Kostakidis) [THREAD]
WITNESS #41 Michael Tigar read into record- Affidavit not available WITNESS #42 Gareth Peirce (x6) read into record - [#1] [#2] [#3] [#4] [#5] [#6]* [#7] - Affidavit #6 was rejected by the judge.
Craig Murray [NO Blog entry]
On the previous day, Craig said:
“In the next few days I will try to bring you a synthesis and analysis of all that passed on Wednesday. Now I need to go to court and see the last few dribbles of this case, and exchange last glances of friendship with Julian for some months.”
As it happens, no further report eventuated from this phase of the hearing. Nor was one necessary. But he did write one further entry at this point;
“Numerous people have contacted me in various ways to ask where is my promised report on the final day of the Assange hearing, to complete the account?
It is difficult to explain this to you. When I was in London it was extremely intense. This was my daily routine. I would attend court at 10am, take 25 to 30 pages of handwritten notes, and leave around 5. In court I was always with Julian’s dad John, and usually for lunch too. After court I would thank supporters outside the courtroom, occasionally do some media and often meet with the Wikileaks crew to discuss developments and tactics. I would then get back to my hotel room, have a bite to eat and go to bed around 6.30pm to 7pm. I would awake between 11pm and midnight, shower and shave, read my notes and do any research needed. About 3am I would start to write. I would finish writing around 8.30am and proofread. Then I would get dressed. About 9.30am I would make any last changes and press publish. Then I would walk to the Old Bailey and start again.
Apart from being exhausting, I was totally immersed in a bubble, and buoyed by the support of others close to Julian, who were also inside that bubble.
But in that courtroom, you were in the presence of evil. With a civilised veneer, a pretence at process, and even displays of bonhommie, the entire destruction of a human being was in process. Julian was being destroyed as a person before my eyes. For the crime of publishing the truth. He had to sit there listening to days of calm discussion as to the incredible torture that would await him in a US supermax prison, deprived of all meaningful human contact for years on end, in solitary in a cell just fifty square feet.
Fifty square feet. Mark that out yourself now. Three paces by two. Of all the terrible things I heard, Warden Baird explaining that the single hour a day allowed out of the cell is alone in another, absolutely identical cell called the “recreation cell” was perhaps the most chilling. That and the foul government “expert” Dr Blackwood describing how Julian might be sufficiently medicated and physically deprived of the means of suicide to keep him alive for years of this.
I encountered evil in Uzbekistan when the mother brought me the photos of her son tortured to death by immersion in boiling liquid. The US government was also implicated in that, through the CIA cooperation with the Uzbek Security Services; it happened just outside the US military base at Karshi-Khanabad. Here was that same evil paraded in the centre of London, under the panoply of Crown justice.
Having left the bubble, my courage keeps failing me to return to the evil and write up the last day. I know that sounds either pathetic or precious. I know the mainstream journalists who revel in portraying me as mentally unstable will delight to mock. But this last few days I can’t even bring myself to look at my notes. I feel physically ill when I try. Of course I will complete the series, but I may need a little time.”
I imagine it would have astonished Craig to know that, inside of one year, he would himself be a political prisoner, sentenced for practising good journalism. Or perhaps not. It seems that evil [as noted above) is spreading everywhere. It must be fought with skill and courage.
“The judgement is in fact very concerning, in that it accepted all of the prosecution’s case on the right of the US Government to prosecute publishers worldwide of US official secrets under the Espionage Act. The judge also stated specifically that the UK Extradition Act of 2003 deliberately permits extradition for political offences. These points need to be addressed. But for now we are all delighted at the ultimate decision that extradition should be blocked.”
DECISION DAY (1) re 4 Jan 2021: Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
VIDEO referred to above: from Randy Credico, ‘Assange: Countdown to Freedom’ (4 Jan 2021) “Craig Murray on the Assange Verdict” [YouTube]
Craig Murray [Blog entry 2] “The Assange Verdict: What Happens Now”
“I am not sure that at this stage the High Court would accept a new guarantee from the USA that Assange would not be kept in isolation or in a Supermax prison; that would be contrary to the affidavit from Assistant Secretary of State Kromberg and thus would probably be ruled to amount to new evidence.
Not to mention that Baraitser heard other evidence that such assurances had been received in the case of Abu Hamza, but had been broken.”
DECISION DAY (2) re 4 Jan 2021: Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
21 June 2021 - 6 months later
Craig Murray [Blog entry] “Assange is Still in Jail”
“Julian Assange remains in a maximum security jail, despite never being sentenced for anything but a long ago served spell for bail-jumping, and despite the US Government’s request for extradition having been refused.
It is approaching six months since I was in court to hear the decision rejecting Julian’s extradition, and it was in the same week that Baraitser ordered Julian be kept in jail pending a US appeal. Since then the US has submitted its appeal, which is somewhat intemperate in its efforts to discredit a number of highly distinguished expert witnesses at the hearing. The defence has submitted its response, including notice of points, where Baraitser found for the US, that the defence intend to counter-appeal.
Then for over three months – nothing.
The High Court has not only not set a date for the US appeal, it has not even indicated if the US appeal meets the bar to be heard – there is some thought that the appeal lacks any arguable points of law and may be simply rejected. But the seemingly leisurely approach of the High Court to looking at the matter is entirely inappropriate given that, in the meantime, an innocent man is suffering the most extreme form of incarceration available in the UK.
Assange’s status is that his extradition has been rejected. He ought not to be in jail at all, let alone in such harsh conditions.
By contrast, I am sitting in my study despite being sentenced to eight months in jail. I am at liberty while the Supreme Court decides whether to hear my appeal. My lawyers believe, from their contact with the court administrators, that it is entirely possible that the Supreme Court will decide on whether to take my appeal, within the four week suspension of my jail sentence granted by Lady Dorrian. This is because otherwise I might be imprisoned.
Why can the Supreme Court potentially decide whether to hear my appeal so quickly due to the threat of imprisonment, when the High Court is taking six times or more as long to decide whether to hear the US appeal, when an innocent man is already imprisoned? It makes no sense.
It is not due to complexity: while of course Julian’s case is more important, any points of law at issue in the US appeal are notably less complex than in my own appeal. To me, the only possible explanation is the determination of the state to keep Julian imprisoned at all costs.
It is now plain that Biden intends to press forward with the charging of Julian, a publisher and journalist, under the Espionage Act. This despite the opposition, however belated, of every major news organisation and every major civil liberties oriented NGO. Biden’s recent European trip was choreographed to establish his full credentials as a Cold War warrior and to ensure a western orthodoxy of hostility towards China. Biden is proving, as predicted, a perfect representative of the security and military state.
Having seen off the $15 minimum wage and proposals for meaningful “New Deal” expenditure, Biden can get down to the serious neo-liberal work of improving the fortunes of the ultra-wealthy.” […]
“[…] While Baraitser’s eventual decision barred extradition on the grounds of Assange’s health and US inhumane prison conditions, the second superseding indictment and Thordarson’s accusations were accepted as a valid basis for extradition.
Thordarson has now told Icelandic magazine Stundin that his allegations against Assange contained in the indictment are untrue, and that Assange had not solicited the hacking of bank or police details. This is hardly a shock, though Thordarson’s motives for coming clean now are obscure; he is plainly a deeply troubled and often malicious individual. Thordarson was always the most unreliable of witnesses, and I find it impossible to believe that the FBI cooperation with him was ever any more than deliberate fabrication of evidence by the FBI.
Edward Snowden has tweeted that Thordarson recanting will end the case against Julian Assange. Most certainly it should end it, but I fear it will not.
Many things should have ended the case against Assange. The First Amendment, the ban on political extradition in the US/UK Extradition Treaty, the CIA spying on the preparations of Assange’s defence counsel, all of these should have stopped the case dead in its tracks.
It is now five months since extradition was refused, no US government appeal against that decision has yet been accepted by the High Court, and yet Julian remains confined to the UK’s highest security prison. The revelation that Thordarson’s allegations are fabricated – which everyone knew already, Baraitser just pretended she didn’t – is just one more illegality that the Establishment will shimmy over in its continued persecution of Assange.
Assange democratised information and gave real power to the people for a while, worldwide. He revealed US war crimes. For that his life is destroyed. Neither law nor truth have anything to do with it.”
Craig Murray - Political prisoner - 1 Aug - 30 Nov 2021
Craig Murray was not available on these days to attend the High Court, as he was ensconced in a Scottish prison, having been sentenced to eight months (of which he served four) on the civil charge of “contempt of court” related to his brilliant journalism in the Alex Salmond case.
Entering the prison - 1 Aug 2021
Craig was escorted to the prison gates by a crowd of family and friends. [Tweet with video] [YouTube]
“Julian Assange hearing: What's the link between the Wikileaks founder and Craig Murray?” [NationalScot]
“District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled in January that Assange should not be sent to the US, citing a real risk of suicide. The US Government was previously allowed to appeal against her decision on three grounds, including that it was wrong in law.
Today, the US made a bid to expand the basis that can be used for its main appeal against the district judge’s decision.
The American authorities said they should be allowed to argue two further points – that the district judge was wrong in how she assessed evidence about Assange’s risk of suicide and also appeal against the use of evidence from a psychiatrist who they said “misled” the court.
Lord Justice Holroyde ruled in favour of the US authorities after he found the two points were “at least arguable” at the main appeal, which will take place over two days in October.”
High Court Appeal by the US - 27-28 Oct 2021
Craig Murray was not available on these days to attend the High Court, as he was ensconced in a Scottish prison.
“Lord Justice Holroyde entered and read out a brief summary of the judgement. Lord Chief Justice Burnett, the other member of the two man panel, apparently had better things to do. It was evident after a few seconds that the insufferably smug Holroyde was going to find in favour of the United States Government.
Julian was not present, neither in person nor by videolink. That judgement should be given on a prisoner in the presence neither of himself nor of his counsel seems to me a quite extraordinary proceeding. The entire event felt wrong.”
HIGH COURT DECISION DAY re 10 Dec 2021: Craig Murray’s report on the extradition ‘Show Trial’ of Julian Assange. Read the rest of that report here
UPDATES (After original publication)
LEVEL 2 - High Court (continued)
Day Oh God It Never Ends (HC response re appeal to SC) - 24 Jan 2022
Craig Murray [Blog entry] [Court Response: Tweet with image, includes date error]
EXCERPT: “The Lord Chief Justice suddenly materialises from his own entrance behind his bench, already high above us, so he doesn’t have to mount the mahogany and risk tripping over his scarlet velvet drapery. I like to imagine he was raised up to the requisite level behind the scenes by a contraption of ropes and pulleys operated by hairy matelots. Next to him, but discreetly a little lower, was Lord Justice Holroyde, who delivered the judgement now appealed against, and today looked even more smug and oleaginous in the reflected glow of his big mate.
The appearance lasted two minutes. Burnett told us that the Court certified, as being a matter of general public interest, the question of whether “Diplomatic Assurances” not submitted in the substantive hearing, could be submitted at the appeal stage. It did not so certify the other points raised; it refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
You can ignore the last phrase; it is customary that the High Court refuses leave to appeal; with the certification of public interest, Julian can now appeal direct to the Supreme Court which will decide whether or not to take the case. The refusal of leave by the High Court is purely a show of deference to the Supreme Court, which decides itself what it will take. The lawyers put this as “the Supreme Court dines a la carte.” Read the rest of that report here.
LEVEL 3 - Supreme Court
On To The Next Hurdle (SC refuses permission to appeal) - 15 Mar 2022
“By introducing the assurances only at the appeal stage – which is only on points of law and had no fact-finding remit – the USA had avoided any scrutiny of their validity. The Home Office have always argued that diplomatic assurances must simply be accepted without question. The Home Office is keen on this stance because it makes extradition to countries with appalling human rights records much easier.
In saying there is no arguable point of law, the Supreme Court is accepting that diplomatic assurances are not tested and are to be taken at face value – which has been a major point of controversy in recent jurisprudence. It is now settled that we will send someone back to Saudi Arabia if the Saudis give us a piece of paper promising not to chop their head off.
It interested me in particular that the Supreme Court refused to hear Julian’s appeal on the basis there was “no arguable point of law”. When the Supreme Court refused to hear my own appeal against imprisonment, they rather stated their alternative formulation, there was “no arguable point of law of general public interest”. Meaning there was an arguable point of law, but it was merely an individual injustice, that did not matter to anybody except Craig Murray.
My own view is that, with the Tory government very open about their desire to clip the wings of judges and reduce the reach of the Supreme Court in particular, the Court is simply avoiding hot potatoes at present.” Read the rest of that report here.
EXCERPT ”The British authorities had done everything they could firstly to prevent, and then to mess up, this wedding. Permission to marry had first been formally requested of the prison service in 2020, and in the end was only granted by involving lawyers and threatening legal action. There followed a whole list of antagonisms on which I shall not dwell, one minor example of which was banning me from the wedding and then lying about it.
But now, on the wedding day, the ordinary, working staff of the prison were delighted to be hosting such a happy event. The searches of the bride were distinctly token and friendly. At the security checks, Julian and Stella’s three year old son Max managed to tangle himself so comprehensively around the legs of one guard that he fell over, and the large guard and small boy then had a hilarious mock wrestle on the floor. The guards who conducted Stella through the jail did so as though they were the escort of a Queen.” Read the rest of that report here.
(See also PART 5 of the Full Focus series “The Assange Wedding” for extensive quotes from Craig’s blog.)
- Re decision of Home Secretary (4 grounds) (23 June 2022) [TH] - Re decision in the lower court (12 grounds) (30 June 2022) [TH] - ‘Perfected Grounds of Appeal’ filed (26 August 2022) [CM pdf]
HIGH COURTDenial of applications to appeal (6 June 2023)
- in the case of Secretary of State vs. Julian Assange [TH] [TC pdf] - in the case of the United States of America vs. Julian Assange [TH] [TC pdf]
High Court interval
“Assange: An Unholy Masquerade of Tyranny Disguised as Justice”
EXCERPT “There has never existed any government so evil and repugnant that it has been unable to find lawyers, and particularly judges, to do its bidding.
Hitler did not need to manufacture lawyers and judges. A very significant number, indeed the majority, of established and reputable German lawyers were prepared to participate actively in Nazi law, both its development and implementation.
That of course includes Roland Freisler, a Doctor of Law from the University of Jena, who was a practising solicitor before his elevation.
This was prosecutor Telford Taylor, opening the trial of Nazi lawyers at Nuremberg:
This case is unusual, in that the defendants are charged with crimes committed in the name of the law. These men, together with their deceased or fugitive colleagues, were the embodiment of what passed for justice in the Third Reich.
Most of the defendants have served, at various times, as judges, as state prosecutors, and as officials of the Reich Ministry of Justice. ALL BUT ONE ARE PROFESSIONAL JURISTS. They are well accustomed to courts, and courtrooms, though their present role may be new to them.
But a court is far more than a courtroom; it is a process and a spirit. It is the house of law. This the defendants know, or must have known in times past. I doubt that they ever forgot.
Indeed, the root of the accusation in this case is that these men, leaders of the German judicial system, consciously and deliberately suppressed the law, engaged in an unholy masquerade of tyranny disguised as justice, and converted the German judicial systems to an engine of despotism, conquest, pillage and slaughter.
Taylor’s quote “an unholy masquerade of tyranny disguised as justice” is a phrase that has been rattling around my head as a perfect encapsulation of the state “legal” process against Julian Assange, which I have been detailing this last several years.
Together, of course, with the fact that the NATO states hate Assange – and seek his judicial murder – precisely for revealing truths that embarrassed their system of “conquest, pillage and slaughter” in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria and elsewhere.
It is worth noting Hitler was by no means alone in being able to call on the respected lawyers to do his bidding.”
EXCERPT “Now the particularly well informed amongst you will have noticed that Burnett also ruled in favour of the United States’ earlier appeal in the Assange Case, on the same grounds, that US government assurances on treatmment were entirely to be trusted, irrespective of real world experience in other cases.
Burnett was best friends at Oxford University with Alan Duncan, the Tory Foreign Office minister who handled the arrest of Assange and coordination with the United States over the extradition request. Duncan called Assange a “horrible little worm” in parliament and Duncan’s best Tory friend Burnett quashed the initial ruling for him that had barred extradition on health and prison condition grounds. See my article on the subject.
You see the link? Burnett and Swift both ruled at different times in favour of Assange’s extradition and both similarly ruled that deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda was legal.
Assange’s final appeal against Swift and Lewis to the High Court – limited by Swift to 25 pages and a 30 minute hearing – will take place, probably soon.
I am willing to venture this prediction. Neither Vos nor Underhill, who rejected the legality of Rwanda deportations, will be on Assange’s new two judge panel. Burnett will be, probably alongside Lewis, Swift’s partner in crime on Rwanda, or Holroyde, Burnett’s earlier partner in crime on Assange.
Because that is how the Establishment quietly gets its dirty work done.
EXCERPT “I am currently in Minnesota where I am speaking tonight and doing several media interviews. The primary purpose of the whole US visit is not the public appearances, but preparation for the campaign and defence in the USA should extradition go ahead.
That does not mean at all that the focus has in any way shifted from preventing extradition from the UK, and the legal defence remain fully engaged and optimistic about both the High Court and the European Court of Human Rights.
But I am also very buoyed by the extraordinary depth and quality of the support in the USA. […]
We need to be ahead of the game. Should Julian arrive in the USA, it will be the biggest news story in the world on that day. We need the campaigning logistics all worked out in advance. We need to get ahead of the media story in ways we failed to do when Julian was removed from the Embassy.
We need to have events planned all round the States ready to go, that will provide alternative image messages from actions, for both local and national news, to counter the “perp” images. […]
— VIDEO “Luncheon in Support of Julian Assange with Craig Murray [from 8:06], Hosted by Randy Credico” (9 Sept 2023). See also CM BLOG “Defend Assange US Tour“ (11 Sept 2023)
— AUDIO “The Chris Hedges Report Podcast with former British Ambassador Craig Murray on what appears to be the imminent extradition to the U.S. of Julian Assange.” (13 Sept 2023) See also CM BLOG & VIDEO
— VIDEO “Ex-UK amb. Craig Murray: "The US has completely ceased to be a democracy" The Grayzone (15 Sept 2023). See also CM BLOG “Grayzone Interview with Max Blumenthal“ (19 Sept 2023).
Back in the UK - High Court interval (cont)
“The Supreme Court, Rwanda and Assange” (20 Nov 2023)
Craig Murray argues that there are TWO main ways the Rwanda judgment relates to the Assange case. Firstly: “After reviewing the evidence, the court judged that Rwanda’s general human rights record, its past treatment of refugees and the state of its asylum system make it an unsafe country for deportation. It does not become a safe country either because Pritti Patel and Suella Braverman say so, or – and this is crucial for the Assange case – because its government makes promises about future behaviour. This is a crucial passage with obvious relevance to the Assange case which I shall go on to explain: …”
Secondly: “Extraordinarily, the UK openly takes the view that no international law, including treaties it has signed, is ever legally binding on the UK unless it has been explicitly incorporated in UK domestic legislation. The UK does not consider itself bound by treaties it has ratified. This is absolutely crucial in the Assange case, where the US/UK Extradition Treaty of 2003, under which the extradition is taking place, specifically forbids political extradition. The courts have accepted the argument that this is irrelevant as the treaty has no legal force, this text not having been incorporated in any UK domestic legislation. The Supreme Court judgment on Rwanda, however, appears to take the UK’s obligations in international law very seriously. The Supreme Court does not appear to be treating the UK’s international treaty obligations as governing the conduct of the UK Government, only insofar as they are incorporated in domestic law. After talking about the prohibition of refoulement under the Refugee Convention, the Supreme Court states: As we shall explain, refoulement is also prohibited under a number of other international conventions which the United Kingdom has ratified. There are also several Acts of Parliament which protect refugees against refoulement. It is very difficult to read that in a way that makes the applicability of the international treaties valid only insofar as they have been incorporated in the Acts of Parliament. …”
EXCERPT “The acoustics of the court are simply terrible. We are all behind the barristers as they stood addressing the judges, and their voices were at the same time muffled yet echoing from the bare stone walls.
I did not enter with a great deal of hope. As I have explained in How the Establishment Functions, judges do not have to be told what decision is expected by the Establishment. They inhabit the same social milieu as ministers, belong to the same institutions, attend the same schools, go to the same functions.
The United States’ appeal against the original blocking of Assange’s extradition was granted by a Lord Chief Justice who is the former room-mate, and still best friend, of the minister who organised the removal of Julian from the Ecuadorean Embassy.
The blocking of Assange’s appeal was done by Judge Swift, a judge who used to represent the security services, and said they were his favourite clients. In the subsequent Graham Phillips case, where Mr Phillips was suing the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) for sanctions being imposed upon him without any legal case made against him, Swift actually met FCDO officials – one of the parties to the case – and discussed matters relating to it privately with them before giving judgment. He did not tell the defence he had done this. They found out, and Swift was forced to recuse himself.
Personally I am surprised Swift is not in jail, let alone still a High Court judge. But then what do I know of justice?
The Establishment politico-legal nexus was on even more flagrant display today. Presiding was Dame Victoria Sharp, whose brother Richard had arranged an £800,000 loan for then Prime Minister Boris Johnson and immediately been appointed Chairman of the BBC, (the UK’s state propaganda organ). Assisting her was Justice Jeremy Johnson, another former barrister representing MI6.
By an amazing coincidence, Justice Johnson had been brought in seamlessly to replace his fellow ex-MI6 hiree Justice Swift, and find for the FCDO in the Graham Phillips case!
And here these two were now to judge Julian!
What a lovely, cosy club is the Establishment! How ordered and predictable! We must bow down in awe at its majesty and near divine operation. Or go to jail. …”
EXCERPT “Taking our position in the courtroom, there were still fewer seats available to the public. This is because there was a much larger presence of the “court media”, meaning those London-based journalists with permanent accreditation to the court. They had largely ignored Day 1 as that was Julian’s case; they had however turned up to report the US Government case on Day 2.
I had witnessed precisely the same behaviour at the ICJ Genocide Case in the Hague, where the Israeli arguments on the second day got massively more media coverage than South Africa on the first. The BBC even livestreamed the Israeli case but not the South African, which is a breathtaking level of bias.
So there were fewer spaces available. I was squashed up against the lady instructing the lawyer for the Home Secretary, who was actually extremely nice and kept feeding me mint humbugs as it became increasingly obvious I was struggling against cold symptoms.
James Lewis KC, who had previously led for the US government, was not present. This was unexplained; it is not usual to change the lead KC mid-way through an important case, and judges will generally bend over backwards to avoid diary clashes for them. I have to confess I had rather warmed to Lewis, as I think my reporting showed. I wondered if he had lost faith in his client; it may be of interest that his professional profile lists his most famous cases – but not this most famous case of all.
So his number 2, Clare Dobbin, today stepped up to the lead. She appeared to be on tenterhooks. For a full fifteen minutes before the appointed starting time at 10:30am, she stood ready to go, her papers carefully spread out around the rostrum. She continually looked up at the judges’ chair as though mentally rehearsing zinging her arguments in that direction. Or imagining becoming a judge; how do I know what she was thinking? Ignore me.
It particularly seemed futile that she was standing there all ready to go while we were sitting around her heedlessly chatting, given that we would all have to stand up too when the judges came in, before resuming our places with a fuss of coughing, turning off phones, knocking over files, squashing sandwiches etc. Anyway there she stood, staring earnestly at the bench. This gave me time to remark that she had notably longer hair than the last time she appeared in this case, and the long blond fibres fell completely straight and evenly spaced, ending in a line of hair across the back of her legal gown that was not only perfectly straight but also perfectly horizontal, and remained so no matter how she moved.
It was the most disciplined hair I ever witnessed. I suspect she had shouted it into submission. Ms Dobbin has an extremely strong accent. It is right out of those giant Belfast shipyards that only ever employed Protestants and which produced great liners that sank more efficiently, and in a more Hollywood-friendly manner, than any other ships in the world.
Someone in the shipyard had taken Ms Dobbin’s accent and riveted on a few elongated vowel sounds in an effort to make it posher, but sadly this had caused cracks of comprehension below the waterline.
However, something had happened to Ms Dobbin. She had been stentorian – I had previously described her as Ian Paisley in a wig. But now it took me several minutes to realise she had started speaking. This did not get better. The kindly Judge Dame Victoria Sharp came up with about eight different formulations in the course of the morning to ask her to speak up, like a school teacher encouraging a shy child at a carol concert. All to no avail.
One thing was very plain. Ms Dobbin had lost her faith in the case she was presenting. She hardly tried to argue it. That was not only in terms of volume. Ms Dobbin made very little effort at all to refute the arguments put by the Assange team the day before. Instead she merely read out large chunks of the affidavit provided by US Deputy Attorney General Kronberg in support of the second superseding indictment.
As judges Johnson and Sharp presumably can read, it was not plain what value this exercise added. Ms Dobbin is not so much in danger of being replaced by Artificial Intelligence, as being replaced by a Speak Your Weight machine. Which at least may have a more pleasant accent. …”
“Assange, Gaza, the manipulation of “anti-semitism”, threats to civil liberties, Galloway, the forms of armed resistance available to the colonised: I enjoy the long-form interview as a chance to explore issues in depth. This one was very enjoyable, and we didn’t get through half of Antoine’s list of topics.
I do hope that you can find time at least to dip in to this discussion of what I am doing and thinking at the moment. [YouTube]
“Assange Truth and UN Shenanigans” (16 March 2024)
“I spent the last week at the UN, trying to ram home some truths about the Assange case as input to the UN’s Periodic Review (every 7 years) of the UK’s human rights record, in terms of its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
I had a very short opportunity to address the UN Committee on Human Rights, which is a body of elected experts. In such a short time frame you have to go with just a couple of points. I am open to criticism of my selection, but I maintain that this was much plainer speaking than is generally heard. The reasons for this are interesting.
There are fora like this where registered NGOs can make their point. Human rights is quite an industry in Geneva, where literally hundreds of NGO reps live and roam the UN buildings. The favoured NGOs are those with ECOSOC registration status. The delegates of UNESCO status NGOs have blue passes and extremely free access throughout, at any time.
But UNESCO status is granted by a committee of member states – and is difficult to get. It is therefore unsurprising that a high proportion of NGOs are not real NGOs at all. They are astroturf; fake NGOs paid to whitewash the record of their governments. I did not understand this at first until I attended (as a dry run for the UK) the meetings of the Human Rights Committee for the Egyptian periodic review. Several Egyptian NGOs, one after the other, told us what a great respect for human rights the Egyptian dictatorship has. (It has, incidentally, just sentenced another group of opposition figures to death, after murdering Egypt’s only ever freely elected President.)
Even well-known western NGOs tend to pull their punches at the UN because, bluntly, almost all of them receive large amounts of funding from Western governments. While theoretically this is funding to attack the human rights record of the western governments’ designated enemies, it is a concomitant that the NGOs are reluctant seriously to bite the hand that feeds them.
Consider these facts: firstly, no important whistleblower has ever subsequently found employment with an established NGO. A great many have tried.
Secondly, had I not been there, nobody would have mentioned Julian Assange in the periodic review of the UK’s human rights record. …”
EXCERPT “The latest judgment by the High Court in the Assange case achieved completely the objectives of the UK and US states. Above all, Julian remains in the hell which is Belmarsh maximum security prison. He is now safely there alone and incommunicado, from the authorities’ point of view, for at least several more months.
Importantly, the United States has managed to keep him detained without securing his actual appearance in Washington. It is crucial to grasp that the CIA, who are very much controlling the process, do not actually want him to appear there until after their attempt to secure the re-election of Genocide Joe. No matter what your opinion of Donald Trump, there is no doubt the CIA conspired against him during his entire Presidency, beginning with the fake Russiagate scandal and ending with their cover-up of the Hunter Biden laptop story. They do not want Trump back.
Biden is politically in deep trouble. Biden’s lifelong political support for Israel has been unwavering to the point of fanaticism. In the process he has collected millions of dollars from the Zionist lobby. That always seemed a source of political strength in the United States, not of weakness.
The current genocide in Gaza has changed all those calculations. The sheer evil and viciousness of the Israeli state, the open and undisguised enthusiasm for racist massacre, has achieved the seemingly impossible task of turning much American public opinion against Israel. …”
EXCERPT … Mark Summers KC then stood to complete the defence argument.
This transformational day had its greatest effect on Summers. Gone was the anger at events, the simmering impatience at the failure of the judges to grasp the arguments. Instead, he was so softly and sweetly spoken nobody could hear him. As he rose, the sun inched across the sky just enough that a clear shaft of sunlight pierced the lantern window and illuminated Summers. It seemed an effect too bold for Hollywood, possibly something out of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I am pretty sure I heard angels singing.
Summers said he had the difficult task of countering the US arguments before they had made them, and asked the court for permission to speak again later, which Judge Dame Victoria Sharp – who had obviously also heard the angels singing – agreed immediately.
Summers enumerated the US arguments from their written submission. He went through these as:
1) Assange will be on US soil during trial and thus the First Amendment will apply. But this Summers said was inconsistent with Kromberg’s sworn statement and with previous case law.
2) Assange might be found to have been on US soil when offences were committed and so the First Amendment would apply. Except, said Summers, Assange clearly was not on US soil at the time.
3) Nationality is a narrower concept than citizenship so no relevant discrimination is taking place. Summers said this was plainly wrong as shown by many examples including the Refugee Convention.
4) Nationality was only one of the factors which might lead to the first amendment not being applicable. Summers pointed out that if nationality was a factor, that was discrimination. The existence of other factors was irrelevant.
5) The United States was saying that the 14th Amendment – which grants citizenship to all persons born in the United States – was somehow relevant. Summers looked perplexed and dismissed this argument with a wave of his hand.
It was now time for James Lewis KC to re-enter the fray on behalf of the United States. …
EXCERPT “I cannot tell you how happy I am at Julian’s release. It is 4.00am and I haven’t been to bed yet. I have spoken to John Shipton but everyone else is on a plane en route to Australia.
The guilty plea is of course coerced in the extreme and nobody should take it seriously. It gives a chance to claim hollow victory to the odious Biden regime, at the cost of a terrible precedent in law classifying journalism in espionage. But the precedent is only in a court of first instance so is not binding.
I should be plain I have always advised Julian and Stella to take a plea deal if offered and get out if jail. I have no doubt this was a life or death choice. I also believe we will be grateful for the still greater contributions Julian’s immense intellect and capacity for radical thought will make to human development in the future.
The Justice Department were further motivated to offer a deal by the fact that they appeared to have painted themselves into a very difficult corner at the next UK extradition hearing in a fortnight, over Julian’s ability as a foreign national acting outside the US to claim constitutional protections, and could have lost the extradition case altogether.
There is so much more to say but if I don’t get some sleep I will not be alive to say it. I am crying with happiness.
EXCERPT “At the end of Julian Assange’s testimony before the Judicial Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 95% of the entire room of 220 people rose in a standing ovation.
The audience consisted of members of the Parliamentary Assembly, who are delegated members of their national parliaments, from all over Europe. Furthermore they included members of the full European political spectrum, including the dominant national parties.
The audience also included Council of Europe staff and experts, and worldwide media. Note this well – and I have never witnessed anything remotely like this – the 100 or so media representatives all stood and joined in the applause. I need to stress this was largely not the alt media, but the legacy media in all its pomp.
Glancing up a level, they were even standing and applauding behind the glass of the interpreters’ booths.
The dignity and clarity of Julian’s prepared statement and the stark honesty of his delivery provoked this reaction, coupled with sympathy for a man who has unjustly suffered extreme hardship and deprivation for years. I hope it was a valuable and affirming moment for Julian, so richly deserved.
But I must confess I looked over at the applauding media, and thought how Julian had been slandered and traduced and his case entirely misrepresented for over a decade. I recalled how he had been wrongly represented for years as a sexual offender and as a lunatic who smeared excrement on walls.
Oh well … “there is more joy in heaven at one sinner that repenteth”. If the mainstream media are now willing to give positive coverage to Julian’s thoughts, that will be a good thing, as indeed largely happened over this event. His words on the assassination of journalists in Gaza and on the programming of targets in Gaza using AI were an excellent pointer towards where his thoughts are trending.”
[…]
“It may be relevant that among Assange’s strangely large entourage were the Belgian and French lawyers who had been specifically tasked with preparing his appeal to the ECHR had the UK courts ordered his extradition. So watch this space…
It is also of note that PACE has selected Sweden for a Periodic Review of its human rights record beginning next year. Those behind the selection proposed it specifically so that a report can be produced that takes a deep dive into the extraordinary concoction of sexual assault allegations against Assange and their misuse by the authorities, as detailed in Nils Melzer’sremarkable book. So again, watch this space…” Read the rest of that report here.
NB: The eleventh part of this series contains an annotated TRANSCRIPT of Julian’s first public speech (1 Oct 2024) after regaining his freedom (26 June 2024), plus other details of the PACE context of that speech: See “Julian Speaks: a free man among friends, at last”. Read it here.
EXCERPT “The comments on Peter Oborne’s excellent article on Julian Assange in the Guardian last week are a damning indictment of the media’s ability to instil near universal acceptance of “facts” which are easily proven lies.
The Guardian chose as its “Guardian pick” to head the section a comment full of these entirely untrue assertions. [Examples provided]
If you look through all the comments, they repeat again and again that Wikileaks published unredacted documents, including names of US agents, which put lives at risk. The entire basis of most of the comments is simply untrue – and none of the readers seems to have any information to contradict them.
Julian Assange has never said that governments should have no secrets. That would be a ridiculous position and clearly some information held by government is rightly confidential. He has said that governments should be very much more open to the public, and that most government secrecy is unjustified.
Nor has Wikileaks ever dumped data unread and unedited on to the internet. The commenter is correct to say that Wikileaks has shared editing responsibilities with organisations including the Guardian and the New York Times. This is precisely because the material needs to be edited to avoid revealing inappropriate material, and to make journalistic decisions on what to write stories about.
The notion that Assange was “lazy” because he did not read all the material and do all the editing himself is self-evidently ridiculous. The US diplomatic cables and Iraq and Afghan war logs alone constituted over 600,000 documents. It was simply impossible for Assange to read it all personally. He was the editor of Wikileaks. This is tantamount to criticising Katherine Viner for not writing every single article in the Guardian personally.
The extradition hearing of Julian Assange heard numerous highly professional and respected journalists testify to the rigorous nature of Wikileaks’ editing process to remove names. Here is one extract from my reporting of the trial: [quote provided]
Yet there is no public awareness that this careful editing and redaction process took at all. That is plain from those comments under the Guardian article. This is because people are simply regurgitating the propaganda that the media has given them. My blog was effectively the only source for detailed reporting of the Assange hearings, which were almost ignored by the mainstream media.
This was deliberate choice – the information was freely available to the mainstream media. Read the rest of that report here.
On his own imprisonment (15 July 2022)
See “The prisoner | COLLATERAL” [YouTube] (Oval Media, with German subtitles)
On his own imprisonment in a Scottish jail (for contempt of court) Craig Murray said:
“You have to take into account that the establishment hate me, in general because of my own role as a whistleblower, and because of my later association with Wikileaks and with Julian Assange. I'm just a target, and it gave them the opportunity to put me in prison - which is something they've been very keen to do, to try and silence me, for for a long time.” […] “There's no doubt at all that the system, the establishment, hoped that I would be crushed; that I would be crushed and humiliated and frightened. And that it would affect my journalism, and would scare others. But I don't really think it's had that effect at all. It's certainly not an experience I would view as frightening.”
On ‘Bearing Witness’
At the end of the penultimate day of the lower court hearing, DAY 21, Craig Murray said:
“A friend last night gave me the cold comfort that I should not worry about the hurried close of these proceedings reducing the public gaze on the evidence and the arguments (and I think there were altogether nine witness statements yesterday), because that public gaze had been extremely limited, as indeed I have been continually explaining. In other words, it makes no difference.
I follow that argument, but it goes against some fundamental beliefs and motivations I have about bearing witness, which I shall need to develop further in my own mind.”
“The mainstream media are turning a blind eye. There were three reporters in the press gallery, one of them an intern and one representing the NUJ. Public access continues to be restricted and major NGOs, including Amnesty, PEN and Reporters Without Borders, continue to be excluded both physically and from watching online. It has taken me literally all night to write this up – it is now 8.54am – and I have to finish off and get back into court. The six of us allowed in the public gallery, incidentally, have to climb 132 steps to get there, several times a day. As you know, I have a very dodgy ticker; I am with Julian’s dad John who is 78; and another of us has a pacemaker.
I do not in the least discount the gallant efforts of others when I explain that I feel obliged to write this up, and in this detail, because otherwise the vital basic facts of the most important trial this century, and how it is being conducted, would pass almost completely unknown to the public.
If it were a genuine process, they would want people to see it, not completely minimise attendance both physically and online.”
One of the main reasons for compiling this overview of the writings of Craig Murray on the Show Trial of Julian Assange is to assist us all to ‘bear witness’ - via Craig’s reports - to this total abuse of process and perversion of justice.
Having read his record, from an eye witness perspective, of what actually happened we all need to help others to see what has been hidden from them by the courts and the mainstream media.
Thank you, Craig Murray, for making that possible.
And thank you to all those who share his testimony far and wide.
NB: Craig Murray has given explicit permission for the republishing of these blog entries at the foot of relevant entries. He has stated “I only ask that you reproduce it complete or, if edits are made, plainly indicate them.” I have done my best to follow these instructions to the letter.
Thanks for reading Full Focus! SUBSCRIBE for free to receive new posts and support my work. A ‘LIKE ‘ is much appreciated too.
The compiler of this compendium lives in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
As a long time supporter of Julian Assange, I have become aware that many of those new to the story of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange find it hard to get a picture of the enormity and multidimensionality of the abuse that has gone on here, and what that says about the current state of the world be live in.
The third was another compendium “The Persecution of WikiLeaks: Counting the Cost” covering a wide range of costs incurred by those associated, in almost any way, with WikiLeaks. In particular, it looks at the rollcall of the dead, and lists some of the many whistleblowers and truthtellers who have suffered under this regime of persecution. Read it here.
The fifth documents what was mostly a happy hiatus in this litany of abuse: “The Assange Wedding”. But even on that special day, the apparatus of the state managed to intrude with its petty (and not so petty) cruelties. Read it here.
The sixth compendium “A Chorus of Courage: Speaking Up for Assange”, provides a roll call of many of those who have spoken up for Julian Assange - using their professional &/or personal voices - and provides a little information about their role, together with links to some key statements. This list represents only the tip of the enormous mass of support for Julian that exists - especially at the grass roots level. Read it here.
The seventh compendium “Prizes for Assange: Praise where Praise is Due” celebrates many of the prizes and other awards showered on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks over nearly fifteen years. These give the lie to the vile smears by politicians and stenographers to power in the legacy press - that he "is not a journalist". Read it here.
The eighth compendium “Torrent of Truth: A Timeline of Assange Speech” provides a timeline of many articles and videos that record the direct speech of Julian Assange. While not exhaustive, it provides a fairly comprehensive and accessible overview of his online public life. Read it here.
The ninth part “View from the Other Side: Proponents of Prosecution” is a review of a one hour long podcast from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), Australia’s flagship, state funded broadcaster broadcast June 2022. Much of that podcast is preserved and analysed as an exemplar of the kind of misinformation which is spread at the “intellectual” and academic end of the legacy press spectrum. Read it here.
The tenth part was an essay “All Roads Converge … on Julian Assange”. It looks at the place of Julian Assange - as a man, a representative of free speech and a free press, and as a symbol of the values of the Enlightenment - asking why it matters what happens to him. Why is his fate centrally related to the crises - coronavirus, Ukraine, climate - currently swirling around us? Read it here. This very long essay is also available as an annotated reading, spread over an eight part video series. See more here.
The eleventh part contains an annotated TRANSCRIPT of Julian’s first public speech (1 Oct 2024) after regaining his freedom (26 June 2024), plus other details of the PACE context of that speech: “Julian Speaks: a free man among friends, at last”. Read it here.
The SERIES INDEX. This is a one-stop-shop window on the series - listing and linking to all the topics and resources provided within all parts of the archive. See it here.
For those only nowthinking about joining the chorus of courage supporting Julian - please speak up. Your efforts will be appreciated, and you will find yourself on the right side of history. The fight has not ended yet, as although Julian is now free, he still needs a pardon, and safe legal conditions in which to continue his work - when he is well enough to do so.
Many of the reports in this series, while interesting to read for those new to this topic, are mainly intended as ongoing resources: documents to bookmark, dip into, refer back to, and share with those needing sources and perspective, rather than pieces to read at one sitting. The compendia are updated regularly as new events arise, so you might want to check back from time to time.
Thanks for accessing, using and sharing this compendium. Contact the author if you wish to discuss its contents, or if you find an error or a link that no longer works.
All images are included either under “fair use” terms for the purpose of education, discussion and commentary, or belong to the author, or have appropriate creative commons licences.
