Kirsty Wark gives the accusers the last word in an innocent man’s second trial by media

It was less bad than I feared.

The whole premise, of course, was wrong, unethical. This was an attempt to retry an innocent man by a media elite clearly feeling let down by the verdict from a majority female jury.

We heard the accusers’ stories again at length and their emotive expressions of disbelief at the verdict. We hear nothing at all of who they are, of any character flaws they may have, but the accused’s former colleagues are allowed to air repeatedly his many supposed flaws as a man.

Wark meets and chats with her own wee one-sided jury of Dani Garavelli, Sarah Smith and Maurice Smith and together, they fail to enlighten us with any insights but have a nice wee titter over what may have happened.

As we approached the last moments, I was ready, my forensic media analysis tools sharpened, to hear who got the crucial last words. Would we be left with the words of the wrongfully accused or the rejected accusers, ringing in our ears?

Second last, we heard Jim Sillars, former SNP leadinv figure, say:

Alex Salmond’s character and personality was turned outside in for ALL the flaws to be seen and I think once people see what was done in relation to Alex Salmond that did not need to be done, the volcano will go off underneath the SNP.

Last, we heard an accuser, mournful music rising behind her:

What you’re saying is a man can try to kiss a woman or he can say completely inappropriate things to her when he’s 30 years older than her and is the First Minister of Scotland. I’m worried about what this says more widely to other women or just to us as a society. I mean where does this leave us?

I’m worried too if only slightly.

These final thoughts are known to be influential in the opinions an audience takes away with them. Those two notions, that the SNP is damaged by this and that the verdict is in doubt, are both, if strengthened by this documentary, just what Scotland’s pro-Union media and political elites hoped for.

Luckily, as poll after poll has been telling us recently, the people are not that daft.

25 thoughts on “Kirsty Wark gives the accusers the last word in an innocent man’s second trial by media

  1. Two points –

    1. Garavelli wittering on about her surprise at the defence changing. The judge ruled that evidence about the “orchestrated campaign” was inadmissable. If they didn’t know during that wee chat, they know now , so that should have been cut out.

    2. The Wark trial only covered the days they wanted to cover. Days 8 and 9, when witnesses for the defence gave evidence which contradicted the accusers, were strangely omitted.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Wings Over Scotland 17th Aug “Co-ordinating the Mob”

      “Because at her moment of greatest need the entire Scottish establishment is circling the wagons to protect Nicola Sturgeon, who they may not like but who they now quite unmistakeably regard as the Union’s best hope for survival. Readers should prepare for tonight’s show-trial with that thought very much in their minds.”

      Watched Warks effort, read The Rev’s piece ” The Endless Trial”
      good summing up by him.
      I did’nt notice the establishment setting out to protect Sturgeon, infact the exact opposite. At the end we heard Kirsty hoping, praying that there would be serious implications for the Scottish Government which immediatelly followed Jim Sillars prophesising that the SNP would explode (or was it implode)
      Throught the propagandamentary the case was being made that Salmond was in the dock because of a split between Sturgeon and Salmond. Ending with predictions that serious damage would now acccrue to the Scot. Gov. obviously by wounding Sturgeon, possibly leading to her removal.
      This was their best shot at finishing of Salmond politically, next target is Sturgeon and the SNP. then it’s job done. Subs inthe Clyde for ever, Oil west of Shetland, and Whisky Galore, oh aye and loads of cannon fodder!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. ABC were totally caught out by the verdict
    They so obviously flung the kitchen sink at this by having to deploy many resources. And film as much as possible of the proceedings
    What you do not see is what they edited out
    They were constrained totally by the Juries verdict and very cleverly used actors voice overs in lieu of the complainants voice
    The hidden purpose of which was to imply

    A wrongful verdict but they sailed as close to the wind as they could possibly dare
    I would give a Kings Ransom to have heard at editing what legal advice was imparted and retrieve the edited out bits from the cutting room floor
    Please all remember tis the Jury’s verdict that only matters
    Few people realise that a jury are the MOST important people in a criminal trial
    The Judge merely sits there to ensure the Law is fully complied with
    So given 1 case dropped, 1 not proven (which does mean ful aquital as new evidence may lead to resumption of case)
    And Not Guilty For all else
    However the most intriguing bit of the whole thing is AS defence council sum up words of Something Stinks here and I smell it
    So do I
    1.If you treat all charges as dots
    Then they failed in court to join any of
    Them up
    2.So That begs the massive question who
    Was behind ensuring a few dots initially were placed upon the paper
    3.Given 2 above i am certain we are being flung a false bone here so the Mad Dogs of MSM can foam at their rabid mouths
    This has cleverly written all over the clever and deft touches of MI5
    No doubt given Alec,s old fashioned attitudes to woman and coupled with
    Excess alcohol. That if you put yourselves in the shoes of The British State they seized the opportunity to score a direct hit to the Indy cause
    Then you merely have to throw a few acorns into the fertile soil of a Obedient frenzied media, Political enemies and inc.of those on SNP side along with the higher echelons of the Police
    And trust them to join up all the dots
    Well i bet whoever initiated this was well pleased until the verdicts
    However from The States point of view
    At the least they can win a few Brownie points
    And last night K.Wark and the ABC
    Attempted valliantly to show off their
    Brownie points in the vain hope we would all be amazed
    Brave effort but so obviously a major set back as to what the original evil intent was
    They could not resist in implying that this matter will divide and implode the SNP
    Wishful thinking on their behalf
    Our whole movement of Independence is far too strong for anything of that order to occur
    Know thy Foe
    No doubt dark forces saw the spark then
    Engineered and attempted to create a bonfire


  3. BBC—British Broadcasting to Colonies.

    David Cameron–dae whit yer telt or I’ll sell ye off.

    Boris Johnson—dae whit yer telt or I’ll shut ye doon.

    so….we have the BBC we have…an English State broadcaster, a Pravda of the airwaves.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. gavinochiltree

      With due respect you afford far too much
      Praise upon the ABC associating them with Pravda
      At least most of those in Pravda were genuine Socialists ( Like it or Not)
      And were working Not in a corrupt manner purely for self gain or glory
      Unlike those in the ABC who do solely
      Their Masters bidding for none other than corrupt benefits to themselves
      And if you pay their Licence Fee then consider yourself a contributor to this
      Insidious Modus Operandi of the British State against us
      Know thy Foe
      Deploy all methods to nullify them


    2. Gavin Ochiltree

      There’s one painfull difference between pravda and the BBC

      We have to pay forthe BBC to produce propaganda


      1. Clydebuilt
        Their is no need to use the word Have With regards
        Pay thev ABC
        It is our money and our sovereign right to
        Keep it in our pockets
        If Enough do so they are sunk here forever and ever
        Loose torpedo tubes 1,2,3,4,5 & 6


      2. Premieroneuk

        You’r right we don’t have to pay for the BBC……

        As I see it. . . If the whole of Scotland stopped paying the propaganda tax . . . . Westminster would generously pump the propaganda into our homes free if charge. Infact they might even pay us to watch the lies.


        1. Clydebuilt
          You correct but the function of non payment Of ABC propaganda funding
          Is to kill them off in Scotland completely
          Remember every dam that bursts starts with a small hole or crack
          Their future here is doomed anyway by sheer demographics as that less than 10%
          Of age group 16- 30
          Do Not trust far less watch their output
          The Internet Netflix etc are now their sources and entertainment
          ABC customers who by far are in + 60 age group. sorry to say but reality is that they await the arrival of their hearse
          In the not too distant future
          ABC well know they have lost the fight now and indeed the Dam buster squadrons of YES voters await upon the runway as Holyrood 2021 approaches
          And that is why ABC now clearly and unashamedly in full attack mode in sheer desperation to ground us Dam Busters
          For them too late All is lost now
          But such are the actions of a Colonial Empire as the sun descends upon their horizon for ever and eons of bleakness
          If any the rats aboard their rotten ship of state had any intelligence then desertion may be the only honourable course now
          Know thy Foe
          Serve notice upon them that you well aware of their predicament and we shall hasten their ultimate demise without Quarter Mercy or Magnamanity for their despicable crimes against a Sovereign people of our Lands and Shores


  4. Ignoring one possible implication of the verdict by the jury; that one of the women was untruthful when she said she attended a dinner and was later assaulted.


    1. Sam
      100% correct
      And she might just be The Little acorn
      Planted into the whole proceedings
      By the Dark Forces
      Interesting it would be to investigate the time line of her actions commencing with her filing of her original complaint
      To whom, where, how and then how matters flowed from such
      All nefarious activities always leave a trail
      And no manner of brushing can disguise such
      But ABC and MSM do not have motive to do so
      Find and pick up from whence this Ship set sail


  5. I didn’t watch the broadcast as I don’t tolerate foreign state propaganda in my country, but from all accounts it comprised the expected partisan hackery we expect from the BBC.


  6. How low has journalism descended . We see this time after time , and it is allowed . WHY ?
    If a person is adjudged to have done something wrong , then he is charged , and then sent for trial . The verdict of that trial has to be accepted !
    This media trial is simply a witch hunt on Alex Salmond , and anyone associated with it should be reprimanded for only partially portraying the evidence , in order to bring his reputation into question , and that of the jury who found him not guilty ..
    Where has the reputation of journalists gone , if this is all they can do to defame a person’s character ?


    1. They would if they could
      Edward 1st only ever reincarnates himself in Westminster
      Know thy Foe
      And the terrible deeds that they shall engage in


  7. I don’t believe for a minute that the rules regarding Ministerial conduct/harassment, applied retrospectively, were not introduced with a view to applying them to Salmond.


  8. I do not believe that anyone working in a professional Human Resources role, even at junior level, would not know that it was bad practice and unfair both to investigate the circumstances of a case of alleged misconduct and also to be involved in hearing the case.This has been established case law for many years.

    It seems incredible that the HR person did not disclose her involvement as investigator at the time she was appointed to hear the case and equally incredible that the Scottish government (in the shape of Leslie Evans) only discovered this , as Ms Evans claims, when preparing documents ahead of the Court hearing. I wonder what Ms Evans said to Ms Sturgeon about all this.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Reading further, I see that Judith McKinnon had a “significant amount of direct personal contact” with the two complainants before being asked to investigate their complaints. So it was not the position that she was investigating and hearing the complaints.

    “Mr Clancy said that the meetings saw the Scottish government employee indulge in behaviour which bordered on encouraging the women to proceed with complaints against Mr Salmond.

    The advocate also said that Ms Mackinnon was “actively involved” in drafting the Scottish Government’s complaints procedure.

    Mr Clancy told the court this meant the investigation into Mr Salmond’s alleged behaviour was “biased” and tainted by illegality.

    He said: “There was a significant amount of direct personal contact between the investigating officer and the complainers.

    “The substance of their complaints was discussed at the meetings. The complainers were told about the ways in which they could go onto make formal complaints – the way in which the matters with the complainers bordered on encouragement for them to proceed to with formal complaints.

    “It strayed into the realms of giving them encouragement to do so.

    “We say that because of this the investigations cannot stand. It is unfair. It is illegal and unlawful.””


  10. Apparently Garavelli is an indy supporter….and I know Maurice Smith is {confirmed by a journo friend of mine this evening}.


  11. I’m the same as the majority of voters, in the dark and trying to second guess who has done what to whom and why.
    Can now add, did the who really done what? and why am I, sort of, being told again they did, when the courts have said they didn’t?

    The Salmond trial delays and the Wark follow up programme indicate to me several probables and raise a couple of questions.
    If A Salmond was “much reduced, no longer the towering person” etc why have they (BBC and Wark) risked their credibility and reputation?

    Does Wark realise that she and her production company, Wark Clements, will be put at arms length and thrown under the bus, should a contempt of court case arise. The quality of her documentary should finished her anyway.
    Taken from her programme and just put into google, aberdain march sturgeon, contempt?

    It all smacks of panic and desperation.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.